Amateur Owner Divisions in Eventing Yeah or Nay [Archive] - Page 2

poltroon

Nov. 14, 2003, 10:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:

We are not required to come to the COTH bulletin board to get permission to make a proposal any more that Janet was before making her recent rule change proposal. Further, getting a good sample of amateurs does not require coming to this board.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not. However, I do think that something that can be improved for the rule change process in general is to have more "public notice" of them before the proposal is set in stone, so it can be modified and adapted in the small things. I appreciate that you're doing that here, and I hope that some of the comments you get from USEA members everywhere will be considered by the committee before the final change is submitted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
About three weeks ago, the survey was sent to all USEA adult rider coordinators in every area with the express request to send it to AA's that were typical of our target audience. We were trying, by this survey, not to disclose the content of the proposal, but to further develop the proposal prior to finalizing it for presentation at the Boston convention.

I have received over fifty completed surveys with a wide variety of responses given. Nothing we have received back from the many folks that have particiapted in this indicates that a major change is needed. Janet and others have suggested wording chanegs that have improved the proposal. For the record, I have received NOT ONE - (repeating very slowly)...NOT ONE... back from anyone who has posted to this board in the past three days.

Janet excepted - cause I sent it to her two weeks ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If one had been sent to me, I would've returned it. We didn't seem to get them in Area VI... or maybe my friends and I aren't "representative" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif.

tle

Nov. 14, 2003, 10:31 AM

FWIW, my survey response is on its way.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

poltroon

Nov. 14, 2003, 10:39 AM

I see the adult amateur division as the "Hey Look What I Can Do Even Though I Have to Ride With a Baby in One Hand and the Other One Tied Behind My Back" division. I consider it an honor to ride as an amateur and ride well.

But given that, the more I think about it, the more puzzled I am by the omission of the option for organizers to offer an Amateur Advanced division. They wouldn't HAVE to - it would just be an option. Right? So while you're at it, why wouldn't you give organizers this choice as well. Just think - you could have the only Amateur Advanced division in your region, offer special prizes... you might be able to make it very special.

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 10:58 AM

Poltroon:

(By the way, I was in love with the pinto mare throughout high school-and Torrence was/and is SOOOO Beautiful!!!!)

A few pages ago I outlined what the thinking was regarding the advanced level and amateurs. We felt that since this level really qualified people for the International Championship level, we would reserve that for ehad to head comeptition, no split divisions. That way USET selections and teams aren't comparing apples to oranges. If, however, the need or demand arises, I see no reason not to offer the selection..

flutie

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:03 AM

OK, you asked (whoever - can't remember who - Tammy maybe?)
This year, we offered OPA, OPB, OPC, JOP, and Adult Team Championship P. (I didn't count the latter in the total even though they probably would compete as individuals). Would we offer Ammy in '04 if available? Dunno. Would have to study this year's entry with that in mind. Probably. I'd definitely want the criteria hashed out and cast in stone prior to, however, to avoid tiresome entry pissing contests - "I am," "Prove it." yadda yadda yadda - and risk losing our wonderful secretary!

Flutie

JER

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:05 AM

Interesting about those surveys -- I don't know anyone, myself included, in Area VI that received one.

Personally, I'd like to go back to the old Rider/Horse/Restricted designations, although I did run my young horse in a Training Horse division as recently as last fall, so it seems that organizers can still include these divisions if they like.

Or maybe it's just that communication with the USEA mothership is so poor here on the west coast that it takes us a while to get caught up.

NMS

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:08 AM

Well, I welcome standardization, as I have seen many question "why so and so is in this division." But I also feel very strongly that it should be the right of the organizers to choose which standard applies at their particular event in their area. I'm all for whatever makes an organizer's "job" easier. We're losing enough events in this area as it is. So here is my 2 cents worth to add to the $1.22.

1. Present the idea with its benefits to organizers.

2. Present the idea with its benefits to the riders (all types).

What you see here on this board, IMHO, is that it some of us are not seeing the actual benefits.

What are they for the riders? What are they for the organizers?

Nanc

www.canterohio.org (http://www.canterohio.org)

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:09 AM

JER, did you ask me for one?

Do you want one?

Who is the adult rider coordinator in your area and I will check to ensure that it was e-mailed to him/her.

tle

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:14 AM

Ah... flutie. Yes I did ask the question. And by answering the way you did you may not have completely given me the answer I was looking for, but you did bring up one of the potential problems I see with this... the extra work that the secretary/organizer may have to do. If nothing else, do you think that there won't be questions? At the very least I would think there would be some questions as to why the division was offered (or in more often the case, why not).

So, flutie's events for all intents and purposes only offers OP and JOP as it is. I think many people (myself included) would hate to see a P division go by the wayside in favor of the AAP and I think it has been said here that some would be ok with adding the AAP just not replacing P with AAP.

Shesh! And we thought things were acronym soup during the AHSA-USAEq or USET/USAEq threads! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

JER... nope ya'll ain't behind. Current rules allow for miscellaneous splits at Training and below. I know many events in my area that still offer Horse/Rider splits. Still not sure why that was abandoned. Anyone? Bueller??

-- getting waay too punchy for the discussion this late in the week!

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:17 AM

Thanks for the additional idea- we're up to $1.24

Benefits to organizer- standardized approach to the designateion, noneed to police it yourself (USAEQ and other amateurs do that) encoruages participation among amateurs that may be discouraged by never winning in highly competitive areas, assists growth by catering to essential group within the sport.

Benefits to Competitor: remove against BNT and USET types, are judged against peers, restrictions on experience reflect actual comeptitions habits, no increased costs, (Nothing inspires like success.)

Hilary

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:21 AM

This discussion needs a good facilitator!!

I, for one, have yet to see a survey (area I). I would be more than happy to fill one out.

The more I read, the more I think part of the issue is the USAEq definition of Amateur that is getting everyone is such a fuss.

I think it's wrong that if someone like me, (or tle or anyone else who's primary source of support is a job that is not related to horses) accepts $50 in gas money to teach pony club lessons for a day I become a "pro" in the eyes of the organzation. I understand that USEA doesn't want to get into that shark tank, and that they can't really create their own rules, but we keep getting stuck on the word amateur.

If the point is to allow less experienced riders to compete against one another, rather than against the O'Connors, (IS that the point??) I think the Restricted divisions worked really well.

Why were they removed?

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:35 AM

Hilary-

Welcome aboard- private topic your email address and I'll get you all of the documents.

The point is Not to give less experienced a place to compete against themselves but to base classifications on the basic types of competitors we have in eventing. (keep in mind that there are some pretty outrageously professional folks that have absolutely no comepttiive experience in this sport - They, for examples, might ride Grandprix show jumpers.)

And by the way, I don't think gas money will make you a pro and riding camp teachers are exempted if thats all they do. (See rule 808, 809, and 810.)

CWO

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:41 AM

Wow, I have just spent all day reading the 13 pages!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

I have not received the survey from Area II. My e-mail is osthaus@gtcinternet.com, I'd love to have one as well as the proposal info.

I have to agree with KellyS, Heather, Janet and others. I am in the same situation as KellyS in that I work full time and squeeze in my horse during any free time. I would love to teach a few beginner lessons for some extra cash, but I don't want to affect my amateur status (I still like to do jumpers and the a/o's are the best).

The issues as I see them are as follows:

1. the definition of the amateur rule according to USAEq is silly.
2. how to define amateur for eventing to be consistent across the regions.
3. IF we should have the amateur division at all in eventing or have some other division.
4. If we add amateur division to eventing (officially defined in the rules) what will the ramifications be to current competitors?
5. If we add amateur division to eventing, will it attract more competitors to our sport?

My opinions on the above issues:

1. The amateur rule 808 of USAEq is a real point of contention since the definition is quite restrictive and does not accomplish the division between riders, that MOST people seem to think it should. IMO most of us think that the ammy/pro rule should simply have to do with the daily amount of a participation a competitor (those who ride, drive or show in hand etc.) has in that particular discipline for which they are being considered an amateur. For example, if I ride more than 2 or whatever # of event horses per day, most days of the week, I am probably a "pro" for eventing purposes. Or at least should be able to ride like one. (Maybe we shouldn't even be using the pro/am distinction. Maybe more active, less active could be used) But if I only ride one horse a few times per week, I am probably an ammy. What are the exact #'s of horses/hours per day? I don't know, but I think if some line (arbitrary as it might be) were drawn, it would be a lot easier than the way the current rule is written and not enforced. Why bother writing rules if they're not enforced? I know they're "self-enforcing" but why should we have to do that?

2. If we are going to add an amateur division to the eventing rules, we should keep the same definition as USAEq. If we don't like that definition, than we need to propose a change to the USAEq rule.

3. I don't think we need a separate amateur division. The team championships are fine for that. At the upper levels (Intermediate +) I don't think those people care whether they are classified as an amateur or not. If I were at that level, I would want to be classified with all the others, not some "amateur" separate class.

4. If we add the option of an amateur division, then I do believe that it will hurt those competitors who are considered amateurs according to the rules, but aren't "pros" in their riding abilities with that level.

And along with the amateur division if they begin running the open divisions on Fridays, we'll lose a ton of competitors who have to take vacation time to compete during the week!! And the volunteers would be nonexistent!!

5. I believe that addiding an amateur division (formally) will have no affect on the # of new competitors to the sport of eventing. People who are "thinking" of converting from h/j, drsg, etc. have no idea of what the rules are, especially regarding divisions offered!!!!!!

People like eventing, cuz its fun, challenging, friendly (most of the time) and is different than the other disciplines!! Let's not make it like the others just for the sake of doing so.

One BIG issue I have with the adult amateur division (at least in the jumpers and even the hunters I think) is that good riding is not necessarily rewarded. Being able to buy (afford) good packer horses/ponies is. When I was starting the jumpers in my late 20's, I moved up quickly to the low Jr A/O's cuz a lot of the riders in the A/As infuriated me!! They could barely hang on, but since they have packers that will jump anything from a standstill, they got around clear. And then there are the ponies who just race around and point and shoot. If those people had to compete with some others (not ammys) they might try to improve their riding. I don't want to see eventing get any more watered down than it already is!!! Let's keep the standards high, and encourage newcomers to strive to reach those standards.

In order to attract new people to our sport, we need to get out and promote it. Maybe take some time away from the barn and talk at schools, or teach evening classes at the school districts for parents of kids who ride to introduce them to the sport. The school districts are always crying for people to teach classes about any subject they would like to talk about. Have displays or posters or something at pet stores and stuff like that. Adding an amateur division will do nothing for the sport except add one more thing to keep track of. I don't want the rule book to turn into something like the IRS revenue code!! Let's keep it simple.

JER

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:49 AM

For all 14 pages of this discussion, I've been asking myself, "What do I want with an Amateur division?" I'm an amateur for sure, but My eventing buddies and I ride in the open divisions because the open divisions showjump first on Sunday and, since we have to get home to deal with our real lives and get to work early on Monday -- not to mention that we live in CA where the traffic is terrible and events are far away -- we always want to get out of there as early as possible.

So, if Amateur divisions are offered, how about amending the rule so that they get to run first on Sunday? Then I'll be the first to sign up, and heck, I might even consider a trip to Boston to be your most vocal supporter.

However, come to think of it, there'd also have to be a new junior division created -- call it the Children of Amateurs division -- so that our kids can ride just after us. This will help us get home earlier, and it'll give the kids more time to do their homework.

Most amateurs I know don't need ribbons but they could use eons of extra time in their lives, especially out here where almost all HTs are now run over 3 days.

(And yes, I have written Area VI about the idiocy of the 3-day HT. Repeatedly.)

poltroon

Nov. 14, 2003, 11:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
A few pages ago I outlined what the thinking was regarding the advanced level and amateurs. We felt that since this level really qualified people for the International Championship level, we would reserve that for ehad to head comeptition, no split divisions. That way USET selections and teams aren't comparing apples to oranges. If, however, the need or demand arises, I see no reason not to offer the selection..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, I did read that. But I thought the whole point of this Amateur division was to recognize those of us who aren't going to the Olympics.... right? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And those riders can be compared using their objective numeric score over the same course... right? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Why not just give everyone the option, rather than making them wait for yet another rule change. I mean, it's not like this is going to Change Eventing As We Know It... right? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:00 PM

Of course it will change the sport...(don't you hear the drums pounding in the distance - those evil point chasing social climbing posers from the hunter ring are just waiting for us to institute amateur sections so that they can change us for life into "The Stepford Eventers.")

As for the advanced level, if the demand is there, then that division will come. But for now, we are content to let the USET and USAEQ eventing committees set the guidelines for them.

tle

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I don't want to see eventing get any more watered down than it already is!!! Let's keep the standards high, and encourage newcomers to strive to reach those standards.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya'll have to know I LOVED this statement!! Here's a thought that I put as a comment in my returned survey.

A few years ago, those at the upper levels maintained the thought that in order to be competitive on the world stage, US riders had to find a way to compete in England. Why? because that is where the best of the best were and by riding with/against them day in, day out, they would improve.

So let me ask, what happened to this idea??? Not literally because I understand the sport here in the US has grown tremendously where WE have some of the best riders around... but figuratively -- that urge to compete AGAINST the best in order to BE the best?? Somewhere in this discussion I've heard it say that AAs are clammering for a distinct separate division because they wanted a level playing field and not have to compete against professionals. That the idea that one wanted to improve themselves by riding against the best was somehow only an ego trip for those. Obviously this is a new phenominon (sp?) and I'm still not sure I understood why.

and in case someone from the rules committee jumps in late, I'm going to continue to occassionally ask why the Open, Horse, Rider, Restricted division separations were abandoned as they seemed to do the best job of leveling the competition based on experience.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:08 PM

tle:

You keep asking the question because you haven't liked the answer you've gotten. The fact is that they didn't do the best job at leveling the playing field and created many of their own problems.

Also, there is nothing wrong with aspiring to greatness. but it would be nice if you could say, I am the best amateur in the country, and know its true. Right now we don't know who that person is, and we have no way of determining it.

deltawave

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:08 PM

I would have thought it was the sheer NUMBER of events in the UK that would allow an aspiring upper-level rider to gain valuable experience. They have HT's there literally almost every day of the week during eventing season, 100's of venues and thus opportunities to compete over different courses in a (relatively) small region.

I still don't see how competing "against" someone would make one's own performance better (or worse) when really we're not competing head to head but against the tests themselves. Sure, the "atmosphere" of being at a show with a number of luminaries would no doubt bring out the best in some people (or maybe not, depending on temperament) but ego-boost aside (yes, it would be fun to SAY you've beaten Pippa Funnell or something, but are you really going to believe or say you're BETTER than her because of it??) how have you gotten better? By the act of going out and competing, not by whom you've competed against.

---------------------------------------------
"If you think your hairstyle is more important than your brain, you're probably right." Wear a helmet!
Pictures! (http://www.deltawave.homestead.com/photos2.html)
Helmet Nazi, Bah Humbug, Mares Rule, Breed Your Own and Michigan cliques!

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:17 PM

Delta:

actuially, the reason that many pros were encouraged to go to England was that key members of Four Olympic teams were all based there. Mark Todd, Ian Stark, Andrew nicholson, Blythe tait, Andrew Hoy, Bettina Hoy, and others competed head to head every weekend and were very comfortable and familiar in each other's presence. Our guys were getting into that company and getting squished becasue they weren't used to even being around that many great riders.

Segregating professional riders into their own division may have a similar affect here. Right now, the winners in Area II and Area II are almost always top riders beating amateurs. While this may have some affect on the amateurs, this in no way forces the professional to improve their game. And if you think that the pros don't go out to win every time, you haven't been around one of these guys when they lose one for no good reason. Forcing Phillip to beat Bonnie, David, Karen, Mark, Bobbie, Will, Will, Clark, Becky, Linden, Nina, Bruce, Bruce Jr., John, Amy, Darren, Gina, Jill, Julie, Ralph, and... to beat each other over the head every weekend might actually improve the professional ranks quite a bit.

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:25 PM

Delta-

Where is hunter's run - very attractive pictures. Nice chestnut horse too.

deltawave

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:29 PM

OK, point taken. That's great for the pros, but for me as a permanent denizen of the lower levels that type of thing doesn't affect my competitiveness. (or lack thereof!) I improve by taking lessons and get out there and showing, not by getting into a competitive frenzy to go out and whup one of my fellow competitors, who more often than not is a friend or at least an acquaintance!

I actually LIKE competing against people I know who are similar to me...it just feels right. I'm going to keep on competing no matter how they slice the divisions--I just hope my friends are in my division so I can watch them ride! I realize this is tangential to a topic which has already been hashed to bits, just adding my bit! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Edited to add thank you for the compliment on my darling Gwennie. (the chestnut) Hunters Run is up here in Michigan--one of the nicer area 8 venues, if I do say so! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:34 PM

I have spent very little time up in your area but I have been duly impressed by the overall quality of the venues I've seen.

tle

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
You keep asking the question because you haven't liked the answer you've gotten. The fact is that they didn't do the best job at leveling the playing field and created many of their own problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I wasn't the only one asking the question. I also don't feel that it was ever answered. Please fill me in on what problems you see that they created, why it failed to obtain the goals those divisions were put in place to obtain (and what those goals were in the first place). I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to know... I've seen at least a couple people agree with me that they feel those divisions DID a good job.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Also, there is nothing wrong with aspiring to greatness. but it would be nice if you could say, I am the best amateur in the country, and know its true. Right now we don't know who that person is, and we have no way of determining it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh... but by making the AA division OPTIONAL you're ****STILL**** not going to have a way of determining who the best amateur in the country is... which puts a total hole in that as a reason for adopting the rule change (other than to allow Prelim and Intermediate to offer those divisions).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Segregating professional riders into their own division may have a similar affect here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But again by making the Amateur division an option, this won't necessarily happen as A) you cannot guarantee an organizer will offer it and thus put the pros in teh Open division and B) you cannot guarantee an Amateur won't decide to enter the Open division anyway. To create this atmosphere for the professional, you'd have to make it mandatory... but you will be slighting those amateurs who want to be in that atmosphere by illogically and biasedly (??) taking that away simply because they aren't a professional by designation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Where is hunter's run <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hunter's Run is in Michigan... Novice - Intermediate run by Dave & Sue Emmons. It's a wonderful facility and yes, quite beautiful too. :-) Oh, and they have a great announcer too. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Robby Johnson

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:37 PM

Easy enough to share with the group.

Here's the survey in .txt format.

Robby

Robby Johnson

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:42 PM

JER,

Come to Boston anyway. I would love to see you!

Robby

So I'm a sistah, buy things with cash
It doesn't mean that all my credit's bad

http://community.webshots.com/user/rbjohnsonii

tractor queen

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:48 PM

I do not view an adult amateur division as one where the competitor’s have more/less experience, but (as with the YR division) a way to better meet the needs of a large portion of the USEA membership.

poltroon

Nov. 14, 2003, 12:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tractor queen:
I do not view an adult amateur division as one where the competitor’s have more/less experience, but (as with the YR division) a way to better meet the needs of a large portion of the USEA membership.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you explain why you feel the Amateur division meets those needs better than the Restricted-type division? I'm afraid I still don't get it.

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 01:05 PM

That Robby is such a show off! I couldn't have figuured that out if my life had depended on it!

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 01:10 PM

tle:

It seems that you want to be on the opposite side of my every phrase and whisper. What gives?

If we have a standard definition of amateur, and if that defnition is used at the local, regional and national championships, then we will be able to say that we know who each amateur champion is. And yes, the regional and national championships WILL offer these sections.

tle

Nov. 14, 2003, 01:16 PM

What can I say... I just want good clear explanations of the whats and why and how it affects when it comes to the sport that I am absolutely passionate about. It really has nothing to do with you personally. I just like things to make sense, have an explanation... and yes, for the record, I love a good debate. Besides, I figure if I can come up with instances that make you think, it will make the rule better... right?

Yes, we need to ensure a standard definition. One is in place...great. I thought that was always the definition used based on the rules inevidibly going back to the USAEq general rules. However, if it is still OPTIONAL for both organizers and competitors, I still don't see how you can claim A Rider is the best ammy in teh country when B Rider doesn't have the opportunity to compete in Ammy divisions because in his/her area they aren't offered and C Rider just enters the open divisions anyway.

BTW, don't get me started on the national championships re: teh lower levels. I would love to see it do great, but I don't see that happening... so for now I'll just pretend we're not talking about championships -- unless that is what you meant... that "the best ammy" will be presented at the National Championship Ammy division? Is it?? Cuz that's a WHOLE other issue -- want this to go on another 15 pages? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 01:21 PM

Poltroon:

I am very interested in tractor queen's response. but I'll jump in as well.

At preliminary and above, the current rules treat us all over 21 year olds alike. except that thos who haven't competed twice at the level above our current level are allowed to be treated differently.

Below Preliminary it is the organizer's discretion to treat us however they want, without any national standard. Restricted by experience, older, younger, newer, chestnut, whatever, no guidelines.

Any current Very active trend in the east among organizers is to offer amateur sections. We now have an amateur leader board, we have amateur trophies, and beginning next year, we may have an amateur championship at the AEC. But we still have no amateur rules. we cannot expect amateurs to enter these division unless they know what the rules are.

These basic issues aside, the rules may allow organizer to better cater to amateurs' needs. People have already said that they don't like the three day horse trial. This would allow us to put amateur divisions only on the weekend or (gasp) all in one day. Sponsorships of these classes could be sold and prizes donated based on the fact that it is an amateur section. Horses that are bought and sold could be marketed as suitable for an amateur. Amateurs will be able to compete with each other, share their frustrations and experiences with managing daily life and horses, and basically Kvetch to their hearts' desire about
anything they want.

Also, it might be interesting for people to look at the open leader board. Most amateurs cannot even get on it because, well, its dominated by career professionals. It provides a new playing field for folks who are simply bnusy living a diverse life to gain a real competitive foothold in the professional sections.

tle

Nov. 14, 2003, 01:26 PM

pgm. I'm on my way out the door at the moment and you KNOW that I'll come back with something else I want answered base on your most recent post because there were a couple things that caught my attention (of course) http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

BUT... before I go... that post was the best so far of anything you've written at trying to convince me this is a good thing.

Just thought you should know before I forget to say it later.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Gry2Yng

Nov. 14, 2003, 01:43 PM

I had to reply before getting to the end of the thread when I saw this comment...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I don't think we need a separate amateur division. The team championships are fine for that. At the upper levels (Intermediate +) I don't think those people care whether they are classified as an amateur or not. If I were at that level, I would want to be classified with all the others, not some "amateur" separate class.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I DO care. First of all, having completed a CCI**, I am NOT eligible for team championships, and I would like to ride on a team with all my friends and have that great team experience. But the rules do not allow it. I am also not eligible for any restricted divisions, even if I start over with a green one.
Second, I not only have I never made a dime from horses, but I worked a 60 hour week and drove an hour home and then an additional hour to the barn EVERY week night for five years, so that I could ride at the two star level. I ride one horse, not 5. While the people who do this for a living were at home cooking dinner and watching tv I was in my car or at the barn riding by myself, topping off the water buckets and driving an hour home at 10pm, only to get up at 5am and commute an hour into the city and start all over.

And all of this to generally place in the bottom third of the pack against BNT's. Would I trade any of this for a ribbon, NO. Would I like to win one. DAMN RIGHT! No, I don't have many peers at my level and I am proud of what I have achieved.

I was fortunate enough to be in the 10 minute box for Debbie Crowley and Mighty Mite. She is my idol. An AA who did it ALL. She took unpaid vacation to run and win Radnor. It can be done and I am just going to keep working at it. Several years ago, Morven Park was won by Wendy Bebie an AA with a husband and two kids. The COTH did an article which I saved.

Wendy was my inspiration. I gave my husband the article and told him that was what I wanted to do. We can't be inspired by our peers if we don't even know who they are. The battles of the AA are different than the battles of the person who makes their LIVING riding. (I makes this distinction from someone who makes some money.)

Anyway, all this to say that just because there are some AA's riding at I and above doesn't mean we are blissfully happy getting our arses kicked by people who ride more CCI's in a season than we will ride in our LIVES.

Robby Johnson

Nov. 14, 2003, 01:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
That Robby is such a show off! I couldn't have figuured that out if my life had depended on it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't want to say it, but I figured you needed your Fairy God-Brother to hook you up!

Robby

So I'm a sistah, buy things with cash
It doesn't mean that all my credit's bad

http://community.webshots.com/user/rbjohnsonii

Gry2Yng

Nov. 14, 2003, 01:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Can you explain why you feel the Amateur division meets those needs better than the Restricted-type division? I'm afraid I still don't get it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gave you my background above. I am an AA. I can't enter the restricted divisions.
Yes, I have more experience than the average RN or RT rider, but I am actually closer to the average RT or RN in experience than I am to the average pink coat. I have only been doing this since 1998 and have only had one horse to ride at any given time. In fact, there are probably many RT's and RN's that have actually ridden more HT's than I have.

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 01:56 PM

gry2yng:

I feel your pain. Fortunately, I can ride in the restricted divisions. None of my students can though.

canterlope

Nov. 14, 2003, 02:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> IMO most of us think that the ammy/pro rule should simply have to do with the daily amount of a participation a competitor (those who ride, drive or show in hand etc.) has in that particular discipline for which they are being considered an amateur. For example, if I ride more than 2 or whatever # of event horses per day, most days of the week, I am probably a "pro" for eventing purposes. Or at least should be able to ride like one. (Maybe we shouldn't even be using the pro/am distinction. Maybe more active, less active could be used) But if I only ride one horse a few times per week, I am probably an ammy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what happens when a person who normally only rides one horse a few times a week takes some time off from work and has the chance to ride a few horse every day during that time. Does this mean they are no longer an amateur? And how would it ever be possible to regulate a rule like that? It would necessitate knowing what every rider does in the privacy of their own barn.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I don't know, but I think if some line (arbitrary as it might be) were drawn, it would be a lot easier than the way the current rule is written and not enforced. Why bother writing rules if they're not enforced? I know they're "self-enforcing" but why should we have to do that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But the current rule is being enforced. Just take a look at the list of suspensions that the USAEq publishes each month and you will see riders being set down for riding in amateur divisions when they are not eligible to do so. As to why should we have to self-enforce this rule, I guess I have to ask the question why shouldn't we be asked as members of this association to uphold the rules that every one of us agrees to follow? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I don't think we need a separate amateur division. The team championships are fine for that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But the team championships are not amateur restricted competitions. Yes, they are limited to adult riders, but the rules that restrict who may enter them have nothing to do with being an amateur or not. It is possible for professionals to ride in the team championships if they meet these qualifications and it does happen.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> At the upper levels (Intermediate +) I don't think those people care whether they are classified as an amateur or not. If I were at that level, I would want to be classified with all the others, not some "amateur" separate class. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For anyone who believes that riders at the upper levels don't care about whether or not they are classified as an amateur, I invite you to come be the points coordination for the Area II Year End Awards program and find out just how much these riders care. The number one complaint among the riders at Preliminary and above in this program is that they constantly have to compete against the professionals and they find it impossible to get high enough in the standings at events to earn even one point towards a year end award. Believe me, these people care.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If we add the option of an amateur division, then I do believe that it will hurt those competitors who are considered amateurs according to the rules, but aren't "pros" in their riding abilities with that level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhmum, how?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> One BIG issue I have with the adult amateur division (at least in the jumpers and even the hunters I think) is that good riding is not necessarily rewarded. Being able to buy (afford) good packer horses/ponies is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Does this mean that you think right now that good riding is being rewarded under our current system and that riders aren't going out, buying good packers, and winning divisions on them? I can't speak for the rest of the Areas, but in Area II, I see former upper level horses running around at Novice and Training all of the time. Adding amateur divisions isn't going to change this. It will only mean that those amateurs who can afford to go out and buy a packer will be placed in one division and have to duke it out amongst themselves.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> And in case someone from the rules committee jumps in late, I'm going to continue to occassionally ask why the Open, Horse, Rider, Restricted division separations were abandoned as they seemed to do the best job of leveling the competition based on experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The initial push to do away with these divisions came from the organizers in a few of the western Areas where there aren't a lot of riders and competitions. What was happening was that they would offer Open, Rider, and Horse divisions, the Open and Horse divisions would get two maybe three entries, and the Rider divisions would get 15-20. For some reason, of which I could never find out, instead of exercising their right to combine divisions or only offer open divisions and divide them however they wished, these organizers felt that the rules needed to be changed so they could do what they basically had the right to do in the first place.

When it came time for the rules committee to decide on whether or not to approve this change, the group that was in support was, while definitely the minority, the loudest squeeky wheel and drowned out those of us who felt that this rule would be a detriment to Areas where all of these divisions were well subscribed and place an undue burden on the organizers of those events.

And what has been the result. The western Areas still have minimal entries and lopsided divisions, organizers in well subscribed Areas are now burdened with the task of figuring out how to place riders in separate sections of the open and rider divisions, and the majority of our riders don't like the current system and wish we would go back to the old system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They say cats have nine lives. They would settle for one good one. Adopt a cat (or dog) today.

[This message was edited by canterlope on Nov. 14, 2003 at 05:15 PM.]

flutie

Nov. 14, 2003, 02:05 PM

Tammy-

Reread my posting carefully. I said that we would consider offering Ammy ONLY IF the criteria were decided upon and iron clad to PREVENT extra work for our Secretary. It's up to whomever is inventing/reinventing the Ammy definition wheel - (yo Packy?) - to make it iron clad.

Flutie

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 02:20 PM

fLUTIE:

It is clad in iron baby!

We have discussed several ways to make it so:

We know that amateur declarations are normal in the USAEQ membership and that this status goes neatly a the bottom of your membership card. We also know that we can amend the USEA membership form and card to show the same thing. We can also amend the entry forms to allow non-members to "certify" that they are an amateur.

Secretaries are required to send lists of entrants to USEA for qualifications and memberhsip verificaitons. This process could also be amended to include checking to see if someone is a amatuer. Non-members woul dhave to certify that they qualify and would be no more and pain in the ass than they are already.

BUT PACKY, WHAT IF THEY ARE LYING? WHO WILL CATCH THEM?

The other amateurs can and do behave like a pack of angry dogs whenever a professional sneeks into their divisions. Trust them to educate their peers and expose the frauds.

tractor queen

Nov. 14, 2003, 02:32 PM

My response is similar to PGM’s…

Adult Amateurs represent a larger group of USEA’s membership than professionals. To expect them to compete against Olympians for region year end awards and National awards is not fair. They have different goals, time commitments, etc. To simply exclude them from recognition because they cannot afford (in either time or money) to travel to an event every weekend in the spring and fall is crazy…this is a majority of the membership we are talking about. Area II and III, I would imagine, have the largest conflicts as the professionals concentrate in these areas. By recognizing the groups individually, you can begin to cater to each more specifically in terms of providing goals, sponsorships, and year end awards.

Our local USDF recognized dressage shows have long had the Open, AA, Jr/YR divisions. It works well for them, and I would at least like to see USEA try it. Sponsorships may also be forthcoming as the awards will go to “local competitors” versus profs who are in the area for one season only. Even our local GMO gives awards in eventing based on Open, AA and Jr…

Again, I do not think the intent is to base it on “experience” like the restricted divisions. Hopefully, this change will extend beyond adding another set of divisions for some HT’s and into something that gives the aa’s in eventing both a larger voice and more recognition in our sport. If you are somewhere in the middle, because you teach some on the side, I can empathize, but I would be out there teaching too, if it didn’t mean giving up my AA status…(and if anyone wanted a lesson after 9PM M- Th {when I’m available} http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )…

I also support having the rule book specify that if it is necessary to split after open, AA, and jr/YR, it should be on horse/rider experience.

Robby Johnson

Nov. 14, 2003, 02:34 PM

Something I wonder about ...

Will it really matter in eventing? Other than the dressage, isn't the rest of it pretty objective?

I think in the hunters, where it's so subjective (or pure dressage), it's easier to feel intimidated by a pro. Sure, Scott Hofstetter could ride me flat into the ground - quite possibly on a zebra - and if I were in a 3' division with him I'd feel very intimidated! How on Earth do you produce a competitive trip, or a good hack, against someone like him?

In eventing, I am not as intimidated because I know I can go in and get a dressage score that I work to get. I've never gotten a score that I didn't deserve! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

After that phase, it's a matter of producing a clean and quick round in both of the jumping phases. Does it matter if Mike Huber is leading me by 2 points? No! He's on a young green horse. Maybe it has a rail, or he gives it a slow tour of the XC.

I think ultimately the event folks - especially the a/a's - are out there to produce a personal best. Not ride the hide off the animal for a ribbon.

I'm more concerned with the intra-public perception of the ammy divisions. In the hunters you often hear of the a/a horse that "oh he's great in the ammy's, but he'd never be a pro horse." I would hate to know that within the eventing community the amateur divisions were perceived as soft. Worse, I would hate to see judging that took the softness into consideration insomuch as an off-step here and there overlooked because "he's such a great ammy horse." I would still want to the same criteria applied. If it's a 370 course for Novice, it's 370 across the board for all divisions. Not 350 for the A/A section. We're all going to show up to ride the track, not the division. Does that make any sense?

I have been to enough rules committee meetings to know that whining and bitching is often rewarded. But is the rule sound and has consideration been given to the contingencies? The "what'ifs" and "in five years" aspects are probably more important than the immediate task at hand!

As I mentioned earlier, I don't care what division I'm in. I would very much enter an A/A division because that's what I am! (Self-acceptance ... a good thing!) But I like to think of myself as progressive and moderately skilled and capable. I don't want that demeaned just because I'm competing in an a/a division.

Also, let me say this. I've been thinking about this as I've been typing. What the Heck is so wrong with a horse being "such a good ammy horse?" Nothing! That's a compliment! If the shoe fits, wear it!

When the Horse and Rider Divisions went away a few years ago it was right as I sent Willow to Canada, but I remembered thinking, "well this is not very fair ... I guess I'll be competing with the good people now!" So with that memory, I must say an a/a division is welcomed by me and I don't think it's going to be nearly as much of an issue once the dust settles and the last vote is cast.

Robby

So I'm a sistah, buy things with cash
It doesn't mean that all my credit's bad

http://community.webshots.com/user/rbjohnsonii

tractor queen

Nov. 14, 2003, 02:48 PM

Robby...I hate to introduce an evil aspect into a sport I love, but it has been documented that you can receive a different dressage score based solely on your name...as in the judge thinks they are watching BNR, but it is really little ole you and then you get the best score of your life (knowing full well the same judge didn't like your ride nearly as much when they judged you under your own name)...but when you go to clarify it's not like they can regrade your test!!! Dressage is subjective and it is a larger part of the total performance than in the past

poltroon

Nov. 14, 2003, 03:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by canterlope:
But the current rule is being enforced. Just take a look at the list of suspensions that the USAEq publishes each month and you will see riders being set down for riding in amateur divisions when they are not eligible to do so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Canterlope, I always read the Notice of Penalty section... and I can't remember the last time I saw anyone set down and losing an amateur card because they engaged in professional activities. I do recall people cited for not having an amateur card... but that is different.

<rant>Golly gee, wouldn't it be cool if the Notices of Penalty were archived on line for all time, so that we could look this up without yanking out years of old dusty magazines? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif</rant>

I want to add: Given that we currently have a USEA leaderboard for Lady riders and for Mares, even though we have no divisions restricted to women or mares, it would seem straightforward to create an (art 808) Amateur leaderboard regardless of whether divisions are created. In fact, I wish we would - it would be tres cool.

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 03:11 PM

Tractor Queen-

A gift from god to me you are!

Some great ideas there- come to Boston please!

Actually I had forgotten to add negation of the Halo effect as a benefit.

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 03:13 PM

Poltroon- I have seen that amateur preliminary leaderboard and I can tell you that a few of those folks are in for a shock when they read rule 808...

They won't be there long thats for sure.

pgm

Nov. 14, 2003, 03:41 PM

Official Friday Night tally on Yeah/Nay Don't know for anyone interested

Yeahs = 20
Nays= 16
No position discernable=11

Going off line and hope everyone has a great weekend! Thanks for the discussion and Please send back the surveys.

flutie

Nov. 14, 2003, 04:31 PM

"The other amateurs can and do behave like a pack of angry dogs whenever a professional sneeks into their divisions. Trust them to educate their peers and expose the frauds."

God Packy, I LOVE the rat out clause. Angry dogs rule!!!!!

Flutie

poltroon

Nov. 14, 2003, 04:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
These basic issues aside, the rules may allow organizer to better cater to amateurs' needs. People have already said that they don't like the three day horse trial. This would allow us to put amateur divisions only on the weekend or (gasp) all in one day.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here in California, this is not so cut-and-dried... the problem here is that people have to drive pretty far to an event. Even for working amateurs, sometimes the longer events work better - when you're talking about a 6-8 hour drive to show up, even if you compress the schedule, sometimes having a 2 or 3 day schedule does work better. It's hard to justify driving 8 hours each way for a one day event, where you are constantly run off your feet and never get to see any other horses go. It's just too grueling to be fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Sponsorships of these classes could be sold and prizes donated based on the fact that it is an amateur section.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Horses that are bought and sold could be marketed as suitable for an amateur.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um. I see this happen, every day, already. For years. Don't think you can attribute this to a new division. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't oversell it. It's not going to slice my bread and you'll only invite skepticism if you say it does. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Amateurs will be able to compete with each other, share their frustrations and experiences with managing daily life and horses, and basically Kvetch to their hearts' desire about
anything they want.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif We do this now too. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Also, it might be interesting for people to look at the open leader board. Most amateurs cannot even get on it because, well, its dominated by career professionals. It provides a new playing field for folks who are simply bnusy living a diverse life to gain a real competitive foothold in the professional sections.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really do like the idea of an Article 808 Amateur leaderboard, and I hope that will be implemented regardless of what happens with this rule. I see it as an independent enterprise that would calculate points for everyone with an amateur card, not something that would rely solely on placings in a new Amateur division.

poltroon

Nov. 14, 2003, 04:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
Poltroon- I have seen that amateur preliminary leaderboard and I can tell you that a few of those folks are in for a shock when they read rule 808...

They won't be there long thats for sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, pgm, you're saying that professional horsemen haven't been able to figure out this very clear, cut-and-dried rule? Say it ain't so! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Actually, to be fair, I expect in some cases they just never bothered to relinquish amateur standing, since they don't currently have to worry about competing or not as amateurs.

Raven's Wing

Nov. 14, 2003, 04:48 PM

I am a Yeah for an Amateur division but based on a long conversation with a friend who knows a lot more about the rules and such then I, I think this could open up some other issues down the road in areas of the country that might not have the participation base to support two divisions with minimum number of rider requirements to qualify the scores.

KellyS

Nov. 14, 2003, 05:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If you are somewhere in the middle, because you teach some on the side, I can empathize, but I would be out there teaching too, if it didn’t mean giving up my AA status<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is why there is a lack of quality instruction available. The big pros who are excellent teachers are often too overbooked to work with beginners and intermediate riders. So, too often, these riders are left to the hordes of so-called "trainers" who eagerly embrace their "professional" status. How many amateurs (and I define amateur as someone who does not make their primary income in the horse trainig/teaching business) do you know that would love to teach a little and do an absolutely fantastic job with these riders? However, to maintain their "amateur" status for whatever reason (to avoid competing with the pros, having a better chance at a ribbon) keeps them from contributing back to the sport.

Believe me, while I love winning my ribbons at events, there is no greater satisfaction than communicating and teaching my love of horses to other riders. I love seeing them learn something new, I love seeing them improve their relationship with their horse and have FUN riding. We talk about getting new blood in the sport, but if we must be willing to educate them as well. And there are lots of other ways to do that beside teaching. However, if you would love to teach and simply resist doing it because you would not be able to win ribbons in the AA division, then I think that is kind of sad.

Flame me if you will, but sometimes I think we need to get out of the me, me, me syndrome and look at the whole picture. I am probably a true teacher at heart and I wish I was at the ability level to do it full time (my dream). But, I love what I do now for a living and am realistic about where I am at with my riding.

Add the amateur division, but don't take away the regular divisions, don't move open divisions to weekdays, and keep the sport open to everyone.

Gry2Yng

Nov. 14, 2003, 05:07 PM

tractor queen, I think your post is right on. Hope you will be in Boston and we can cry into our beers and talk of flipping horses together.

Half the year I get to compete in an Area that doesn't have any pink coats - though Becky Douglas is doing an excellent job of cleaning my clock at home. It is wonderful to have her here. My greatest sympathies extend to the aa's in I/II/III. I don't know how they ever get a point for a year end award. I also don't think the national AA board is fair to them, because it is easier for me to get points in my area than it is for them to get points in theirs because the top slots are automatically taken with Phillip winning first place in every OP division.

I hope I can add two worthwhile cents with this final comment. One of the things that was very important to my training in the past was getting the support of my employer. By demonstrating success through year end awards, etc, I was able to convince my company to allow unpaid vacation so that I could train in Florida for one month, allowing me to move up a level. Giving the AA a level playing field can help this pitch. Most bosses don't understand that you lost to Bruce and Eagle Lion. When I returned from my unpaid leave, my employer wanted a report on what I had achieved. Fortunately, I was still able to compete at P, and it was being offered. When I asked for time off to compete at my fall three day, my success as related to my goals in FL played a part.

I have found that corporate America really wants to support the personal ambitions of their employees, but they also want to see some results. I think we can give our membership the opportunity to show results if we let them compete against their peers.

[This message was edited by Gry2Yng on Nov. 14, 2003 at 08:29 PM.]

Pross

Nov. 14, 2003, 05:08 PM

Can't wait for Boston, ya'll. PGM I have in my hands "Proposal for Amateur Status Implementation" ten pages that I brought home with me from the BOG in August. If it has changed then please sent me the updated version vht@cfw.com. Or P. Ross, 1350 decatur Rd, Fairfield, Va. 24435. If it has changed did all the other members of the BOG get a copy but me or do we get to see it the day before?
Don't understand what was wrong with NH, NR etc... Worked for us, riders were happy.. And please correct me if I am wrong ( which I am sure you will) PMG, weren't you in very strong favor of the Open Divisions vs the NH, NR, ON etc. divisions which we are now enjoying?....
And Canterlope, While I absolutely , hands down respect you and all you have done for our area I have to strongly disagree that we are not getting new riders because they are intimadated to ride against the big boys for many reason s but I will give just one.
We are not getting new Adults or Juniors riders into our sport because it is too damn expensive and there is a very real concept that a back yard pony with a back yard rider with out a rule book hasn't a clue how to get involved with eventing. Without first spending the many bucks to get there. Having an amatuer division will not solve that. They are intimated with our sport not the divisions being offered.
My vote is NAY.
Gosh wish there was a spell check with this.

poltroon

Nov. 14, 2003, 05:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by canterlope:

For anyone who believes that riders at the upper levels don't care about whether or not they are classified as an amateur, I invite you to come be the points coordination for the Area II Year End Awards program and find out just how much these riders care. The number one complaint among the riders at Preliminary and above in this program is that they constantly have to compete against the professionals and they find it impossible to get high enough in the standings at events to earn even one point towards a year end award. Believe me, these people care.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, canterlope, I'm starting to see the Area II problem. Just as you probably find it inconceivable that I would drive 9 hours one way for a novice horse trial, I find it inconceivable that any rider with good solid performances at Intermediate doesn't come home with points of some sort most of the time. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But I still think that amateurs that ride at Advanced deserve this recognition as much or more. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(I never could figure out why the Area VI organizers didn't combine the Horse/Open divisions on their own either...)

Gry2Yng

Nov. 14, 2003, 05:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I find it inconceivable that any rider with good solid performances at Intermediate doesn't come home with points of some sort most of the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try never in Areas II/III. Let me give you a list of the horse rider combinations in just one OI in Area III.

Natilie Bouckaert
Kyle Carter
Jill Henneberg
Phillip Dutton
Adrienne Iorio-Borden
Debbie Adams
Debi Crowley
Denise Rath
Dorothy Crowell
Clark Montgomery
Phillip Dutton
David O'Connor
Darren Chiacchia
Clark Davis
Nathalie
Adrienne
Ralph Hill
Shannon Ewing

That was OI-A. OI-B looks basically the same. There were 20 horses in that division. I know Clark and Debi have full time jobs that don't involve horses, I don't know whether they qualify as amateurs under Sec 808. According to the rule book, points are given to 5th place. The other division had 19 entrants.

This is only meant in the kindest way poltroon, just trying to give an example of what Area III is like in the spring. This particular HT offered I, which had 13 entries. They are riders you would know if you showed in the area, but I'll bet being from out west you would not recognize many of them. I was not entered here, but happen to have the program.

poltroon

Nov. 14, 2003, 06:06 PM

Right Gry2Young, I was agreeing with you. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And I really liked your point about how getting awards at these upper levels was helpful in getting scheduling support from your company. I think that is the strongest comment so far.

If you guys think that the amateur/open split is the best for you, that is fine with me. But I will still keep asking you if that really is the best split. Maybe the divisions can/should be split "Has never ridden for USET" and "Open". Or, "Has ridden Advanced" / "Open". Or, "Has ridden Advanced for n years" / "Open". (Isn't there a "Gold award" or something for n placings 1-5 at Advanced? As a rider you could simultaneously get a meaningful award to show off and get bumped into Open.)

Those splits are as easy to enforce as an amateur split, still gives you a chance at results against your peers, and avoids the side effect problem where good, qualified people choose not to teach on the side here and there to preserve Amateur status, and/or where equally deserving people who find they must choose to teach on the side to make their ends meet can also have the chance to show against their peers and get results for THEIR 9-5 employers to see.

[This message was edited by poltroon on Nov. 14, 2003 at 09:15 PM.]

Badger

Nov. 14, 2003, 07:04 PM

I understand the argument about the discrepency for year end award points between Area II and III versus other areas. Rather than separate Open and Amateur division, in my perfect world I'd like to see the old restricted divisions returned but to address the year-end problem I'd see year end points earned in two categories and have two sets of awards: top three pro placings and top three amateur placings would get points toward year end.

No system is perfect, and there are examples of odd-ball incidents under any system. One real life example is a former 3-star horse who did well with a Novice rider in a recognized combined test winning a BNH division. Under the current system, since the horse hadn't competed in the last two years, he qualified, but that division really was an odd place to see him. Under the old rules, he wouldn't have been competing against the true greenies.

Someone made the point that Ab could compete in the Regular novice division since she's hasn't been competing. So what? If she's riding at the level she did in the past and on several horses, she'd compete herself out of that elegibility in a weekend, or at least in just a couple of events. The odd upper-level rider isn't going to be hogging the lower level ribbons for long under the Restricted or Regular rules.

Early on in this thread, someone (Canterlope IIRC?) pointed out that someone who moved up from N to T, did a few Ts and wasn't successful and dropped back to N, would have to ride in Open (at least for a couple of years) and argued that scenario as an example with what's wrong with the current system. So what? That rider was obviously very confirmed at Novice to make the move up and is more experienced from those Training competitions than the average Novice rider. They belong in the Open and not the Regular division when they drop back. I know of what I speak: I moved up to Training on my mare last fall and did three trainings before I retired her from eventing to focus my time and resources on her homebred son. When I competed this green youngster at Novice this season, it was Open Novice against riders with experience at training and up, including red jackets. It's where I belonged: I had more experience than the riders who haven't had experience at Training. It meant I rode against Pros, and that was fine. I wouldn't have wanted to be stuck in the Open division when I moved up to Training, but I have no problem with it when I dropped down a level with a new horse. Frankly, I think it was a more level playing field for me to ride against Pros on young horses (when I was riding below my experience level) than it did for people in one of their first novice events to ride against me. I was a better rider with my training mileage than I was without it. I really do think the "experienced based" qualifications for divisions have got it right. The whole Amateur rule/definition is so contentious for the disciplines that use it, it seems a shame to bring it to eventing for establishing divisions. Now, I do agree the year-end awards are a different ball of wax all together.

Nov. 14, 2003, 07:48 PM

My new omnibus came yesterday so I looked through all the Areas I, II, III listings to see who was offering all these amateur divisons. Under other information I found one horse trial that said to list your experience and to say if you were an amateur in case they split divisons. I did see one other horse trial that was offering an AMON division. I'm not sure what that is, but wondered if it might be some sort of amateur division.

His Greyness

Nov. 14, 2003, 10:08 PM

I have spent most of this evening reading this thread and still need a clear definition of:

What problem are you trying to solve?

My interpretation so far is that there is some set of competitors who are feeling "victimized" by having to compete against professionals and USET team members.

Even less clear to me is:

What end result are you trying to achieve? Describe the end state.

What is clear to me is that there is some other set of competitors who feel "vicitmized" by the current USAEq definition of Amateur. Since people have a highly individual notion of what an amateur is, I don't think there will ever be a universally agreed definition of amateur. Not all USET team members are professionals as defined by USAEq Rule 808.

Since it appears that this proposal will only trade once set of problems (competing against professionals) for another (what is an amateur?), I am against it.

I am of the belief that an eventing competition should determine which rider/horse combination is best prepared to tackle the particular test/course and conditions of that event, irregardless of rider status, religion, color, sex, country of national origin,......

Incidentally, having read all the USAEq 800 series rules, does any body else see a violation of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in USAEq Rule 807?

canterlope

Nov. 15, 2003, 02:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Okay, canterlope, I'm starting to see the Area II problem. Just as you probably find it inconceivable that I would drive 9 hours one way for a novice horse trial...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No way, baby. You're talking to a person that drove 22 hours one way out to Wayne to ride Novice at Flutie's wonderful event. Plus living in the sticks, I routinely drive 8 plus hours one way to event in Area II. PRoss's event is the closest at 3 hours. Anything in northern Virginia/southern Maryland area is 7-9 hours depending on which side of Washington DC they're located. Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Fuhgehtaboudit! Gotta pack a lunch for those trips.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>...I find it inconceivable that any rider with good solid performances at Intermediate doesn't come home with points of some sort most of the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's do a little experiment on what routinely happens in Area II. Below are the Intermediate standings from four events that I randomly picked out of the twenty Area II events that offer this level this year (Note: I did not include the JR/YR sections because they aren't relevant to the Amateur/Professional discussion). Below that, I've posted the National Point System for the Intermediate division. Question: How many points did the amateur riders at these events earn?

Fair Hill
OPEN INTERMEDIATE A
1 Anderoo Linden Wiesman 38.30
2 Rough Cut Sarah Cousins 40.30
3 Troy Sarah Cousins 44.00
4 Better I Do It Diann Roffe 45.20
5 Aristia Denis Lynch 45.50
6 Presto Allison Springer 50.20
7 Damien Holly Hepp 51.50
8 Ballatale Kim Ziegler 51.90
9 Epic Leap Holly Hepp 54.90
10 Critical Decision Missy Ransehousen 56.10
11 Skyhook Marty Morani 63.00
12 Salute The Truth Steuart Pittman 76.20
13 Kilcoltrim Suzy Pettmann 79.70
14 Flash Point Duncan MacRae 105.1
E Big Bad Voodoo Magic Natalie Hollis E
E Star Bright Melissa Hunsberger E
R Folly Sarah Cousins R
W After Hours Jessica Shuler W
OPEN INTERMEDIATE B
1 I Spy Holly Hepp 32.80
2 Tell Me Why Sarah Cousins 35.00
3 Matchless Denis Lynch 39.00
4 Windswept Diann Roffe 40.50
5 Faraday's Hope Jessica Shuler 47.80
6 Trooper Tobin Linden Wiesman 54.50
7 Pandora Jessica Shuler 59.40
8 Tipperary Floyd Kori Tucker Edwards 62.70
9 Buckley Bay Juliet Graham 72.10
10 Tomcat Rebecca Schaar 76.60
11 Sambucca Suzy Pettmann 90.10
12 Aly Cat Two Susie Beale 103.9
13 Secret Notion Pedro Gutierrez 113.3
E Cruizin' On Sinead Halpin E
S Could You Just Sean McQuillan S
S Nova T. Cartter Evans S
S Bert And I Pam Wiedemann S
S Josephine Emily Beshear S

Menfelt
OPEN INTERMEDIATE 1
1 Toy Story Courtney Cooper 40.50
2 Tell Me Why Sarah Cousins 50.20
3 Woodburn Bruce Mandeville 55.50
4 Aristia Denis Lynch 58.00
5 Cruzin-On Donna Smith 64.50
6 Tolstoy Adrienne Iorio-Borden 67.40
7 Rico Jennifer Holling 74.50
8 Could You Just Sean McQuillan 89.80
9 Falcon Flight Clark Montgomery 106.0
10 Red Mystic Mary Hazzard 121.0
11 Rollick in The Sun Jamie Striley 134.0
12 I Spy Holly Hepp 138.0
E By Chance Sinead Halpin E
R Welton Hvala Sue Berrill R
R On the Town Shannon O'Malley R
W Merciful Judge Marie Treiber W
W Orion X Maley Coombs W
OPEN INTERMEDIATE 2
1 Idalgo Buck Davidson 43.90
2 Stina Bonnie Mosser 44.50
3 Icy Grey Bruce Mandeville 47.90
4 Benjamin Boot Adrienne Iorio-Borden 48.50
5 Rampant Lion Wendy Lewis 53.40
6 Ballatale Kim Ziegler 63.50
7 Bert And I Pam Wiedemann 83.80
8 Truluck Amy Smith 89.00
9 Go Easy Bonnie Mosser 180.0
E Just Charlie Janice Holmes E
E Paparazzi Abby Blackadder E
E Redmond Julia Wendell E
R Iona Grey Pedro Gutierrez R
R Dazzling Lindsay Wagner R
R Capricho Lourdes Peralta R
W Blue Mezzo Torrance Watkins W
W Aly Cat Two Susie Beale W
OPEN INTERMEDIATE 3
1 Matchless Denis Lynch 37.00
2 Here To Stay Mara Depuy 43.30
3 Gibson Kyle Carter 48.30
4 Private Treaty Buck Davidson, 48.80
5 Barber's Berber Christy Price 50.90
6 Springcroft Tiamaria Sharon White 56.50
7 Flash Point Duncan MacRae 59.70
8 Q Kathleen Carr 70.60
9 Splash Leigh Ann Leary 70.80
10 Pirate's Co-Star Linda Dahlgren 71.80
11 Epic Leap Holly Hepp 82.20
12 Kachemak Bay Rebecca Berry 96.50
13 Excelsior Springs Lindsay Wagner 132.0
E Candlewyck Kristi Casper E
E Mystic Replica Mary Hazzard E
E Que Verdad Barbara Lawrence E
R Ebro de la Galerna Pedro Gutierrez R
R Jupiter Ridge Michele Ingold R

Plantation Field
OPEN INTERMEDIATE 1
1 Brindabelle Phillip Dutton 37.50
2 Pacific Storm Stuart Black 37.50
3 Nicki Henley Mara Depuy 38.70
4 Coppertop Sarah Cousins 45.70
5 Horton Who Marcia Kulak 52.10
6 Tell Me Why Sarah Cousins 53.30
7 Pacific Paragon Stuart Black 59.20
8 Epic Leap Holly Hepp 63.30
9 Irish Fling Laura Vander Vliet 67.00
10 Che Bandido Ronald Zabala 81.50
11 Wild Delight Kati Bodin 84.60
12 Canadian Chocolate Nicole Parkin 93.20
13 Nothing Ventured Clark Davis 94.10
R Aces High Kimberly Severson R
R Twain Kim Ziegler R
W Critical Decision Missy Ransehousen W
W Upper Register Kimberly Severson W
W Phoenix Wendy Bebie W
W Kelvedon Carrington Juli Sillman W
OPEN INTERMEDIATE 2
1 Ballatale Kim Ziegler 51.00
2 Lord Robert Courtney Cooper 51.30
3 Lion Display Dornin North 55.90
4 Rollick In The Sun Jamie Striley 56.60
5 Miller Time Andy Sparks 59.70
6 Big Bad Voodoo Magic Natalie Hollis 62.20
7 The Usual Suspect Jessica Mollema 64.70
8 Catalyst Nancy Cole 65.40
9 Ecco Gigi Carter 66.70
10 Kiltartan Molly Hooper 69.30
11 Cowboy Carm Trish Newton 71.50
E Salute The Truth Steuart Pittman E
W Q Kathleen Carr W
W Little Ben Cherie Gaebel W
W Say You do Sarah Cousins W

Virginia
OPEN INTERMEDIATE C
1 Gorta Glen David O’Connor 36.00
2 Waterfront Jan B. Thompson 36.80
3 Jacob Two Two Karen O’Connor 40.40
4 Courting Dancer David O’Connor 43.20
5 Mitavite Ransome Jan B. Thompson 45.60
6 Ballatale Kim Ziegler 45.60
7 Lord Robert Courtney Cooper 48.80
8 Travis Vicki L. Baker 49.20
9 Gaude Jane Sleeper 51.20
10 Private Treaty Bruce O. Davidson Jr 51.60
11 Rampant Lion Wendy Lewis 54.80
12 Car Tanga Yvonne Lucas 54.80
13 Psalm XXIII Michael Pollard 55.60
14 Che Bandido Ronald Zabala 58.40
15 He's Got Rhythm Stephen Bradley 59.60
16 Kowhai Ashley Dalton 66.00
17 Chester Karen Mahaffey 69.20
18 Salute the Truth Steuart Pittman 70.20
19 Tommy Star Kristen Villeneuve 78.80
20 Summer Hill David O’Brien 79.80
21 Eliot III Robin Bass 86.80
22 Tradition Holly Hepp 88.00
23 Miller Time Andy Sparks 110.4
24 Hooper Strait Katie Murphy 130.4
25 Jumbeau Alexandria Shaner 135.0
E Stonehenge Walter E. Reynolds E
R Windswept Diann Roffe R
OPEN INTERMEDIATE E
1 Tell Me Why Sarah Hoey Cousins 43.20
2 Archer Stuart Black 45.20
3 Nicki Henley Mara Depuy 50.80
4 Livingston Kelli McMullen Temple 53.20
5 Epic Leap Holly Hepp 55.60
6 Cruzin'on Donna Smith 56.00
7 UN Jane Sleeper 58.00
8 Littonian Catherine S. Frederick 61.60
9 Presto Allison Springer 62.00
10 Trustworthy Will Faudree 62.40
11 Fox In Flight William S. Coleman III 62.40
12 The Quiet Man Sarah Hansel 64.80
13 Trooper Tobin Linden Wiesman 73.60
14 Ides of March Mary Grantham 82.00
15 Roughcut Heather Carlson 98.80
E Twain Kim Ziegler E
R Enniskerry Imp Phyllis Dawson R
W Welton Venture Bruce O. Davidson Jr. W

Point Scale for Intermediate Level

Place, Starters, H.T., Two-Day, CIC**, CCI**
1st, N/A, 12, 13, 16, 30
2nd, N/A, 10, 11, 14, 28
3rd, N/A, 8, 9, 12, 26
4th, over 15, 6, 7, 10, 24
5th, over 19, 4, 5, 8, 22
6th, over 23, 2, 3, 6, 20
7th, over 27, 2, 3, 6, 16
8th, over 31, 2, 3, 6, 13
9th, over 35, 2, 3, 6, 13
10th, over 39, 2, 3, 6, 13

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They say cats have nine lives. They would settle for one good one. Adopt a cat (or dog) today.

poltroon

Nov. 15, 2003, 08:45 AM

Canterlope, you misssed my smiley! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What I MEANT to say was, "Doh! Now I get it. Just as people in Area II sometimes forget that we have to drive outrageously long distances out west to compete, We in Area VI sometimes forget how many Team members there are filling the OP, OI, and OA divisions every weekend, with really nice horses, and how hard it is to establish yourself in such company."

There. Was that clear yet? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You don't have to convince me. I get it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But I'm still not sure why young professionals and people with 9-5 jobs who teach on the side don't have the same problem as the amateurs. We protect Young Riders until they're 21 and then throw them to the wolves?

Heather

Nov. 15, 2003, 03:08 PM

I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but by my notes from her post win interview, Debbi Crowley would not get to compete in the amateur division. Yes, she works full time plus at a desk job, AND had to take unpaid leave to compete at Radnor, and busts her butt to an incredibly unbelievable level and absolutely fits MY definition of an amateur--but she told us she has a young horse in training owned by someone else--who pays her for skills. So, no amateur card for her--despite the fact that 99.9% of us would say she's an amateur because she certainly doens't make a living from horses. But she'd be faced with chucking that horse, or keeping her card.

Perhaps we begin to see the concern here, huh?

A lot of people from a lot of walks of life would be faced with similar decisions--give up something done on the side to afford the sport--hacking/riding, braiding, mucking, hot walking, teaching up-downers, or give up the amamteur card and have a less level playing field than the one you compete in now.

Janet

Nov. 15, 2003, 05:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I do think that something that can be improved for the rule change
process in general is to have more "public notice" of them before the proposal is set in stone, so
it can be modified and adapted in the small things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whenever they actually submit it to the USAE (up til Sept 2004), we will have until January 2005 to comment on it, via the USAEq "rule change proposal" web site. It isn't "set in stone" until voted on at the January 2005 meeting. (Assuming they don't claim it is an "emergency" change.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet

Nov. 15, 2003, 05:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
tle:

You keep asking the question because you haven't liked the answer you've gotten. The fact is that they didn't do the best job at leveling the playing field and created many of their own problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK. Please give your evaluation criteria for "the best job of leveling the playing field." Because with MY evaluation criteria, "Open, Horse, Rider" comes out MILES ahead of "Open, Amateur".

First on MY list of evaluation criteria is that
"someone competing at level X for the very first time should be able to compete in a "non-open" division".

Why is that not an important criterion for you

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brai

[This message was edited by Janet on Nov. 15, 2003 at 08:55 PM.]

Janet

Nov. 15, 2003, 05:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Forcing Phillip to beat Bonnie, David, Karen,
Mark, Bobbie, Will, Will, Clark, Becky, Linden, Nina, Bruce, Bruce Jr., John, Amy, Darren, Gina, Jill,
Julie, Ralph, and... to beat each other over the head every weekend might actually improve the
professional ranks quite a bit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are going round in circles. A few pages ago Canterlope claimed it was "punishing" Amy to make her compete against the professionals. You can't have it both ways

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brai

[This message was edited by Janet on Nov. 15, 2003 at 08:54 PM.]

subk

Nov. 15, 2003, 09:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gry2Yng:
I had to reply before getting to the end of the thread when I saw this comment...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I don't think we need a separate amateur division. The team championships are fine for that. At the upper levels (Intermediate +) I don't think those people care whether they are classified as an amateur or not. If I were at that level, I would want to be classified with all the others, not some "amateur" separate class.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I DO care... Anyway, all this to say that just because there are some AA's riding at I and above doesn't mean we are blissfully happy getting our arses kicked by people who ride more CCI's in a season than we will ride in our LIVES.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What she said!

I'm not all the way through the additions to this thread either, but that one got me kinda got me hot too. Please don't presume what the few upper level "real AAs" want/think/like. In fact I'd say the higher the level I've competed the more I've felt slighted by not being recognized as an Amatuer. I happen to be proud that I am and I care very much about my AA status.

subk

Nov. 15, 2003, 10:03 PM

O.K. Finally got through the thread and Mr. subk has turned the light out.

But quickly, I know Debi Crowley well, respect and admire her (and covert her stud box!) She does have a full time job but would NOT meet anyone here's definition of an Amateur. She usally has a horse or two in training, has/had a working student and often rides several horses a day. Needless to say the girl has no social life! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif More like Amy Tryon actually...

Gry2Yng

Nov. 16, 2003, 04:28 PM

For the record. I did not claim that Debbie meets the definitiion of AA as provided by the rules, but she does have a full time job, other than horses, that pays the bills. That is what makes her my idol. At some point, when you are riding at that level, you get the privledge of riding horses for others, but it may not be the way you make ends meet.

It should also be noted, Debi rode OI in the division I mentioned, though she was within the rules to ride I.

It is part of the problem with the USAEq rules. While I have never received a dime for riding, I consider Debi my peer in the respect that she is out there in the early morning and late evening hours riding, and while I can't say for sure, I doubt she is paying her mortgage by riding. I would also like to say that she is kickin my butt in terms of ability, and while I can never hope to be Kim S., I can hope to be Debi or even Amy - also an idol. (So is Kim, but in an Elvis Presley sort of way.)

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 05:35 AM

Re: Minor Professional Activities

I see no reason that indviduals that engage in selling their services shouldn't be considered a professional, regardless of how much money they make elsewhere in another profession. We must draw the line somewhere. If someone is selling her services as an expert, then I would say that she is being treated quite fairly by the rules.

I have yet to hear a clear explanation of why this proposal would hurt the sport. Many have argued that it goes against the purity and spirit of eventing. How so? What is the spirit of eventing? Why is our sport so much more pure than say the hunter ring? Also, I would like to address the concern that allowing organizers to have amateurs divisions will endanger the sport. Why? Many folks have said that they are afraid that amateur divisions will make eventing become more like the hunter or jumper rings? What exactly is it about those shows you do not like and how could becoming more like them hurt eventing as a sport?

Lastly, I want to make sure that the following characteristics are acknowledged and not missed by anyone who may be following this argument. With the two competing views of this idea in place before we ever attempted to write a proposal, we decided that we needed a proposal that could be regarded as benign in its effect. That is, we wanted the change to be totally optional. It is my belief that the earthshaking changes feared by the nay sayers on this thread are unfounded because of the following:

1) This is a permissive rule that no one, not organizers, not competitors, not anyone has to use or offer. If you want to compete against professionals then you are permitted to do so. If you want to compete against amateurs you may do so. This is in no way a mandatory change.

2) This change costs us nothing to implement. Nothing at all, for anybody, anywhere in the sport.

3) The proposal takes advantage of rules that already exist so we need not discuss the myriad issues that have already been tilled eight ways to Sunday by other segments of the horse world.

4) We are already offering national and regional trophies and leader boards without any standard definition of amateur that is explicit. The proposal is designed to let the rules catch up to the facts on the ground.

As stated above, I feel the real fear is that the change proposed will be popular and will take hold and that the criticism of "hunterizing" the sport of eventing is at the heart of the real fear. This is why I think we need to explore that subject a bit more. Anyone want to talk about that for a while?

[This message was edited by pgm on Nov. 17, 2003 at 08:59 AM.]

[This message was edited by pgm on Nov. 17, 2003 at 09:05 AM.]

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 06:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I have yet to hear a clear explanation of why this proposal would hurt the sport.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If it is in the rule book, but no-one offers it, it won't hurt the sport.

If EVERY event that offers an amateur dvision ALSO offers a "regular", "rider" or "restricted" division, it won't hurt the sport.

If there are events that offer ONLY "amateur" and "open", I believer it WILL hurt the sport for exactly the reason I cited above.

Riders who, for whaterver reason, are not amateurs according to the rules, entering an event for the first time, or moving up from BN to N for the first time, WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ENTER THE OPEN DIVISION.

I believe this will discourage newcomers from trying eventing, and from moving up.

I don't care if it is some kid who has never jumped higher than 2'6", but is considered non-amateur because she mucks stalls to pay for lessons, or if it is George Morris himself: for your VERY FIRST EVENT, and your first event moving up a level, you should have the option of entering a division other than Open.

For your VERY FIRST EVENT, having to enter the same division as the Olympians on their green horses is intimidating to many people, amateur, non-amateur, and true pro alike.

I see no reason to go out of our way to encourage a division that is going to DISCOURAGE crossovers.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

tle

Nov. 17, 2003, 06:44 AM

First, thank you Janet for adding your questions to the "what was wrong with the old divisions." Nice to see that I really am not the only one who still thinks that an answer hasn't been given.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>1) This is a permissive rule that no one, not organizers, not competitors, not anyone has to use or offer. If you want to compete against professionals then you are permitted to do so. If you want to compete against amateurs you may do so. This is in no way a mandatory change.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then exactly, other than giving this option at P and I which I don't think is a bad idea at all (having been an AA at P for several years), is the point? How does this vary for the lower levels than what the rules already say? And how is this going to make the distinction of a national champion AA better/easier if 1) AAs aren't required to enter the AA division and 2) organizers aren't required to hold an AA division, which for the record I think both requirements would be a bad idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>2) This change costs us nothing to implement. Nothing at all, for anybody, anywhere in the sport. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the rising costs of our sport now... I believe this is true in theory, but only time will tell -- I'm not 100% convinced, but it could just be the cynic in me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>3) The proposal takes advantage of rules that already exist so we need not discuss the myriad issues that have already been tilled eight ways to Sunday by other segments of the horse world.

4) We are already offering national and regional trophies and leader boards without any standard definition of amateur that is explicit. The proposal is designed to let the rules catch up to the facts on the ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But again, with regard to teh trophies, etc., I don't see where an AA division split is going to make that easier given that the whole freakin' thing is optional. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it shoudl be mandatory at all. Recognition is fine and I'm all for it, but I'm just not sure that this is going to change anything for the majority of lower level riders out there. Yes, it will help the P & I divisions POSSIBLY -- after all it's not mandatory and if the competitor numbers at those levels won't support it, you won't see it. It also won't necessarily help those lower level competitors in non-east coast areas where the numbers may not support the addition of another division (or, reverse, teh number of PROFESSIONALS may not support it -- hard to imagine for Area II/III residents I'm sure, but there are places where you only have a small handful of professionals competing too). You can't just add division splits willy-nilly or you run into the problem that you end up with minutely small divisions which carry **NO** year-end points because they're so small (less than 5 I believe).

I like the idea, don't get me wrong, but I think the end goals that are being hoped for here aren't going to necessarily be met outside those areas that are behind the reasons for the changes.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:07 AM

I still disagree that experientially based divisions are the best characteristic to divide the basic classes. They are not working, have bnote worked in the past, do not get at the heart of how we define ourselves and our individual participation within the sport. With all due respect, I think you are confusing experience with skill. Skill sets are defined by the levels in which we compete. Novice is easy, Intermediate is much harder. As an example, as professional as I am, can qualify for regular novice. And yet my skills are way beyond most novice competitors. SO the cclassifications don't work.

You seem to be saying that if its your very first event ever, it is only relevant that you have never done it before. So you are saying that the entire Olympic Show jumping team, even though they are Professionals in every sense of the word, skilled, and making money at it...should be able to event at restricted or Regular divisions simply because they come from another discipline? I simply do not see how that would be fair either. Anyone who thinks that Chriss Kappler or Mark Leone wouldn't rub everyone's noses into the dirt at a Novice, training or preliminaryevent hasn't really watched these guys ride. And for the record, they have all ridden cross-country before. Sayintg that its okay for them to compete in the regular division or experienced based restricted divisions does not reflect who they are and what they do within the horse world. Plain and simple.

This is not a reasonable justification to oppose this rule and deny amateurs a venue of their own. If your less experienced friend wants to teach and ride and train horses for a living, then she is a professional. If she hopes to use horses and eventing in particular as a platform from which to make a living, she'd better start winning and moving up the levels right away. She is a professional and, because she is holding herself out as such, she needs to ride in open sections against professionals. She is selling her expertise to the public, has hung a shingle, and is getting paid for services that define the professional as such. If at anytime, she decides to give up her money making equestrian endeavors, she can ride as an amateur. That will not mean that she is a bad rider or a good rider, but only means that she is not a professional rider.

Once the demand has been settled for this division, then we may again wish to divide by experience.

The preoccupation with experience does not get to the most general classifications we need to defien as a starting point for our competitors.

And Janet, there are plenty of riders who 18 or 20 years ago, achieved a level of competency that far exceeds their current skills. by your logic they are barred from anything but Novice. To this you say SO WHAT?

[This message was edited by pgm on Nov. 17, 2003 at 10:22 AM.]

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>And Janet, there are plenty of riders who 18 or 20 years ago, achieved a level of competency that far exceeds their current skills. by your logic they are barred from anything but Novice. To this you say SO WHAT? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? Where did I say that?

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> They are not working, have bnote worked in the past, do not get at the heart of how we define ourselves and our individula participation within the sport. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>May not work for YOU, may not match how YOU define yorself, But they certainly DO work for ME, and get at the heart of how _I_ define _MY_ participation in the sport.

And, just as there is nothing stopping the amateur who wants to compete against the "big boys" from open, there is nothing to prevent YOU form eneting Open Novice.

I could turn your argument around and say thet YOU seem to be focused on one case, that YOU, as a professional, can qualify for "regular" Novice. My heart bleeds for you. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:25 AM

Janet-

We are going to have to agree to disagree. My experience of eventing over the last twenty five years in that it discriminates against amateurs at virtually every level. You think that we should separate based on expwer4ience. I don't. It is no use trying to convince each other because clearyl neither of us is going to change our opinion. so lets leave the discussion to others who might actually bring something new to the disdcussion. I still want to hear what it is about the hunter and jumper ring that people are so afraid of. That is intriguing to me.

Heather

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:34 AM

pgm said: I have yet to hear a clear explanation of why this proposal would hurt the sport. Many have argued that it goes against the purity and spirit of eventing. How so? What is the spirit of eventing? Why is our sport so much more pure than say the hunter ring?

Also, I would like to address the concern that allowing organizers to have amateurs divisions will endanger the sport. Why? Many folks have said that they are afraid that amateur divisions will make eventing become more like the hunter or jumper rings? What exactly is it about those shows you do not like and how could becoming more like them hurt eventing as a sport?

OK, I'll bite, and while I HOPE this will not turn in to a bash of the hunter ring, I'll explain my thoughts. Eventing has been a sport that first and foremost has always been about horsemanship. Not ribbons, not "look", and not even a "skill" (by which I mean, since we do three sports within our sport, it's not like we can all be, or train our horses to be, say, a grand prix dressage horse, or a grand prix show jumper, or be as fast and brave as a timber race horse). An eventer needs to be a good trainer, with a holistic view of a horse's development, an eye for talent and personality, and an encyclopedia of knowledge about care and management, including fitness.

Because it has been a sport based on this notion of horsemanship, it has been far more of an open door for all types (and income levels) of people, AND their horses. The most amount of money that I have EVER paid for a horse (and it was my parents, not me) was $9,000. He was an Appaloosa. Can you imagine a $9,000 appy even making a blip on the radar at the A circuit hunters? Can you imagine $9,000 buying more than say, the hoof, of your average a circuit hunter? yet on that horse I did win a few year end awards over the years. If the only sport available to me was hunters, I would never have been involved, because I simply couldn't have afforded it--finanicially, or socially. I wouldn't use the word "pure"--it's too judgemental. What I would say is that hunters are for people who enjoy a subjective sport based on a look--an illusion if youi will. There are very narrow parameters of what you, or your horse, can look like, and do well. Eventing is the sport where we odn't care what you and your horse look like, or what he cost, or what kind of coat you are wearing. Can you come and DO? That's all we care about--and that is something very, very special.

I know there is a conception that this will increase our numbers, not a bad goal in and of itself. BUT, my concern is the far reaching consequences of HOW we build those numbers, and what sort of people we may be attracting. Many, many people ride hunters because they can jump small fences, at slow speeds, in the safe environment of a ring, and do well (win ribbons) even though they only ride a few days a week, and the trainer prepares the horse the rest of the time. (And just for the record, although this wouldn't interest me, I'm not bashing those for whom this is the way they enjoy their horses, to each his own).

So if we take this sterotypical AA rider (a little afraid, not able (or in some cases willing) to put in a lot of time in AND out of the saddle, not able to be part of the preparation of the horse, etc. do we really think this person should be going cross country? Is this really a good decisionfor our sport--sending out people who aren't rpeapred to jump fixed obstacles? I realize BN is a far cry from ROlex, BUT there are safety issues there.

But lets say that I'm being paranoid, and they are able to be safe at BN and N, and they grow in number. How long before these people want to start making some changes more advantageous to the way they do their horses. Why can't their trainer warm their horse up before dressage? Or rideit around in the open novice on Saturday, and then you come and compete in the BN on Sunday? They are hard working AA's who do horses "for fun" so why should they have to deal with a horse who wants to peep at the other horses in the warm up ring? They'll be a large number now, a "majority" to use the word thrown around here. Why not change to accomodate them? And pretty soon we have no sport left at all.

This sport is hard. That hasn't always made it universally popular. You will never convince me that's a bad thing. Believe me, I'd love nothing more than to have millions of people evenitng, and see it one TV and everything else. But I think we need to be VERY careful that we aren't taking a Faustian deal in the process.

pgm also said: Lastly, I want to make sure that the following characteristics are acknowledged and not missed by anyone who may be following this argument. With the two competing views of this idea in place before we ever attempted to write a proposal, we decided that we needed a proposal that could be regarded as benign in its effect. That is, we wanted the change to be totally optional. It is my belief that the earthshaking changes feared by the nay sayers on this thread are unfounded because of the following:

1) This is a permissive rule that no one, not organizers, not competitors, not anyone has to use or offer. If you want to compete against professionals then you are permitted to do so. If you want to compete against amateurs you may do so. This is in no way a mandatory change.

I GET that. The problem is many of us are concerned that mandatory or not, it will create changes in OTHER divisions (such as the loss of restricted) that may have a bad effect on many sompetitors. Me personally, no, it doesn't make a difference, I'll most likely still show open. But I understand that there are many, many riders caught in the purgatory between open and USAEq defined AA status who will be adversely affected.

2) This change costs us nothing to implement. Nothing at all, for anybody, anywhere in the sport.

I understand this too, and you know what? It doesn't matter to me? Of all the things that concern me about thsi rule, cost is pretty far down the list (and It aint' because I'm a trust fund baby sittin' on my couch eatin bonbons.) I would add that the reason it in theory doesn't cost, is that there is essentially no enforcement, other than other AA's? So that leads me to two additional questions/issues: One, let's say I see someone competing as an AA and I know and have proof that they are breaking the rules. If I report that person, then at that point, there must be some sort of associated cost, because there will be an investigation, and hearing, and sanction--where does the money to pay for that come from? Or, version two, if there isn't going to be any of those things, because we'd rather have it be free than have it be enforcable, then why bother to have a rule at all? At some point it seems a little silly to have arule that will never be enforced.

3) The proposal takes advantage of rules that already exist so we need not discuss the myriad issues that have already been tilled eight ways to Sunday by other segments of the horse world.

See, this makes me wonder if you've listned, not even to other eventers, but to other sport participants. The general consensus in EVERYTHING I've read is that current AA rules are in general a dismal failure. But those guys are stuck with them, and feel pretty screwed by them. So you'll excuse me if I question why we'd want to bring that in to our sport.

4) We are already offering national and regional trophies and leader boards without any standard definition of amateur that is explicit. The proposal is designed to let the rules catch up to the facts on the ground.

I have no problem with the national and regional trophies, I think they are great. I also like the fact that most of the three days offer amateur trophies, and even some HT do (lowest voerall score at a given level who is an amateur, etc). But again, since the division won't be mandatory, who does it even affect these tropihes? If less than every single event offers AA divisions, then there will still be people who earn their scores in open divisions agains the pros, and some who don't--exactly like now. If the concern is that we are giving those special trophies away without a standard definition, then that can be discussed, but is a different kettle of fish altogether, IMHO.

Wow, that was long.

tle

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Wow, that was long.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But VERY well said, Heather. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

KellyS

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:49 AM

Excellent Heather!

RAyers

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:55 AM

I second what Heather said. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wow, Heather, you definitely put my thoughts into a concise form.

Reed

Ja Da Dee

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:56 AM

CLAP CLAP CLAP Heather and Janet!

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> As stated above, I feel the real fear is that the change proposed will be popular and will take hold and that the criticism of "hunterizing" the sport of eventing is at the heart of the real fear. This is why I think we need to explore that subject a bit more. Anyone want to talk about that for a while?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As someone who DOES compete in the A/A jumpers and (less frequiently) A/A hunters, second what Heather says.

The other thing I see in the A/A h/j ranks that I DON'T wnat to see in eventing is the constant focus and discussion of: who is, and is not, a legal amateur; the political and social price for "outing" a shamateur; and the need for "a paper trail" to prove someone is not a legal amateur.

YOU may think that "enforcement of the Amateur rules by "the other amateurs protesting the ones that aren't", but that certainly is not the general opinion of the h/j amaters.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:15 AM

As smart as the individuals who have been working on this project are, I'm shocked that none of the alternative definitions of "amateur" you came up with seemed better than the current USAEq definition.

Have you followed other discussions about the USAEq definition? Certainly, the Mark Leone and Chris Kappler are pros by any old definition any idiot cares to bring to the table. THEY ARE NOT THE ISSUE!

Accepting some renumeration for some form of horse related activity is not synonymous with "holding yourself out as an expert" I do not know how anybody, even Janet, could put that any more clearly.

Do we want people who are "nominal pros" to have to compete against real pros? Do you (pgm and Canterlope) believe there is such a thing as a nominal pro, or is it more like virginity???

How about if we brainstorm a better definition of pro?? Half the tensions I see in this discussion revolve around the fate (or existence) of nominal pros.

The other half seem to revolve around differences between the issues facing N/T amateurs and P/I/A amateurs. I, for one, would bristle much less at the idea of this rule if I thought it were for subk's or poltroon's benefit, rather than the masses of N/T amateurs.

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> My experience of eventing over the last twenty five years in that it discriminates against amateurs at virtually every level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And my experience of eventing over the last 32 years as an amateur (OK, the first couple of those years I was a junior)is that I have NEVER felt discriminated against as an amateur.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:23 AM

Heather:

Your points on further accomodations to the amateur competitor is well taken. That argument, however, must wait for the time when and if these accomodations ever come to pass.

With regard to your comments about the timid rider and reducing the standards at each level, I doubt seriously if this will ever be an issue for several reasons. First, licensed officisals abnd course designers work to standards set for each level and are not concerend much with who is comeing to the comeptition. Novice is Novice, training is training. We do nto adjust the levels of difficulty based on whether we have different experience levels in each division.

Further, Eventing as a sport has certain chaarcteristics which are not changing. We gallop at immovable objects over varied terain. This attracts a certain type of person, probably not one that would be satisfied with the eight fences in the ring. A timid rider will probably think riding over cross-country fences is dangerous and will not enjoy the experience.

Lastly, I found your comments about the different levels of horsemanship requried in hunterland to be off-putting, if not a bit ignorant of the reality in that ring. I do not think you will find even one hunter trainer that thinks that they are operating to a lower standard of horsemanship than we are. In fact, if Louise Serio, Tom Wright, Scott hofstetter, Scott Stewart, Haven Schatt, and other are even remotely clued into this trhead, I would inite them to respond on their own behalf. But because they have better things to do I would simply say on their behalf that I find their ideas of horsemanship are equal to if not superior to ours. What they do they do very well and while they may have some problems within their sport (as do we), lack of expertise or respect for the animal is not one of them. They must, as you say, "be a good trainer, with a holistic view of a horse's development, an eye for talent and personality, and an encyclopedia of knowledge about care and management, including fitness." While their focus may be somewhat different in certain respects, I haven't found one successful hunter trainer that I would say is tricking his or her horses into winning. Indeed, we have much to learn from them.

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The other half seem to revolve around differences between the issues facing N/T amateurs and P/I/A amateurs. I, for one, would bristle much less at the idea of this rule if I thought it were for subk's or poltroon's benefit, rather than the masses of N/T amateurs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Me too. The more I think about it, the less I object to an amateur distinction at P and I. The "unintended consequences" I worry about are far more likely to be prevalent an BN, N and T.

Though I must admit I have not fully thought through the impact on grading points.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

EventerAJ

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>They must, as you say, "be a good trainer, with a holistic view of a horse's development, an eye for talent and personality, and an encyclopedia of knowledge about care and management, including fitness." While their focus may be somewhat different in certain respects, I haven't found one successful hunter trainer that I would say is tricking his or her horses into winning. Indeed, we have much to learn from them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I interpreted Heather's post (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) to mean that the AVERAGE eventer must somewhat be "a good trainer, with a holistic view..." etc. Not just the BNTs, but many (most?) of your HT competitors. That's not expecting every BN or N competitor to be an A Pony Clubber; but very *generally* eventers have a good range of horsemanship and are quite involved with their horse on an everyday basis (including feed, training, conditioning, etc). Judging only from my admittedly very limited hunter background, and what I read on the h/j forum, it seems that many in that sport are not as involved with their horse. THAT IS NOT SUCH A BAD THING, but it is a difference, and so I see Heather's point of the sport possibly changing in such a direction.

I have no problem with the Ammy distinction provided it doesn't interrupt anything already in existence in a negative fashion. But I do think there is a gray area between the silly USAE definition of "pro" and "ammy." I feel there is a sizeable number of eventing "non-pros" that could be affected by the rule. Maybe they won't.

Just a thought: can the Amateur divisions be INCORPORATED into the current divisions? At Rolex, the highest placed US Rider is awarded. Is there a separate division for US riders and foreign riders? Can Ammys compete against anyone (perhaps pros, God forbid, in an open division?), but receive separate (as well as normal) awards? Would such a "division within a division" be acceptable?

Could an event organizer be given the option, if entries support, to simultaneously award Ammys and the regular winners? Such as: Karen, David, Buck, etc take the top ribbons, but the 5 highest-placed ammys (as defined by whatever national rule) are likewise awarded top-5 ribbons and points? That way the ammy's could still compete against "the pros" but still get their points. Just an idea, and only a half-formulated one at that.

~AJ~
I've been there...that's why I'm here.

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
Heather:

Your points on further accomodations to the amateur competitor is well taken. That argument, however, must wait for the time when and if these accomodations ever come to pass.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a horse who leaves long and jumps flat is more likely to come to harm than one who waits for the fence and jumps with bascule, the time to start worrying isn't at the apex of the flight.

Instead, reputable people (amateur or prohttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) will work to improve the canter before the fence ever looms in front of them. Waiting for disaster, then reacting??? Not how I hope this sport to be governed...

Heather

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:49 AM

I don't disagree with your statment about hunters regarding those top trainers whose names you mentioned. But again, are we talking about amateurs, or pros?

Becuase I'm sorry, the hunter rider AA who sees her horse 2 days a week (except when showing) and who has "full care" including tacking, and grooming, is not as knowledgable as an eventing AA who sees her horse every day, has developed it to the level its at now, and makes every single decision regarding care, vet, farrier, schedule, fitness, etc. Please don't misunderstnad me--I'm not making a JUDGEMENT--not one is good and one is evil. I think the beauty of horses is that there are many ways and levels of enjoyment with them, and if that's what gives someone enjoyment, then I think that's GREAT. But there is no question that our current system and sport requires the average eventing AA to be more involved, and more knowledgable. (And yes, I'm talking averages here--of course there are AA hunter folk who are incredibly knowledgable, and evneting folk who are incredibly ignorant).

I am certain a top hunter trainer could teach me a lot about riding a better and more smooth show jumping round. And could teach my horse how to use himself better over a jump. However there is plenty about horse management I'm not interested in learning from them--because it wouldn't be apllicable and helpful to what I do with my horses. Again, not a judgement, not right or wrong, just useful and applicable, versus not.

But they are pros, and this is a thread about amateurs--so let's compare apples to apples instead of oranges. I would also say that the issue shouldn't be whether or not there are great trainers and horseman in the hunter ring, but rather the current state of that sport as a whole is something we want to emulate in our sport. For me the answer is no, and I've listed all the reasons why. (And I would also say, asking the why don't we want to hunterize eventing, and then bashing us for being ignorant snobs when we explain why seems a bit, um, adversarial--if I wanted to do hunters, I'd do hunters, I don't, I want to event, so why would I want to make them similar?).

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:57 AM

Heather:

You are assuming a whole lot about eventers that simply isn not borne out by facts. We nw have four very suiccessful amateurs in our barn that compete at Novice through preliminary on a regular basis. Many have extremely high profile jobs that take them away from practice for week on end. On average, they see their horse twice a week. They pay us to keep their horses fit and trained at home so that if they choose to event, they can do so safely. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

And furthermore, heather, you did say you thought the chanegs would "hunterize the sport" and I still do not underwstand that phrase. You want to tell us all what you meant when you asked a few hundred pages ago if we really "wanted all those people" coming into the sport? Who are "those people" and why do they threaten you or the sport of eventing as a whole?

Further, Jeanette- what disaster are your referring to. How would implementign amateur classes in eventing ruin the sport for ever and ever in any way that could not be reversed? I simply do not see what all the screaming is about and the fear level seem way opver blown. The sky is not falling Okay?

Boss Hoss

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:59 AM

Forgive me for not reading all 18 pages, but to respond to the topic directly..NO!

Define "Amateur"? Mary Alice Malone of Iron Spring Farm is an "Amateur" and competes as one..why I use her as an example. Do you want a Dutch Stallion like a Roemer in your training level Amateur Owner eventing division? Now I don't want to discuss the specifics of this individual or the mentioned business, just trying to point out that there is a problem with the definition of "Amateur"...the same definition that makes me a "pro".

There should be two divisions in recognized competition...OPEN and RESTRICTED...based solely on the experience of horse AND rider combined. It shouldn't matter how you draw your income or who owns the horse..but on experience.

Until there is a "NEL" .. National Eventing League .. which would clearly define a "professional sport", the use of words like Pro & Amateur in eventing makes no sense. As long as we continue to "mix streams" for the sake of having a "league" at all..any divisional breakdowns should be based on experience. Experience in the sport is what makes one a pro..not because someone pays you to do something with a horse (yes its related-experience should earn you income, but people are snuckered everday by people hanging out shingles). If we had a licensing process (like Europe?) for professionals in eventing then maybe using an Amateur-Pro distinction would work.

I've had an interesting experience this year with this very same issue..I was thrown into "Amateur" divisions because according to the secretary "they didn't recognize my name as a pro" as opposed to checking any listing of card carrying Amateurs. I had to contact them and let them know that by the rules I'm no Amateur, but by experience in eventing I'm as green as they come (that doesn't matter, someone would have complained). In the dressage world, you don't get into an Amateur class without showing your card..can't remember if USDF or USAEq does the verification/issuing.

So I say the system is broke, and a better way of putting less experienced horses & riders into a RESTRICTED division is possible while maintaining the intent of what most people want with an "Amateur" classification.

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk : CBF (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com)

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:04 AM

Boss Hoss- With all due respect, you are really late to this thread and if you don't read all 18 pages and get tnhe issues, then you are not going to get very good responses here. Thsi crowd is way deep into the conversation, and not to block you out opr anything, but....it would help a lot if you would get up to speed.

tle

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
Heather:

You are assuming a whole lot about eventers that simply isn not borne out by facts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and packy, YOU'RE assuming that your example of 4 individuals in an area with the highest concentration of eventers in the country is the NORM! It's not. Please start seeing eventing in this country as more than just in Area II for a change.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Boss Hoss

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Me too. The more I think about it, the less I object to an amateur distinction at P and I. The "unintended consequences" I worry about are far more likely to be prevalent an BN, N and T<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have NEVER ridden Adavanced level, the first year you ride it you would qualify to ride in any RESTRICTED divisions according to the thoughts I presented above. It would apply on down the line of course..the first year you ride Prelim..you would qualfiy for the RESTRICTED division etc. The whole idea should be to put less qualified horse & riders into divisions of competition against other less qualified horse & riders.

How does one become inelligble for the RESTRICTED divisions at the level? We just have to decide upon the minimum experience required..is it the number of horses ridden at the level, the number of events at the level, the results of the events ridden (eg req. cleaned rounds), has the horse or rider competed at the international level at that level etc.

This seems a lot more definable and traceable than how one manages income and business arrangments...and we all know the eventing community would KNOW if you are qualified or not so in some ways it would police itself.

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk : CBF (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com)

Boss Hoss

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:12 AM

pgm..just defending my response to the question asked, if I'm repeating what someone else has suggested, then there's more support for it, if it hasn't been suggested, new food for thought.

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk : CBF (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com)

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:19 AM

Tle:

I'm not considering only Area 2 and you know it. (And why can't I use anecdotal evidence against your opinion?) That is why the proposal specifically isn't mandatory. That way, trends in each area can dictate whtehr or not the changes is taking into practice or not.

And Boss Hoss, I cannot tell you in how many ways your seemingly well reasoned idea fails to reflect how we lose skills with age, live, compete and practice riding. What you are saying is that even though you aren't an amateur you still ride too badly to compete against other professionals. Now that's an admissiona aginst interest if you ask me.

Boss Hoss

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Re: Minor Professional Activities
I see no reason that indviduals that engage in selling their services shouldn't be considered a professional, regardless of how much money they make elsewhere in another profession. We must draw the line somewhere. If someone is selling her services as an expert, then I would say that she is being treated quite fairly by the rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
by the USAEq rules I'm a "pro" because my "service" is starting horses, especially those started poorly or are remedial..does that mean I need to be in an OPEN division with Buck D at training level eventing? I'm not selling my services in eventing, but the USAEq rule doesn't care. That's why I say the rules are disfunctional..it doesn't put less experienced riders against less experienced riders.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>What you are saying is that even though you aren't an amateur you still ride too badly to compete against other professionals<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, what I'm saying is that regardless of the quality of my riding per say, it should be the experience that matters first and formost. If my proposed system were fined tuned then it would address the situation you are suggesting. If the proposal were to say, for instance, in order to be elligble for the RESTRICTED divisions you must "not have ridden 5 or more events at or above the level in the last 5 years" then it wouldn't matter the quality of my experience. Then if I'm a glutten for punishment and keep competing without having any quality in my results I would lose my elligibility for the RESTRICTED class.

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk : CBF (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com)

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:23 AM

Boss Hoss- that is because you are a professional, not an amateur. If your services are in eventing that is irrelevant. You are still professional somewhere and thats what matters for the distionction.

By the way, where is your survey young man? Inver got it back. And Tle - yours? Heather? Mr. Heather? anyone else- have received no surveys back. They do not take that long to compelte guys so lets get cracking. You want your views accounted for in the proposal- then fill em out- especially that one that says- "what are your major concners." So lets get on the stick people.

tle

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:29 AM

Would you like me to quote for you the email I got back when you did receive my survey, approximately 30 minutes after I posted to this thread that it was sent??? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

You tell people that they are assuming things that aren't true, but I'm sorry, I see the same thing for you. Use all the anecdotal evidence you want, but you already said this proposal was due in LARGE part to the goings on in Area II... so why are opinions regarding AAs in other areas (or by AAs in other areas) so hard to understand?

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Boss Hoss

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Boss Hoss- that is because you are a professional, not an amateur. If your services are in eventing that is irrelevant. You are still professional somewhere and thats what matters for the distionction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and that's why we're here having this discussion, because it doesn't address the intent of having divisions for less experienced riders. If we had separate leqgues for pros vs amateurs then we wouldn't need to separate based on experience..eventing mixes these streams.

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk : CBF (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com)

Ja Da Dee

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:34 AM

As I read this,the Rule Proposers are no longer concerned about the ability or skill level of the riders competing against each other, but creating additional divisions based on equine income only.

I just fail to see how this will help the sport. I fail to see how this will level the playing field.

What I do see is that there will be people who could be skilled at starting beginner eventers but won't so they won't loose their AA card. I see a sport that had (IMO) always been defined on SKILL and HORSEMANSHIP, redefined and towards being based on who makes money on horses at any level.

flutie

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:35 AM

"So if we take this sterotypical AA rider (a little afraid, not able (or in some cases willing) to put in a lot of time in AND out of the saddle, not able to be part of the preparation of the horse, etc. do we really think this person should be going cross country? Is this really a good decisionfor our sport--sending out people who aren't rpeapred to jump fixed obstacles? I realize BN is a far cry from ROlex, BUT there are safety issues there."

Sounds to me like the problem referenced here is not so much Ammy vis a vis Pro, but another separate issue - the perceived "dumbing down" of our sport. We had Training, then Pre Training, then Novice, then Beginner Novice, (about to be it's own division). What next? Ideally, eventers should come from the hunter/jumper, fox hunter ranks - be able to ride off the seat of their pants - but it's not the case anymore so levels of dificulty have been recreated for the entry level and quite possible unprepared rider. Is this dangerous? Probably - but it's where we're at.

Show hunters have done the same thing, but they function in a vastly more controlled environment. It's largely a financial issue. Hunters over X's. 2' hunters.2'6" hunters. 3' hunters. pre-green hunters, etc. etc. It's not a bad thing, just reality -and really has nothing to do with the issue presented here.

Flutie

deltawave

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:36 AM

Holy cr*p, does anyone else get the impression from this thread that there is WAAAAAY more going on with this discussion than is evident to the "average" eventer? All of these thinly veiled hints at "behind the scenes" goings on makes me wonder what the real agenda is here. Can I quote chapter and verse? No. Just a gut-level impression.

Flutie, this just isn't the world we knew 20 years ago...foxhunting is SO RARE anymore (especially away from the East Coast, where I grew up hunting) and kids just don't come up through those ranks anymore. Do we want people to start, and fall in love with, eventing? If the answer is yes, we're going to have to accept people from non-traditional backgrounds: people that didn't have the luck to grow up riding bareback across country. People who learned as adults at up-down-up-down lesson barns. People transplanting from H/J-land. I say if lower levels allow people like that to come in in a "nontraditional" intro to eventing, then this is A GOOD THING. It's not dumbing down the sport, it's EVOLUTION. We all know what happened to the dinosaurs... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

---------------------------------------------
"If you think your hairstyle is more important than your brain, you're probably right." Wear a helmet!
Pictures! (http://www.deltawave.homestead.com/photos2.html)
Helmet Nazi, Bah Humbug, Mares Rule, Breed Your Own and Michigan cliques!

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:38 AM

Tle: My apologies- you did send me the survey - Mea Culpa.

Boss Hoss:

Thank god you said that that way- the intent isn't to create divisions for less experienced riders. The intent is to create divisions for amateurs,. There is, as the 18 pages preceding indatce, a difference.

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:42 AM

Ja Dee Dee: Dumbing down the divisions and levels, where did you get that idea? Novice isn't going to get lower, Trainging won't be any easier. Preliminary won't go slower. The skill required to win are not going away or getting any easier. We are simply saying that if you don't make money in the horse wiorld, you MAY, but don't have to, compete in this division over here with other people like you.

And some people think that this is a terrible idea.

LisaB

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:47 AM

Packy, about the hunter land. I have witnessed firsthand down at Wellington some appalling behaviour of the riders. They don't know how to tack up a horse, brush a horse or even give thier 'beloved' horse a treat. These are the amatuers that train at exclusive a-rated barns. While the trainer may be well-versed as well as the help, these riders don't know squat. I never ever want to see that in eventing, ever.
And also, when have you ever witnessed a horse being given uppers in the evening to keep them awake all night so they are 'calm' in their class during the day in eventing? Never. Yep, witnessed that firsthand as well.
I don't even want to get near that world with a ten foot friggin' pole. That's why I'm opposed to the amatuer ruling. And I'm amatuer floundering around against the likes of David and Phillip(when I'm lucky). I could give a rat's butt about getting a higher placing.
And you say that there's no extra cost? Well, what about hidden costs? What about the organizer who has to spend an extra x-hours to verify amateur cards? That's just the first thing I thought of. And then the extra db space we are taking up on this board? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:49 AM

Boss Hoss- responses to the survey indicate that those individuals that support amateur classes indicate they would draw the line at who is and is not an amateur right above their level. Then those that would not support the proposal are generally supporting experienced or skills based divisions that put them into the lower category. There are also some people who are against the divisions because they want everyone to comete as equals - no experienced based or amateur based classes at all. I find this trend interestingly predictable.

Heather

Nov. 17, 2003, 09:58 AM

For the record, Mr, Heather has stated that the last few questions on the survey are "dealing with issues on the complication level of bible interpretation" so yes, he is still working on it. I have mine done, and will send it on--was waiting to do both together, but I won't wait any longer.

pgm, I know you've had a lot of expereince riding and competing in the hunter jumper realm, and find a lot to enjoy in that world. That is truly great. I don't, and I don't find a lot in that world that I wish to see emulated in my sport. Not because they are wrong, bad, or evil, but because it's not what I am interested in as a sport. If I was interested in those things, then I would go and DO those sports. I'm not interested in them, so I event.

And I would add, per BosHoss's posts and your response, perhaps you have failed to see, in 18 pages, that the opinion of many of the people represented on this board is that we are more concerend about riding against people of similar expereince that against people with non-horse professions.

What's the difference between riding against Buck Davidson and, say, Ab Lufkin? They are both CCI**** riders with international expereince. If anything, I'd say Ab would be the tougher competitor, because her horse is probaly nicer than Buck's http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Restricted, horse, rider, open, etc. keeps both of them out of a newbie or lower level riders dvision. Amateur divisions keep only one of them out.

Ja Da Dee

Nov. 17, 2003, 10:07 AM

You misunderstood me, I don't think this will dumb down the sport.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Proposers are no longer concerned about the ability or skill level of the riders competing against each other, but creating additional divisions based on equine income only.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I intended you to read was that a level playing field based on skill level is apparently no longer important. When I compete my green horse at our low low low level, I want to compete against people/horses with a similar skill/experience level. I could care less if they were pros at western pleasure. I understand that the restricted division will still be an option so you don't need to reiterate that this is an OPTIONAL division. I do fear that organizers will opt for the AA and we will loose the restricted div. I think this proposal could change what was valued in a competitor and that would make me sad.

**I do see some merit for adding a way to acknowledge upper level riders who may fall under the AA designation.

tractor queen

Nov. 17, 2003, 10:13 AM

Seems to me the problems stem mainly from an inconsistency in offering divisions. For my dressage shows, I know that until third level I will have an AA class at every level and maybe a maiden class as well. For H/J the same divisions/levels are also offered consistently at each show. This makes offering year end awards much easier. For eventing however, it is entirely up to the organizers which open/restricted divisions they offer and how they will split them if needed.

Consistency should be applied so that someone with a young horse can compete against others with young horses. Riders with less experience can compete against others with less experience, and that AA's who don't want to ride against their trainers/Olympians don't have too. While at the same time allowing those who prefer to "ride with the big boys" the chance (something we don't see much of at the dressage shows by the way)....something for everyone...I don't see what the big fuss is about as far as not offering divisions if they don't fill...they don't combine the classes at dressage shows because they don't fill...in fact once the split was offered they started filling more of the classes...which I think is what PGM is hinting at. The cost to the organizer is only extra sets of ribbons, which is frankly immaterial. It also offers the opportunity to have more classes/region/national awards to have sponsors for....

The only negative impact I can see is on how points are calculated now because someone in a smaller/ larger area could have an advantage/disadvantage (but that also happens now). For that I would like to see a cumulative point system based on the numbers of riders in the division, not solely on placing. Whereby a horse/rider team earns a point for finishing and another point for each rider they place above. So someone who is first out of twenty gets (substantially) more points than someone who is first out of three riders...or someone who is eighth out of twenty gets the same number of points as someone who is first out of twelve. More people could earn points; there would be more year end award categories and a logical progression. "Points chasing" can be addressed by having final standings only consider the top three total poinst of each horse/riders placings...people who go to the larger events would have an incentive.

USEA originally only offered levels at prelim and above, but as the membership changed they began to offer the lower levels, the membership now wants the opportunity for national level recognition for what they do well (what's wrong with that).

Ribbons don't mean a thing to me, but having a goal that is attainable does. As someone who has ridden thru intermediate and is now starting over with a greenie, there is absolutely no reason for me spend $300 to go around novice recognized when I can school the same course for $30, or go to a schooling show for $150 both of which give my greenie the experience I am looking for. The current system is structured to culminate for a season in a three day event. That is not a practical goal for many AA's, so in an attempt to give us a goal they created the National Championships...are we just going to have one big open division??? How will all the people qualify? What will the divisions be? Will they compete in "open" (or organizer's discretion divisions) the whole year and then get put into applicable divsions only at the end? We need to set up a structure so that the largest cross section of the eventing community is motivated to take part...there are flaws and inequities with any scenario, but right now there is absolutely nothing that motivates me to give up my vacation days (since there is no three day for a few more years with my baby http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

[This message was edited by tractor queen on Nov. 17, 2003 at 01:26 PM.]

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 10:26 AM

Boss Hoss

Nov. 17, 2003, 10:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>We are simply saying that if you don't make money in the horse wiorld, you MAY, but don't have to, compete in this division over here with other people like you.
And some people think that this is a terrible idea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we need to re-evaluate the premise of any classification of divisions in this sport. Eventing is a sport with clearly defined levels that attempt to show a progressive requirement of skill and horsemanship in order to be successful. When a competition is held, it is a competition based on the skillset at the level of the horse & rider..for now we'll refer to the pair as the "competitor". So we start with a single division at the level at an event. Let us say we have 50 "competitors" at level X for argument sake.

What's wrong with having 50 competitors in a single division? Ribbons!!..everyone wants to feel rewarded for their demonstrated skillset. So we break this into 2 divisions of 25 competitors so instead of only 8 people being pinned with a ribbon, we now have 16 people being "rewarded". I'm sure there are MANY people out their who feel very rewarded by their accomplishments regardless of the ribbon color, but people still want to be rewarded so now we look to see how we can make more divisions.

Age..ok, I can see that one..Adults vs Children, that seems fair. So now we have three divisions in our competition, 10 Jrs, 20 Srs-DivA, 20 Srs-DivB. Now that means we hand out 24 ribbons to 50 competitiors.

But wait...someone's not happy because they know that 10 competitors in their Sr-Div have way more experience than them..so they won't get a ribbon no matter what. This is what is driving this discussion. Ask the question first..SHOULD it be broken down any further? If 50% of the competitors are going to be "rewarded" already, why exactly are we breaking this down any further?

So now how to further break down the divisions? Basing it on services rendered in the horse world is a faulty premise, IMO. The "obvious" step from here, IMO, is to base any further break outs by experience...hence the RESTRICTED division for the competitor based on VERIFYABLE competition results. Not how some one cleverly handles their income..if {insert big name here who gives clinics, campaigns client horses etc} is an "Amatuer" then I'm the king of England!

So now out of our 40 Sr competitors, we have 10 that have never ridden ABOVE level X..so now our level X competiton has 4 divisions, 10 in Jr, 10 in Sr-RESTRICTED, 15 in Sr-DivA & 15 in Sr-DivB..that's 32 out of 50 competitors getting a ribbon..at some point you have to ask..why exactly do we call this a competition?

In all of this, the heights of the fences weren't lowered, the speeds weren't decreased, nothing about "eventing" was changed. Nothing is being dumbed down...maybe if we just went back to having one BIG division the sport would get its importance back?

In a world that made sense, MEN would ride SideSaddle!

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk : CBF (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com)

tractor queen

Nov. 17, 2003, 10:32 AM

Janet - I certainly don't think that is the intent of the AA proposal. With the restricted divisions now, I had to compete in open my first time out with babie....how is this any fairer???

The proposal is to add a new division, not take any away...

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 10:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tractor queen:
Janet - I cetainly don't think that the intent of the AA proposal. With the restricted divisions now, I had to compete in open my first time out with babie....how is this any fairer???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I quite agree that it isn't the INTENT.

I have no problems at all wtih the INTENT.

My concerns are with the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, especially for those riders that fall in the "purgatory" (as someone else referred to it) between "808 amateur" and "professional".

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

tractor queen

Nov. 17, 2003, 10:39 AM

Boss Hoss - the problem in your scenario is that BNR would get their horses split into both divsions - in fact in Area III the organizer most likely wouldn't offer restricted, but would make a third open, so the prof with three horses, could get three chances to make all of his customers happy!!!!

tractor queen

Nov. 17, 2003, 10:46 AM

Janet- so your only against an AA division if it replaces the restricted division? I am sure you can appreciate it is hard to argue against "unintended consequences" that may or may not come to fruition, but are certainly correctable in the future...

tle

Nov. 17, 2003, 10:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I don't see what the big fuss is about as far as not offering divisions if they don't fill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've posted scores for dressage divisions on a large farm's website that had 2 entries in it. Now, while these DQ's will get year end points for that division, an eventer will not. Why? Because divisions don't count unless there are at least 5 starters in it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>people who go to the larger events would have an incentive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what you're proposing COULD have a very definite NEGATIVE impact on teh smaller events. We're already having that problem in my area -- people opting to go to the large events while the smaller events have problems getting even a minimum number of attendees... and as a result we've lost 2 events so far adn I know another one is contemplating not running. These are not inferior quality events we're talking about. but the fact that the large event has the facilities to offer ammenities that the small events just can't afford to do if they want to stay financially compatable. I, for one, don't want any more "incentive" to go the way of the large events or sooner or later, that's all we're going to have!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The current system is structured to culminate for a season in a three day event. That is not a practical goal for many AA's, so in an attempt to give us a goal they created the National Championships<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's not forget that A) the vast majority of competitors, let alone AAs, are at teh lower levels... so the year end goal of a 3-day isn't not only practical but impossible as such a thing doesn't exist... so throwing it in the mix is apples/oranges thing... and B) the National Championships is a good idea, but given the geography of National and the location of the Championships, do you *really* think it will actually be a best of the best deal? I just don't see your average AA from California taking 10 days to drive to SC to compete.

I also agree with Janet... if AA replaces the Restricted divisions, I won't like it even more than I don't like it now. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Janet- so your only against an AA division if it replaces the restricted division? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. Restricted, "Regular", Horse, Rider.

And, to the extent that listing it explicitly in the rules ENCOURAGES organizers to use amateur instead of the others listed above.

Particularly since pgm seems to be promoting not just defining amateur consistently, but encouraging the use of amateur INSTEAD OF Restricted, "Regular", Horse, Rider.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Boss Hoss

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Boss Hoss - the problem in your scenario is that BNR would get their horses split into both divsions <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

remember I said I didn't read all 18 pages yet..what I'm suggesting refers to BN as level x and then the restricted division is what you call BNR...although I didn't muddy the water in my scenario by saying BNR or BNH and considered the "competitior" as the horse/rider unit.

I'll have to get upto speed on the 18 pages, however now I have to go ride my herd.

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk : CBF (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com)

canterlope

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I've posted scores for dressage divisions on a large farm's website that had 2 entries in it. Now, while these DQ's will get year end points for that division, an eventer will not. Why? Because divisions don't count unless there are at least 5 starters in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>tle, you have posted this before, but this is not a true statement. Placings in divisions with less than five starters do count towards a rider's year end point standing. What they don't count for is as a qualifying score for a championship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They say cats have nine lives. They would settle for one good one. Adopt a cat (or dog) today.

canterlope

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> These are not inferior quality events we're talking about. but the fact that the large event has the facilities to offer ammenities that the small events just can't afford to do if they want to stay financially compatable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, imagine that happening in a free market economy. Who would have thunk that event organizers would be forced to deal with competition from other events, just like every other industry in our country, save a few that are supported by trade restrictions and government subsidies? Geesh, what is this world coming to!?! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They say cats have nine lives. They would settle for one good one. Adopt a cat (or dog) today.

poltroon

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
I still disagree that experientially based divisions are the best characteristic to divide the basic classes. They are not working, have bnote worked in the past, do not get at the heart of how we define ourselves and our individual participation within the sport.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I keep seeing this claim, but I really don't understand why they don't work. I understand, why, if organizers only offer Open they don't work. But I think the classifications by experience DO work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
With all due respect, I think you are confusing experience with skill. Skill sets are defined by the levels in which we compete. Novice is easy, Intermediate is much harder. As an example, as professional as I am, can qualify for regular novice. And yet my skills are way beyond most novice competitors. SO the cclassifications don't work.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the current "2 years" may not work. Maybe it should be 5 years, or 10 years. Maybe we should add that you may never have competed two levels above the level. So if you've been Prelim or higher, you must now always compete Open at Novice level. I have no problem with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You seem to be saying that if its your very first event ever, it is only relevant that you have never done it before. So you are saying that the entire Olympic Show jumping team, even though they are Professionals in every sense of the word, skilled, and making money at it...should be able to event at restricted or Regular divisions simply because they come from another discipline? I simply do not see how that would be fair either. Anyone who thinks that Chriss Kappler or Mark Leone wouldn't rub everyone's noses into the dirt at a Novice, training or preliminaryevent hasn't really watched these guys ride. And for the record, they have all ridden cross-country before. Sayintg that its okay for them to compete in the regular division or experienced based restricted divisions does not reflect who they are and what they do within the horse world. Plain and simple.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For their first time, I'd be honored to join them in a Restricted division (if I qualified). But I expect someone like that would either quickly move up to higher levels or would not ride in the sport regularly. They don't have the time to play at the low levels.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
This is not a reasonable justification to oppose this rule and deny amateurs a venue of their own. If your less experienced friend wants to teach and ride and train horses for a living, then she is a professional.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not all of the "professionals" do it "for a living."

Again, the problem I see is less that those people who choose to teach and train will be forced to ride in Open - but that many who are in fact the most skilled people in their local area will choose not to teach and train in order to maintain their amateur status. In many cases, I know this is a good thing http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , but in places where eventers are few and far between, the informal mentoring that takes place between an upper level rider and a youngster is often very beneficial to our sport. This kind of mentoring often skirts the line of the amateur/pro rule.

tractor queen

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>so the year end goal of a 3-day isn't not only practical but impossible as such a thing doesn't exist... so throwing it in the mix is apples/oranges thing... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully meant that until said greenie was ready for a CCI*, not that I was bemoaning no three day at novice http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif...you can call me an apple/orange thing if you wish, I think it's silly to bemoan change while hiding behind "unintended consequences". If you can still compete in your same division as now, what has changed for you?
I won't debate the efficacy of a "national championship" but by it's very definition it can only be in one geographic location at a time. It has to start somewhere and I fully invision that regional finals, and a more equitable representation of qualified east and west coast competitors will be forthcoming. Along with the chance for drawing sponsorship to a sport which is severely trailing it's counterparts. First we have to find the qualified pairs, then we can worry about getting them all in one place. Rome wasn't built in a day.

The sport will continue to grow in ways that it's membership demands.

I don't know where on the last 19 pages anybody said USEA was in any way doing away with restricted...anyone can argue "unintended consequences" at anytime, about any change. What changes would you make to the proposal to better suit the needs of the membership? Obviously, some significant portion of the membership is dissatisfied, otherwise there would be no proposal to begin with. Should we just stick our heads in the sand, or look for ways to continue to grow our sport?

PS...I sincerely doubt that the smaller events are losing entries to larger ones for any other reason than competitive market forces at work...especially in a tight economy...when people are having to be more selective about where they spend their money. The more entries an event has, the more it has a chance of breaking even and drawing sponsorship...

As far as who is an amateur and who isn't, I don't see the point of reinventing the wheel here either, we have a definition that every other equestrian sport has already adopted...is eventing always going to be the "last" to evolve and the first to go when it comes to cutting resources? A strong sport is a popular sport...

Badger

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ja Da Dee:

What I intended you to read was that a level playing field based on skill level is apparently no longer important. When I compete my green horse at our low low low level, I want to compete against people/horses with a similar skill/experience level. I could care less if they were pros at western pleasure. I understand that the restricted division will still be an option so you don't need to reiterate that this is an OPTIONAL division. I do fear that organizers will opt for the AA and we will loose the restricted div.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement clarified what part of my hang up is, and it may or may not be a misconception on my part. I have been reading this thread thinking the proposal was going to change offerings from "Open" and "Restricted" to "Open and "Amateur." Now I am wondering if that was a misconception on my part, and that really the intention of the proposal is that there will still be "Restricted" and for those who do not qualify for the "Restricted" division (and those rules would not change, unless exerienced-based Restricted divisions were added to the upper levels) then there would be two other divisions "Pro" and "Amateur" (perhaps these divisions could be more clearly lableled "Open Pro" and "Open Am" and "Restricted").

Is this interpretation correct?

If so, I am far less alarmed by the thought of an "Amateur" division as a way to divide up the current "Open" division between Pros and Ams, so long as we don't lose our experience-based restricted divisions.

If this is the case, everyone, Pro or Am, would be able to compete in the Restricted division until their experience in eventing opted them out of the Restricted Division. Then, and only then, would the income source divisions of Pro or Amateur kick in to divide the Open competitors into division.

Frankly, if that's the scenario, simply as a way to divide the current open division between Pro and Am for people competing above their experience level, then I have no problem with it at all. (I don't think any definition of "Amateur" can ever do what the majority wants it to accomplish, but I won't go down that road here.)

I think it WILL hurt the sport of eventing if novice Amateurs new to the sport are lumped with Amateurs with tons of upper level experience (i.e. Ab and company), just because all are Amateurs.

poltroon

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
Janet-

We are going to have to agree to disagree. My experience of eventing over the last twenty five years in that it discriminates against amateurs at virtually every level. You think that we should separate based on expwer4ience. I don't. It is no use trying to convince each other because clearyl neither of us is going to change our opinion. so lets leave the discussion to others who might actually bring something new to the disdcussion. I still want to hear what it is about the hunter and jumper ring that people are so afraid of. That is intriguing to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an amateur, I have not felt discriminated against. Perhaps this is a regional difference - here the amateurs vastly outnumber the top skilled pros.

The big problem with the hunter and jumper divisions is that they have correlated Amateur status with types and heights of classes.

In the eventing case, we are talking about an Amateur vs an Open division, but run across the same course, with the same dressage test, and the same judges, with jumps the same height, etc. Thus, the division affects whether you get a prize, but not what your score will be or what you have to do.

In hunters and jumpers, there are no classes for non-pro non-amateurs to ride in. If you have a nice experienced 3' or even 3'6" horse, the only classes you are competent to ride in are restricted to amateurs and juniors. (Warm-up type classes don't count.) IMHO, this is a big cause of THEIR problems with the amateur rule, because people can't just ride against the pros - they don't have a 4' horse to ride.

It'd be like saying that if you'd given someone an up/down lesson, you couldn't compete below Intermediate.

I know this is NOT what you are proposing. But, IMHO this is the source of the contortions in the hunter/jumper world. I note that I do not see the same issues in dressage, which has a style more like you propose.

BTW: given that Art 808 specifically says it applies to any class labeled "amateur" held under USA Eq rules, I'm suprised by the contention that we don't have a legal definition of amateur within eventing. But that's just a minor point.

canterlope

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Is this interpretation correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES, Badger! By George, I think you've got it. The amateur division is not intended to replace either of the two classifications (three if you count JR/YR) we currently offer. It is an additional classification that we hope to add to address the concerns that have been voiced by many of our adult amateur members.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They say cats have nine lives. They would settle for one good one. Adopt a cat (or dog) today.

tle

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by canterlope:
tle, you have posted this before, but this is not a true statement. Placings in divisions with less than five starters do count towards a rider's year end point standing. What they don't count for is as a qualifying score for a championship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I can ride in a division of say 2 and still get 5 points? COOL! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

either way, if the AA division creates splits so people can't qualify from them, is that really HELPING people??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>would have thunk that event organizers would be forced to deal with competition from other events, just like every other industry in our country, save a few that are supported by trade restrictions and government subsidies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mock all you want, but it obviously isn't happening in your backyard. And there's more at work here than free market. I could give you teh names of many organizers who are upset that new events at this large venue were even approved given the fact that there are already so many there. I realize that you're an excellent area chairman (no sarcasm there, I'm sure you do an outstanding job and i'd love to have you in this area), but you can't tell me that everyone is as dedicated and knowledgible as you are... thus when it comes to sanctioning new events, I'm not sure you can tell me that there could *never* be problems for which "free market" is not a good excuse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The sport will continue to grow in ways that it's membership demands. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I see many of the membership here who aren't quite convinced that this change is what THEY want to see. What I do see mentioned is that the Area II/III membership is asking for this change -- and am wondering if in a couple years we will be asking why just as we are now asking why the old Open/Horse/Rider/Restricted division splits are gone (ala "the squeeky few").

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> sincerely doubt that the smaller events are losing entries to larger ones for any other reason than competitive market forces at work...especially in a tight economy...when people are having to be more selective about where they spend their money. The more entries an event has, the more it has a chance of breaking even and drawing sponsorship...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See my point to canterlope above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>is eventing always going to be the "last" to evolve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does our sport have to "evolve" the same way as others? Are we considered "slow" on the evolutionary chain because we limit the amount of drugs in a horse's system for competition? Are we "slow" because we limit to the competitor as the only person to ride the horse during the event? Evolution comes in many various ways... why must we always follow others when ours is DIFFERENT sport (not to say good or bad, just different).

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 11:59 AM

Badger said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If so, I am far less alarmed by the thought of an "Amateur" division as a way to divide up the current "Open" division between Pros and Ams, so long as we don't lose our experience-based restricted divisions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll second that.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

poltroon

Nov. 17, 2003, 12:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by canterlope:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Is this interpretation correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES, Badger! By George, I think you've got it. The amateur division is not intended to replace either of the two classifications (three if you count JR/YR) we currently offer. It is an additional classification that we hope to add to address the concerns that have been voiced by many of our adult amateur members.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, so Olivia Organizer offers Regular, Amateur, and Open divisions.

In practice, at the low levels most of the people eligible for Amateur will also be eligible for Regular. So people will choose one or the other. It will take a couple of years for it to shake out as people decide which division they prefer.

What we fear is that the first time it is offered, 20 competitors will choose Amateur, 8 will choose Regular, and 12 will choose open... and based on that one experience, Olivia will next time offer only Amateur/Open. And the other organizers will look at her experience and follow suit. When no one offers the Regular division, it will be dropped from the rule book.

If this happens over a long period, you can argue that the "market has spoken" - but in my experience the people who believe they are interpreting the wishes of their consumers often act on too little data. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RAyers

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:01 PM

I must say, I have significant concerns about the "survey" being distributed. It is apparent that there is no quantitave (read statistal validity) value. What is it true purpose of the "survey?" Will it used to judge people's perception of the rule proposal? Their technical knowledge (if so doesn't this AUTOMATICALLY exclude a group of people that are being asked for opinions on this rule as most "amateurs" are not super knowledgable about the rules)?

I remember seeing this before and having the same qualms. I guess it is more an opinion poll than true survey.

Reed

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:03 PM

Someone up top there said something about how I keep claiming that the rules do not reflect the most basic way we divide our selves as competitors.

Let me explain.

When devising a system for classification specifications, we need to work from the most general separations, the broadest dividers, to the more specific. Currently, whether you agree with the definition or not offered by rule 808, competitors who do not qualify as junior or young rider will think of themselves in terms of amateur versus professional before they talk about theselves as good or bad, experienced or inexperienced. The surveys returned to me bear this out and they uniformly cite income source (what they do in their professional life) as the primary characteristic that defines them and their participation. The disagreement comes when people start saying "Well she or he doesn't ride well enough to achieve a professional standard so they should be considered an amateur even though they do not really qualify." This is the main criticism with Rule 808.

On the other hand, the respondents on the survey that support experiential classifications (restricted divisions based on time limited experience)while they share this one common idea that experience matters, they cannot agree on how muuch it matters or where we should draw the line. Further, these folks tend to equate experience with skill and see the inexperienced riders ass less skilled and therefore in need of their own divisions. We already have separated the skill classes into 6 distinct categories that are quite specific (BN through Advanced.) Wheras competitiors break down into three general categories (Age, amateur and professional) there are many more classifications when one considers that experience at each level will or will not detemrin e elligibility. That is, as a classification, experience is not as general a divider as amateur status.

At no time have I argued that experience is an invalid way of separating individuals for comeptitive purposes. Rather, I say that amateur v professional should be first, and then we can break into restrictions based on experience. Knowing, however, that this is a controversial subject, we did not reccomend tohe removal of regular divisions. As such, we are not arguing for the removel of the regular or restricted divisions. We are arguing that amateur classes should be a permissibile classification and have suggested experientially based restrictions to these classes that attempt to keep competitors for the most part, equally situated.

In some ways, these restrictions therefore say they larger distinction is whetehr you are amateur, the smaller one is how experienced you are. If you have too much experience with a particular horse, then you are no longer qualified for lower level amateur classes.

The proposal, seen in this light really does mix the two concepts fairly well.

But, then, you would have to buyinto the idea that an amateur is someone who does not earn money in the horse industry and adheres to Rule 808.

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:10 PM

Reed:

The survey is not a scientific one if you are worried about that. It is merely to tests where education about rules was needed (sectionI) where pre-formed opinions were headed (Section II) and what the overall concerns were (setion III). It is out there not to tell us about demographics or such, but to prepare committee members for discussion in Boston. Nothing more. And as unsscientific as it is, it is still interesting that, for excample 60% of respondents think that the USEA enforces and makes the rules. It Doesn't. The USAEQ does that. This may seem like a stupid thing to ask, but when considering if the rule change will have a monetary effect on the USEA, it shouldn't surprise anyone to know that 60% thought it would. The point is, with the USAEQ already set up to enforce this rule that is already in place, no additional funds will be incured. So from the start, we know that about 60% of the room in Boston won't know this.

tle

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Currently, whether you agree with the definition or not offered by rule 808, competitors who do not qualify as junior or young rider will think of themselves in terms of amateur versus professional before they talk about theselves as good or bad, experienced or inexperienced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps because this is A) an EASIER concept to get across to a multitude of people than one's experience level (my coworkers can vaguely relate to "I'm an amateur in my sport" when I show them pictures vs. "I've competed at Training 7 times with varied success")... and B) because as I noted way back in this discussion, the basis for Ammy definition (Rule 808) **IS** there and people **DO** go by it despite the fact that you have claimed that we have currently no definitive definition of Amateur.

Yes, I tell people I'm an amateur, but I think experience splits should come before Amateur-Pro splits (although not entirely opposed to an experience split *followed* by an Ammy one ... ie the previously mentioned Open Ammy or Restricted Ammy divisions).

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

NMS

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:14 PM

I'm confused. Let's play out this scenario. I'm a USAE and USAEq member with amateur status (shows on my card). I'm entering my horse Novice, and it's his second event at this level. (I'll be kind here and not get into the verbage in question on the entry form...you know, the double negative). I've evented through Prelim but that was nearly 15 years ago.

What are we?

Novice horse ---yes
Novice rider ---technically yes, but I would not enter this division
Novice Amateur --yes
Open Novice --yes

So here is my confusion, do we now designate by skill or status?

I don't think doing both is clear enough.

Nancy

www.canterohio.org (http://www.canterohio.org)

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The surveys returned to me bear this out and they uniformly cite income source (what they do in their professional life) as the primary characteristic that defines them and their participation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know what your definition of "uniformly" is. I would read it as synonymous with "unanimously" which is ceratinly not the case here.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>This may seem like a stupid thing to ask, but when considering if the rule change will have a monetary effect on the USEA, it shouldn't surprise anyone to know that 60% thought it would. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not a fair question. We (I at least) had to asnwer the survey BEFORE seeing the explicit proposal. No way I could tell if it would have an economic effect without seeing the actual proposal.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

RAyers

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:20 PM

pgm,

This is where the scientist in me kicks in. The assumption that 60% of the people in a room will not know something assumes that the survey actually was answered by a normal population representing the eventing population. I suspect that those responding to the survey are actually more active/interested in the governance of the eventing world so your 60% probably UNDERESTIMATES the true nature of understanding. I bet the true level is closer to 80-90% if one were survey the total USEA membership. Thus, a true measurement of understanding about the situation can not be garnered. I would just warn to not draw absolutes about the eventing constituency from this.

By the way, now that I understand the motivation and pupose behind the questions, I will fill it out and send it along.

Reed

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The assumption that 60% of the people in a room will not know something assumes that the survey actually was answered by a normal population representing the eventing population. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AND that the population who attend the "amateur" meeting at the national meeting are also a normal representation of that same eventing population. Probably an even less valid assumption.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:28 PM

Janet:

KNowing that the USEA was or was not the [primary rule making body was not dependant on seeing the proposal. Nor was the questions that asked you to agree or disagree with whether enforcing the new amateur rule would over burden the USEA. The fact that the USEA is not the rule making and enforcing body is the only factior we are testing here. How could a new rule overburden the USEA when it does deal witht he rules? It wouldn't or would not have to. We wanted to see how many people would put that together and be able to grasp, wothout being told, that the rules wouldn't have to be costly.

And Reed- thanks for the heads up. I agree nmmore like 80%!

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:30 PM

Janet are you the "nattering nabob of negativism" here or what?

Ten points to whomever gets the quote source first!

P http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:35 PM

Safire/Agnew

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:35 PM

NMS- you would qualify for NH oer NR only if the organizer specificed what the requirements were to enter that division. You would be elligible for the Regular or Open or Amateur divisions. All at your option and all depending on what the organizer offered.

P

tle

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:36 PM

Does this mean that my survey will count even if I don't resend that first section... since I corrected your comments several times earlier when you said (on purpose or not) USEA instead of USAEq -- obviously I know the difference.

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:38 PM

Janet Sh0ots -----and scores!

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:41 PM

tle:

I will of course consider your responses as you took the tinme to fill it out. I was somewhat peeved that you didn't answer the first parts, hwoever and referred me to the rule book when I specifically wrote that we wanted to know what you thought was true without looking at the rule book. At what point have I used USEA when I meant USAEQ and when did you "Correct" me. I cannot think of enything you've done in this entrie debate except disagree with me. (Which, of course, is your right and privilege.)

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
Janet:

KNowing that the USEA was or was not the [primary rule making body was not dependant on seeing the proposal. Nor was the questions that asked you to agree or disagree with whether enforcing the new amateur rule would over burden the USEA. The fact that the USEA is not the rule making and enforcing body is the only factior we are testing here. How could a new rule overburden the USEA when it does deal witht he rules? It wouldn't or would not have to. We wanted to see how many people would put that together and be able to grasp, wothout being told, that the rules wouldn't have to be costly.

And Reed- thanks for the heads up. I agree nmmore like 80%!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, I shoud have been clearer in what I quoted. I was referring to the costs part. I am well aware that the USAEq makes the rules. I am also well aware that the USAEq believes in "fee for service".

For instance the drug rules are, and always have been, USAEq rules. But ENFORCING them at N and T HAS had an economic impact, on competitors, if not on the USEA itself.

In fact, until the proposal has the blessing of the USAEq as well as the USEA, I would not be AT ALL surprised if something similar happens here. For instance, they currently charge $30 for an amateur card if you are not an a USAEq member. I would not be at all surprised if they wanted a similar fee for a "USEA amateur 'certification'."

Not saying there WILL be an economic impact, but not yet 100% convinced that there won't.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
Janet Sh0ots -----and scores!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And considering who they were referring to, I consider it a complement.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:49 PM

Janet:

As you may knopw, I also serve on the Events comittee and we will not be putting this propsoal forward unless it comes without costs to the competitors.

As for the USAEQ charging, yes there are and always have been fees associated with hearings. Thats to be expected. But there will be no fee similar to the drug testing fee if I have anything to say about it!

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:50 PM

Glad to hear it. But I hope you understand my skepticism when asked the question in advance.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:55 PM

Sure do. Same skepticism here.

NMS

Nov. 17, 2003, 01:56 PM

Well, dang, sounds like the USEA is trying to recognize where the most of its membership is based and offering something specifically for them.

As long as it's at the discretion of the organizers then I say gallop on. It's an option, as I read it.

Some will take it, some will not. I think an incentive would help.

Nancy

www.canterohio.org (http://www.canterohio.org)

Martie

Nov. 17, 2003, 02:17 PM

I just can't resist jumping into a thread that is currently 20 pages long!

These thoughts come from me as an organizer and secretary.

I secretary a number of dressage shows and breed shows as well as this eventing stuff. Some of them simply offer the various classes with all designations (O, AA, Jr/YR). It is very nice to secretary/schedule these shows because if the entries warrant, I can split them up - and I can do so in a number of ways. A training 1 with 30 riders - well, if there's 10 Jr/YRs, they get their own class. If there's 20 AAs, they get their own class - and so on. If entries are small, everybody stays together. I do this for my HTs as well - I just don't have the AA designation (at the moment) to do that split.

So - that's the good part as I see it.

Now, the problems. First and foremost is the amateur declaration. Again, in dressage & breed shows, everybody has to be a USAEq member and has to show their card - no Ammy status, no Ammy class. Pretty simple (you'd think - as it is, I find myself explaining this at least 5-10 times at every dressage/breed show). As the proposal sent to me reads, Eventing comps would have the choice of a USAEq Ammy card or checking a box or signing a statement on the entry form. Why is this a problem? As one of the ones who designed the present form, there is NO ROOM for anything else on the form!!! Like most legal language paragrahs, the ammy declaration on the USAEq's membership form is not short. A better place, imo, would be on the USEA's membership form. But, what if someone has ammy status on their USEA card, but not on their USAEq card? which one counts? Is this a problem - well, it very easily could be as many comps understand all too well that it's USAEq that has the ability to fine & suspend you - not USEA. Obviously, the way around this problem - if you want to fall in line with all the other USAEq sports - is to require everybody to be a USAEq member - just like all the rest of the USAEq sports. (what an uproar I hear for that suggestion!)

Along the lines of the above, USAEq rules allow for a non-member amateur - but it costs $30. Would the Eventing rule allow for such? I saw no mention of it in the proposal. (This would only apply if the Amateur designation were done on the membership form as I strongly suggest - given the practical limitations of the entry form).

The other practical problem I see to having an Ammy declaration on the entry form is that so many people can't manage to fill out the entry form as it reads now - particularly when it comes to what division they want to enter. I have had Bruce Davidson (as well as many others just as obvious - and some not so obvious) attempt to enter T, for instance. I have been very tempted to let these riders go into dvisions where they don't belong so that I could collect the fine as soon as they start down the centerline - but have thought better of it as I'd like to try to keep my comps happy.

Specific responses to a couple of things that stood out to me in these twenty pages:

It has been stated that defining the amateur division in Eventing will make it possible to have an Amateur leaderboard and year-end Ammy points, etc. This is only true if Ammy status is defined by membership - not if it is as fluid as a statement signed on an entry form (Jane is an Ammy for Event A, but not for Event B, Ammy again for Event C - where do her points go?)

Packy stated a number of times that Eventing has 6 specific skill levels - BN, N, T, P, I and A. But, that is not really an accurate statement. If it were accurate, you would see the Active Riders starting their horses at A - since that is where their skill levels lie. Obviously, this doesn't happen. We have 6 divisions offered in Eventing - not 6 skill levels.

A number of people have expressed concern that orgs may replace the restricted divisions with Ammy divisions. I think this is a legitimate concern. Orgs will do what they feel their customers want. If they feel that the majority of their customers want Open/Ammy divisions - that's what they'll offer. If this rule change comes to pass, those of you who feel strongly about keeping the restricted divisions in place should be sure to make their feelings known to the orgs of the events that they frequent. Personally, I would hope that orgs would simply offer the 6 divisions and then split them according to what entries they got.

Someone also pointed out that many orgs make all divisions open in order to accomodate the pros riding so many horses. This is a fact of life - and it will continue. The pro that brings 10 - 20 horses to your event will definately get preferential treatment (and any org that says differently is prevaricating). It does make that pros' clients happy if they all bring home ribbons and this is easier if the pro's horses are in different divisions. It does happen, it's gonna happen - life is not fair.

Packy suggested that there is no cost to this proposal. That is not entirely accurate either. There is a definate cost involved with re-designing the entry form and/or re-writing the membership form. There is also a substantial cost involved with the policing of this rule. Currently, we pay USAEq - some $75,000/year in order to keep BN - T under their umbrella. This figure is based on what USAEq is (or is not) spending on rule compliance. If this rule change proposal is adopted, you can bet there's gonna be a bunch of rule compliance problems - and most likely at BN - T. That $75,000 will be re-figured upwards.

In summary, altho' I don't agree in total with USAEq's ammy definition, it is nice to have another split with which to define divisions. However, because of the lack of USAEq membership requirements, I see some practical problems with instituting this change. I never understand why we did away with the horse & rider divisions - even tho' I never specifically offered them, I did use those definitions to split my divisions when entries warranted.

Martie

pgm

Nov. 17, 2003, 02:28 PM

MArtie- Please l eave the costs appraisals to the USEA negotiators plelase - don't give the USAEQ any ideas. With any luck, they won't catch on that we've just given them another level of complexity. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for redesigning the entry form, the proposal was vetted by the USEA staff already and these chanegs were deemed diminimus.

As for my 6 skill levels, I am not sure what you mean by your comment that this is not the case. The point that should be clear to everyone is that the objective standards of performance of Novice, v. training v Preliminary are not going to diminish. They are set standards that officials are educated to keep a tight control over. And you are correct that one cannot start at the top with a greenie. But I never tried to imply that one could do this in the first place. The level aer objective standards of performance that exist on their own. While we attmpet ot amend them for saftey, we are not going to be diluting their difficulty.

poltroon

Nov. 17, 2003, 02:40 PM

pgm,

With regard to the confusion over whether USEA vs USAE is making the rules, I would tend to go with Reed in saying that the number is probably more like 90% believe that USEA is the rulemaker.

However, this is not just ignorance:

1- In many cases, the PEOPLE on the committees for USEA and USAE are very much the same. Thus, even if in PRACTICE and as a matter of LAW they are USA Eq rules, it seems that there must be lot of cross-pollination that comes from USEA as well. (One reason I'm aware of the distinction is because of past rule changes that went in to the surprise of USEA).

2. If you can keep "USEA" and "USAE" completely straight every time you type or read it, you're a better person than I. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

3. Though I know the difference, I'm not sure why this is all that important to your proposal or how it will be received or implemented. As a practical matter, I'm a member of both and I consider impacts on either organization with the same weight.

Gry2Yng

Nov. 17, 2003, 03:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> In hunters and jumpers, there are no classes for non-pro non-amateurs to ride in. If you have a nice experienced 3' or even 3'6" horse, the only classes you are competent to ride in are restricted to amateurs and juniors. (Warm-up type classes don't count.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still have a page to read, but I don't know what a non-pro non-amateaur is. There are classed like Baby Green and First Year Green. Is that what you are getting at?

Martie

Nov. 17, 2003, 03:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
MArtie- Please l eave the costs appraisals to the USEA negotiators plelase - don't give the USAEQ any ideas. With any luck, they won't catch on that we've just given them another level of complexity. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think they need me to give them ideas - all rules have basic costs built in - that of the effective policing of the rule. It doesn't take a rocket scientist/org. (tee hee...) to figure that one out!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>As for redesigning the entry form, the proposal was vetted by the USEA staff already and these chanegs were deemed diminimus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really! And yet, when we wanted a space for the email addy - it was SOOOOO hard to find one - and when a certain 3-day org complained because the fax number space went away - guess what! the USEA staff took away the space for the email addy & gave it back to the fax number. That is just ONE little space! The staff has found room for an entire legalese paragraph w/signature block! Amazing. I can't wait to see it.

However, you did not address my question as to how year-end points will be addressed if the Ammy designation is fluid (expressed entry by entry).

I am the Keeper of the Points for Area III. I fully understand how one gives points to Jr/YRs regardless of what actual division they rode in - but their Jr/YR status doesn't change within the year. Ammy status expressed entry by entry can change - and you have no way of knowing if that change was due to the lack of an Ammy division or if it was due to a change in circumstance of the rider.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>As for my 6 skill levels, I am not sure what you mean by your comment that this is not the case. The point that should be clear to everyone is that the objective standards of performance of Novice, v. training v Preliminary are not going to diminish.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said anything about levels diminishing. You had equated (unless I read you wrong) skill levels with the 6 divisions - you said (paraphrasing here, please correct me if I'm wrong) that we didn't need splits within divisions based on skill because we had the 6 divisions that split the comps based on skill. This is not an entirely accurate description - our 6 levels are based on the experience and abilities of the horse - not the skill level of the rider, for the most part.

I think there is a legitimate call for rider skill/experience splits within a division - our entry forms and prizelists have stated for YEARS AND YEARS that "divisions will be split if entries warrant - state birthdate AND EXPERIENCE." I realize that I have transformed your 'skill' to skill/experience - but, imo, the two do go hand in hand. Exactly the same - of course not, someone could be very experienced but not so skilled - but, it is very rare, imo, that someone who is very experienced is not also MORE skilled than someone who is not so experienced.

Altho' I have no real stake in this matter - if the practicalities are ironed out, I will split my divisions as entries warrant - given whatever splits are available to me at the time. Still, the whole bru-ha-ha tends to remind me of re-districting.

Martie

poltroon

Nov. 17, 2003, 03:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gry2Yng:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> In hunters and jumpers, there are no classes for non-pro non-amateurs to ride in. If you have a nice experienced 3' or even 3'6" horse, the only classes you are competent to ride in are restricted to amateurs and juniors. (Warm-up type classes don't count.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still have a page to read, but I don't know what a non-pro non-amateaur is. There are classed like Baby Green and First Year Green. Is that what you are getting at?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

non-pro non-amateur: 19 year old college student who is giving up-down lessons on saturday mornings (as she has for the last 3 years) while supporting her 18 year old 3' children's hunter. Or, someone who works as a groom but who is occasionally allowed to hack a boarder's horse by their private arrangement, as opposed to it being part of her duties.

More formally: someone who does not meet the letter of Art 808, but who does not do horse activities as a primary or even significant source of income.

Baby green, warmup hunters, local hunters, etc are not recognized divisions, but are used for schooling. First Year green is 3'6" - and usually the people I'm thinking of don't have fancy young horses. Maybe they still like riding the equitation classes on the trusty old guy, too.

flutie

Nov. 17, 2003, 03:34 PM

To those who find USEA and USAE confusing, remember that very shortly, USAE will go away to be replaced by USEF.

Good grief Charlie Brown....

Flutie

Gry2Yng

Nov. 17, 2003, 03:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I see no reason that indviduals that engage in selling their services shouldn't be considered a professional, regardless of how much money they make elsewhere in another profession. We must draw the line somewhere. If someone is selling her services as an expert, then I would say that she is being treated quite fairly by the rules.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This discussion is so difficult. You are right pgm, but at the same time, it means something to me that Debi and Clark and Amy Tryon have full time jobs that are not related to horses. How this relates to the discussion, I am no longer certain.

Let me frame the options... RT or OT. Rhonda Rider and her horse have competed at Training for the last two years, Rhonda has three more years of experience at T before she got her current partner. But she never has, and has no desire to move up. EVER! I have competed at I with one horse. I buy a green horse and we are going T. Buck Davidson has a green horse and he is going T on one, plus T, P, I and A on 7 others.

Rhonda can enter RT. I cannot. I have to compete against Buck. We all worry about poor Rhonda. But she is a competent T, with a long time partner. Is it more unfair that she be forced to compete against me or that I be forced to compete against Buck.

The reality is that Rhonda and her horse would probably beat me and the greenie and Buck and his greenie would also probably beat me and mine.

The really funny thing is that I don't care. I will continue to enjoy the sport and compete in whatever division is offered. But all the pity for the career training or novice level rider with the career partner is tiresome. Yes, they are the heart of the sport. Let's do whatever they need to keep them active, improving and safe. No one ever needs to move up, but restricted divisions don't necessarily mean lack of experience. In fact, there are teams at the RN and RT level that have been riding longer than I have. They win every weekend. Maybe they should be pushed out into the open division. I am sure there are newbies who are getting sick of being beaten by riders who have been doing training level for 12 years over the same courses.

For all the Rhonda riders who are so enthusiastically defending their position that they should not have to compete against me - an amateur with more "experience"? Why is it any more fair that I should have to compete againt Buck and Phillip? If I had chosen to stay at T level with my current horse, I would have had two years at T on my previous horse, plus 4 years at T on the current horse yet we would still be RT. Is experience only valid if it is at a higher level? What about a rider that is thoroughly competent at any given level and remains within the rules for Restricted forever? I would hope after six years at T, four of them on the same horse, I'd be cleaning up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> To those who find USEA and USAE confusing, remember that very shortly, USAE will go away to be replaced by USEF.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it is pretty funny that now the DQ's are going to have to figure the USDF, USEF thing out. Hee hee.

[This message was edited by Gry2Yng on Nov. 17, 2003 at 06:51 PM.]

subk

Nov. 17, 2003, 03:56 PM

With a little trepidation here I'd like to address Janet's concern about newbies who may not be amatuers having to compete against BNR/Ts. If a BNR/T is competing at Novice it's almost assured that they are competing on a VERY green horse OR a horse with significant training problems. While the Newbie might be intimidated I'm not sure that across the board that BNT/R is the stiffest competition in the division--you can almost count that he's NOT. BNT/R also keep a horse in the lower levels for a short period of time. If they win a division they move up.

When a BRN/T stays in a low division too long he/she gets some serious negative reaction from the BNR/T peer group. I ate dinner one night with 8-9 BNR of which 7-8 were Red Coats. (Complicated how I got there--but mostly I kept my mouth shut to keep my chin from hitting the plate http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)The open disgust for a "maginally" BNR/T who had won a Novice Area year end award had my ears burning. So there is some informal policing of BNT/R who "gather ribbons" in the lower levels.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl:
The other half seem to revolve around differences between the issues facing N/T amateurs and P/I/A amateurs. I, for one, would bristle much less at the idea of this rule if I thought it were for subk's or poltroon's benefit, rather than the masses of N/T amateurs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES, yes! The green horse issue does a darn good job of leveling the playing field at N and T. I don't think that the discrepency between pro and am really doesn't becomes apparent until Preliminary. I think an AA option works best here. Unfortunately I don't think there are enough AAs at I (or A) in most instances to run a division.

GotSpots

Nov. 17, 2003, 03:56 PM

Here, here, Gry! A little modest applause from the peanut gallery out here.

21 pages of this, and I think I find Martie's suggestion the most appealing: split the divisions as entries warrant. Most omnibus entries already say you can split by age or experience. And then, if you really want to, award points to highest placed amateur(s) like they do at three days or in certain large events. Track amateurs' points in all divisions, like they do for young riders, for purposes of the leaderboard or year end points (which will account for those organizers who don't choose to run an amateur division) defining amateur by USAEq/USEF rules.

Boss Hoss

Nov. 17, 2003, 04:28 PM

To add to the Q&A, consider this scenario:

SuzyQ is a 17 yo pony clubber who's parents believe has all the talent in the world (lada, lada, lada) and goes to {Insert Pro Name Here } and gets a horse that has been campaigned at Prelim for a year for SuzyQ to ride at Novice. Now do you think its fair to the other 17yos who have whatever horse their parents could get for them, or a school horse has to comepte against SuzyQ on her prelim Novice wonder? Now consider a small event where they don't break out the division and now SuzyQ has to go up against FredK who started eventing at age 29 and is completing his first year at Novice..many would say its unfair for SuzyQ to be in the same division as FredK based on age. SuzyQ gets all the breaks!!

As long as worry about eventers being bronc riders ro field hunters in their spare time, we will not have a system that keeps inexperienced people in a division competing against other inexperienced people. I don't want to compete against SuzyQ just as much as {Insert Big Name here } because both of them have either a more experienced horse or are themselves more experienced. I too do NOT understand why the Horse & Rider divisions were taken away..that was as close to my "restricted" division as we had.

I think as long as we use the USAEq definition of Amateur, and continue to have Amateurs & Pros in the same comeptitions..this will not make any sense. You don't have Pro Golfers and Am Golfers in the same tornaments. We also don't win money like they do either..if we made prfoessional status based on income earned in competition then maybe it would make sense to me.

I think we also, in business you can't make everyone happy and while some want a division all to themselves, this may do more to take way from the spirit of competition. This isn't supposed to be like a show where there are only 8 in a division so everyone gets a ribbon. Break the competitions down too much and it makes no sense...we might as well all just get a participation ribbon instead. I've been first as many times as I've been dead last...I'd rather see the competitive side of competition remain in tact.

Experience in competition is much easier to police than accounting practices. I can easily get around the USAEq Amateur ruling with creative accounting. Heck I can train someones horse still..but the business just collects a high BOARD fee each month. There are so many holes in the reasoning behind a revenue based definition of "Amateur". Some of you participate in clinics with {Insert Name Here } who carries an Amateur card. C'mon..the definition of Amateur vs Pro in SPORTS just doesn't work in the horse world. Football players are PAID to compete..that's a "professional" athlete. They're not "professional" because they teach rugby at the local high school and play on Sundays. Since we have no "NEL", we have to fall back on experience in competiton to make distinctions between OPEN & RETSRICTED divisions. I have a fulltime job outside of horses too..does that make me an AA?

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk : CBF (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com)

Gry2Yng

Nov. 17, 2003, 04:46 PM

Boss - from my perspective (which is not the perspective of the USAEq or many on this board) if you spend the majority of your time doing something else, you are an AA. You have spent your "free" time developing your riding skills to the point that you could hold yourself out as an expert. It involved a "sacrifice" on your part somewhere. Less time on the job, or less time with your family or less time to develop your skills as a golfer.

My question is, why is two HT's at P more experience than 20 HT's at T that it should separate two competitors at T? Wouldn't the relevant question be "How many T's have these two done?" What if Rider 1 has only done 10 HT's total? From this you can assume one of the following things
Rider 1 is a better rider and has been able to move up faster.
Rider 1 has a better horse and has been able to move up faster.
Rider 1 is not competent at T, but moved up to P anyway.
Rider 2 should have moved up long ago, but decided not to in order to keep her RT status. (Not much different than choosing not to teach lessons in order to keep your AA status).
Rider 2 thinks the jumps at P are too big and prefers life at T. Maybe Rider 2 should ride OT as rider currently wins every weekend against other RT's.

So when is it fair for these riders to be forced into the same division and when is it unfair?

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Nov. 17, 2003, 06:01 PM

So Martie, you're the one to gripe to about that "Rider has no experience at this level" line?? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif What were you thinking???
Seriously, what answers on that line mean something helpful to organizers???

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 06:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Heck I can train someones
horse still..but the business just collects a high BOARD fee each month. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope,

They closed that loophole
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> f) Rides, drives or shows in halter/in hand in competitions, any horse for which he/she or
a member of his/her family or a corporation which a member of his/her family controls,
receives remuneration for boarding, training, riding, driving or showing in halter/in hand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Canterlope claims it only applies if you "ride in competition" but I wouldn't count on it.

And in closing that loophole, they also made a whole lot of other people into non-amateurs

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

poltroon

Nov. 17, 2003, 06:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Boss Hoss:
To add to the Q&A, consider this scenario:

SuzyQ is a 17 yo pony clubber who's parents believe has all the talent in the world (lada, lada, lada) and goes to {Insert Pro Name Here } and gets a horse that has been campaigned at Prelim for a year for SuzyQ to ride at Novice. Now do you think its fair to the other 17yos who have whatever horse their parents could get for them, or a school horse has to comepte against SuzyQ on her prelim Novice wonder?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif I did that, though I bought her myself and I was quite a bit older than 17. I was pretty confident after all that time on poor movers, limited jumpers, and babies. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Got my clock cleaned. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif But I learned to ride. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Or at least well enough until the next horse comes along and puts me in my place again. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

EventerAJ

Nov. 17, 2003, 06:16 PM

It's hard to legislate morality. Gry, I think you have a VERY tough time trying to label the perfect division to separate all the "professional Training level riders" from mid-level riders on greenies, and genuine pros on greenies.

The "pro T level rider" should go OT, and I think many of them do. I have friends who have ridden novice and training forever, and they always enter the open divisions; they know it's the RIGHT thing to do. Now I know everyone doesn't do this, there are ribbon chasers, etc. But I think many people have decent enough ethics to play fair without more complicating rules. At least I hope so.

If everyone writes down their experience, the organizer can create divisions best suited... so there might be 3 OTs, but the people in them may be of comparable skill levels.

OK I'm rambling. This thread is giving me a headache. I have to hand it to y'all, though... 22 pages and it hasn't gotten nasty. A little heated sometimes, but everyone's been pretty respectful. A lot of ideas have been shared, and shared again. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But everyone has been fairly patient and understanding of both sides, and I think this is a great discussion. What other discipline has had such a debate this long, unlocked, and not even *warned*? That's why I love this sport. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~AJ~
I've been there...that's why I'm here.

subk

Nov. 17, 2003, 06:55 PM

I'm sorta surprised noone has really brought up what I think is the biggest problem of an AA division. How comparable are two horses with the same grading points but one gets them in only AA division and one gets them in Open divisions. Does anyone see that as a problem? This of course would only be a problem at Prelim and above.

Janet

Nov. 17, 2003, 07:34 PM

That is what was in my mind when I said I had not thought through the grading points consequences. But I am already perceived as such a naysayer that I decided not to take on that concern too.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

subk

Nov. 17, 2003, 08:13 PM

Which is why I wonder why it wouldn't be a whole lot simpler to recognize the top few placing of AAs with in an Open division.

Canterlope and/or pmg stated much earlier that they had looked into several different methods of recognizing AAs. What were the negatives of doing it within a preexisting division. I asked this question earlier without a response...

canterlope

Nov. 18, 2003, 02:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by subk:
Which is why I wonder why it wouldn't be a whole lot simpler to recognize the top few placing of AAs with in an Open division.

Canterlope and/or pmg stated much earlier that they had looked into several different methods of recognizing AAs. What were the negatives of doing it within a preexisting division. I asked this question earlier without a response...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The major drawback with this scenario is that the national points tracking system is not set up to pull certain groups out of a division and award them separate points. Depending on how the organizer submits the results of a division, either the points are awarded to the group as a whole or the entire division is divided up and each group is awarded its own set of points. However, in order for the second situation to occur, the organizer must divide up the divisions prior to reporting the results and submit them as if each group had competed in their own division, meaning more work for the organizer which we really hope to avoid. If the organizer submits the results for the division as a whole, the national office can not go back and divide the group. If we wanted to change the system in order to handle what you propose, costs to reconfigure the system would be incurred, another thing we hope to avoid.

Another concern is that, in some cases, dividing up divisions into separate groups can result in a rider being awarded less points for their placing. For example, let's say we have a Novice division of 21 riders with 7 pros, 7 amateurs, and 7 young riders. Yolanda Young Rider wins the division with Polly Professional finishing second and Allen Amateur finishing third. If the points are awarded based on the over-all standings, Yolanda would earn 7 points, Polly 6, and Allen 5. However, if the points are awarded based on separate divisions, all three of these rider would earn 5 points. So, although Yolanda would have placed above 20 other riders at that event, she would only get credit for placing above 6. Plus, two riders who had placed below her would be awarded the same number of points as her, even though their performances were not a good as her's.

We've run into this situation in Area II with our Area Championships a couple of times. Seneca Valley this year is a prime example and the level that was affected the most was Preliminary. One Open Preliminary division included 5 riders who had qualified for the Open Championships, 1 who had qualified for the Adult Championships, and 7 riders who had not qualified for the championships, for a total of 13 riders. The division was won by one of the open Championship qualifiers. If points were awarded to the division as a whole, this rider would receive 6 points. But, if points were awarded based on separating out the individual groups, this rider would only have received 3.

Then you have the problem of the exact opposite happening. A rider can be awarded points for a substandard placing in the over-all division. Going back to Seneca as an example, one Novice division included 1 Open Championship qualifier, 1 Young Horse qualifier, and 14 non-qualified riders. In the over-all standings, the Young Horse placed 13th, in front of only one other horse who had been eliminated. If points were awarded to the division as a whole, this horse would not have earned any points. But, it the groups were divided out, this horse would have earned 5 points.

So, when looking at this option as a whole, it has the potential to create more work for the organizers, create more costs for the Association, penalize riders for outstanding performances, and reward riders for substandard performances. In comparison to other options with less potential for a negative impact on everyone concerned, it is hard to make a case that this option is preferable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They say cats have nine lives. They would settle for one good one. Adopt a cat (or dog) today.

Nov. 18, 2003, 04:31 AM

So if the USEA can't track amateurs from within divisions and we don't have official amateur divisions now, from where do the people on the amateur leader board come?

Martie

Nov. 18, 2003, 04:33 AM

Points -

Canterlope, with all due respect, your examples sound to me as if you are making the whole thing alot more complicated than it has to be.

I keep the points for Area III. We award points only to Area III members for placing 1-5 in Area III events. Everybody is either a Sr. or a Jr/YR. No matter what division you ride in (OT, SrT, TH, TR, T, RT) if you are a Sr and have placed 1-5, the points that you earned for your placing go towards your SrT year-end points. Simple. No re-figuring, no re-dividing. That's really the only way to do it - since we don't have constant divisions across the board. Points are awarded according to how many people were in the division - so each rider is awarded points for precisely what his accomplishment was in real life - he beat 20 people, he beat 5 people - different points. In some of our divisions particularly in the winter and the spring, no Area III points are awarded because the 1-5 placers were non-Area III members. That is what happened in real life. I fail to see why this wouldn't work for amateurs as well. If everyone declared their pro/am status with their membership (as they do now if they are USAEq members) all points earned by Ammys would go toward their Ammy year-end points - regardless of what division they actually rode in. This won't work with fluid pro/am status (declaring status event by event) of course. So, what if someone's status changes in the middle of the year? Once the change is declared, they may find themselves on two leader-boards - old points and new points.

This should not be a difficult feat for the office staff to figure within their current database - I haven't seen the db, but I assume that it figures points based on placing & # of starters (mine does). Once points are awarded for each comp, reports are generated showing all the Ammys - and what points each has accumulated. Simple.

On the other hand, it is incomprehensible to me how year-end points can be awarded with fluid status and with no control over what divisions are offered. You have no starting place. Say the first HT of the year sends in results - for whatever reason, that HT didn't offer any ammy divisions. So, your list of ammys at this point is blank. The next HT sends in results - they offered an ammy divsion at P. Now, you have 5 riders with ammy points. But, those same 5 riders also placed in various P divisions at the first HT - do you go back & change the leaderboard - taking those 5 off the pro leaderboard where they had originally been placed and putting them on the ammy leaderboard? What about all the ammys in the other divisions? The third HT of the season comes in - in this one, they offered ammy divisions at T and N but not at P - many of the placing riders again are the same - who gets ammy points, who gets pro points? Where do you start? Where do you end? Does the office staff have to peruse all the entry forms? What if your first place finisher in the OP division at HT#1 is the same as your first place finisher in the AmmyP division in HT#2 - but at the first HT, she didn't sign the ammy block on the entry form? Way too many variables.....

frugalannie

Nov. 18, 2003, 05:16 AM

Oh boy. I'm in trouble now! Just read Janet's reading of the rule subsection f)... above where it talks about receiving remuneration for boarding. I had always applied Canterlope's reading, not Janet's.

We run our barn as a co-op: each participant (see, they're NOT boarders!) contributes $200 per month for the stall, feed, hay and bedding as well as water, electricity, annual town horse tax, manure removal, etc. I coordinate ordering all of the stuff and paying for it. We are not a business under IRS rules. Does that mean I'm a pro?

Arrgh. This is way too complicated and illogical for me this morning! But your take on this would be illuminating as to why I think the main problem is the USAEq definition of Amateur.

Gry2Yng

Nov. 18, 2003, 06:20 AM

I guess I should clarify, my post from the previous page. I am not suggesting that we do anything with the rules regarding my example, only pointing out that there are many possible ways of defining "experience" just as there are many ways of defining AA.

canterlope

Nov. 18, 2003, 06:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by AM:
So if the USEA can't track amateurs from within divisions and we don't have official amateur divisions now, from where do the people on the amateur leader board come?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AM, I never said the USEA can't track amateur points from within a division. What I said was the USEA can't pull amateurs out of a division and award points based on their new position within that subgroup. If the only reason why we would go to the trouble to recognize the top few placing Adult Amateurs within a larger division is to give them a ribbon, which most of you say doesn't matter to you anyhow, without some additional benefit such as the ability to earn points from those top placings, this wouldn't address the concerns of those Adult Amateurs who find it difficult to place high enough against the professional to capture a spot on the leader boards. It would be like opening a can of peas, throwing away the peas, and keeping the can. Yes, you would have a very nice collection of empty cans, but you would still be hungry in the end.

Martie, I keep track of the points for Area II and we do our points pretty much the same as Area III, except we require our riders to register for the awards program and include placings from outside of the Area. The issue is not where do points get applied, because our riders earn points in whatever division they signed up for in the award program meaning an Amateur will still get points towards the Amateur year end award even if they ride in an open division at an event.

Nor is the issue how many points should a rider get if the results of the division are submitted as a whole to the national headquarters or Area points coordinators. For Training and below, the top five riders, regardless of their status (Pro, Ammy, YR), earn points and everyone else is SOL. For Preliminary and above, points may be earned for positions below fifth depending on the number of starters in the division. Period.

The issue is how many points should a rider be awarded if a subgroup is broken out of a full division. Should it be based on the number of riders in the entire division or just the subgroup? And, which placing should count, the one in the entire group or the one in the subset?

I can tell you from experience that, if you divide out groups from an entire division, riders are going to want the point system to use the placing that gives them the most points. They are not going to understand or be too happy about things if their better placings in the subgroup count for nothing. Right now, I have several riders who are upset that their placings in subgroups at the Area II Championships will not count for year end award purposes, one who is absolutely livid and remains on the warpath fully two months after the Championships took place. I don't think that it is a stretch to believe that situations like this will continue to happen in the future if we start recognizing a few top placings without addressing the points issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They say cats have nine lives. They would settle for one good one. Adopt a cat (or dog) today.

[This message was edited by canterlope on Nov. 18, 2003 at 09:44 AM.]

tle

Nov. 18, 2003, 06:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
tle:

I will of course consider your responses as you took the tinme to fill it out. I was somewhat peeved that you didn't answer the first parts, hwoever and referred me to the rule book when I specifically wrote that we wanted to know what you thought was true without looking at the rule book. At what point have I used USEA when I meant USAEQ and when did you "Correct" me. I cannot think of enything you've done in this entrie debate except disagree with me. (Which, of course, is your right and privilege.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be peeved, be mad, be p#ssed off... what do I care... especially since I guess I haven't done anything in this thread than contradict everything you've said. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I could care less that evidently your feelings are hurt or you obviously feel that I'm doing everything in my power to argue with YOU. Got news for ya... despite your obviously high opinion of yourself, you don't matter that much!

I read all the messages everyone has posted and I see people saying the exact same things I've said or am thinking... so perhaps the problem is not me but parts of this proposal.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 06:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The major drawback with this scenario is that the national points tracking system is not set up to pull certain groups out of a division and award them separate points. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But presumably they could do it the same way they currently do "mares" and "lady riders", which do not have separate divisions. Was that found not to be acceptable for same reason? (Ignoring, for the time being Martie's point that "once a lady rider always a lady rider- but you can change from amateur to pro during the year.)

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 06:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by frugalannie:
Oh boy. I'm in trouble now! Just read Janet's reading of the rule subsection f)... above where it talks about receiving remuneration for boarding. I had always applied Canterlope's reading, not Janet's.

We run our barn as a co-op: each participant (see, they're NOT boarders!) contributes $200 per month for the stall, feed, hay and bedding as well as water, electricity, annual town horse tax, manure removal, etc. I coordinate ordering all of the stuff and paying for it. We are not a business under IRS rules. Does that mean I'm a pro?

Arrgh. This is way too complicated and illogical for me this morning! But your take on this would be illuminating as to why I think the main problem is the USAEq definition of Amateur.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NO, I think you are fine. Running a boarding operation (without training) is fine- still an amateur.

The only times boarding comes into it is if your RELATIVE or your EMPLOYER is being paid board, and you are riding, training, showing, etc. horses for which they are paid board.

The "empoyer" paragraph makes no reference to "in competition", so applies to any riding, but does exempt horse you own or lease. (So you don't get dinged for riding your own horse, just becuase you happen to be emplotyed for soemthing else by the farm owner).

The "family member" paragraph includes the phrase "in competition", which I think applied only to "showing in hamd" and Canterlope thinks applies to to "riding, training", but does NOT include the exemption for horse you own or lease. (So technically, if you pay board to a family member for a horse you own, and ride that horse in a show, you are no longer an amateur. I have submitted a rule change proposal to address this, I am quite sure unintentional, ommission).

But, if there is no "employer" invoilved, and no "family member" involved, then it explicitly says that boarding does NOT make you a pro.

But you can see how easy it is to unintentionally make yourself not-amateur.

The "employer" and "family member" paragraphs were put it to address some particularly high visibility abuses, but they took a lot of other perfectly innocent cases with them.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

GotSpots

Nov. 18, 2003, 07:12 AM

Canterlope said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Right now, I have several riders who are upset that their placings in subgroups at the Area II Championships will not count for year end award purposes, one who is absolutely livid and remains on the warpath fully two months after the Championships took place <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah-hah! I have the solution. Shoot the person who is on the warpath. Either that, or we all band together, and buy that person his or her very own $3.00 hunk of ribbon, and tell them to go get a life.

Good grief, year end points shouldn't be this big a deal. Really. Don't get me wrong, it's nice when it happens, but it's really not the end all and be-all of the sport. But if we are going to start counting subgroups, then I think there should, at every event, be the subgroup of Spotted-mostly-but-not-completely-TBs-with-silly-names. I wanna be a contendah! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

flutie

Nov. 18, 2003, 07:31 AM

Hey Spots - I'll second that sub group! Go for it. I got your back.......

Flutie

canterlope

Nov. 18, 2003, 07:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Ah-hah! I have the solution. Shoot the person who is on the warpath. Either that, or we all band together, and buy that person his or her very own $3.00 hunk of ribbon, and tell them to go get a life.

Good grief, year end points shouldn't be this big a deal. Really. Don't get me wrong, it's nice when it happens, but it's really not the end all and be-all of the sport. But if we are going to start counting subgroups, then I think there should, at every event, be the subgroup of . I wanna be a contendah!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, GotSpots! I'm right there with ya on the shooting thing. Firing squad to assemble at dawn. However, the actual shooters would have to be members of a military service or police force since aren't they the only ones authorized under the USAEq rules to carry a fire arm in competition without fear of disqualification. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

So like the Spotted-mostly-but-not-completely-TBs-with-silly-names subgroup as well. Contendah, h@ll. You and I would be kings of the world. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They say cats have nine lives. They would settle for one good one. Adopt a cat (or dog) today.

Robby Johnson

Nov. 18, 2003, 07:58 AM

Don't even front, playas!

You know it's all about the Ammy-Who-Needs-Attention subgroup.

Robby http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So I'm a sistah, buy things with cash
It doesn't mean that all my credit's bad

http://community.webshots.com/user/rbjohnsonii

Boss Hoss

Nov. 18, 2003, 08:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The issue is how many points should a rider be awarded if a subgroup is broken out of a full division. Should it be based on the number of riders in the entire division or just the subgroup? And, which placing should count, the one in the entire group or the one in the subset?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We went through this on CDCTA BoD when the ECC was held at Fairhill 2 yrs ago. The organizer put EVERYONE into the championship division, something like 22 riders. They pinned the championship class as a division..THEN they posted subdivisions for YH, JR etc. We had someone in our GMO who finished 13th in the championship division, but was then 2nd in the NH subgroup. They wanted points for finishing 2nd.

To date..I liked the way Banburry Cross did their divisions back in August of 2002..they had one division of "Amateurs" (what I would say is restricted experience-not restricted income), one division of "Open" and one division of "Jr/Yr"..there was like 15-22 in each division. Finishing in the top 5 should be an accomplishment, not a consolation prize.

You know they don't give out medals at the Olympics for 3rd world nation subgroups..why do we think we have to have so many breakouts? This is a sport, competition..not everyone can win the top ribbon. What value does a ribbon have if it was earned because you had to be removed from the "tough" division? If you want to be on the leaderboard work as hard as you can and become as good as those that make it tough. I can attest that the Pros don't go to every event in the area. I've found many events to go and be the big fish in the pond and not have to worry about HerrVanSchmo and his caravan of 10 N-T horses. Yes I know this is a luxury of Area II...

When I did Olympic Weightlifting and went to national meets, the highest I placed was 7th. The person who won the division was in the top 10 in the world!! Later that night we were all at a microbrewery drinking beer..maybe people should consider the company they are in at competition as opposed to the color of their ribbon.

At some point you are going to have to realize you can't make everyone happy here in how this is all done. The resolution of award categories is getting ridiculous..maybe if a partition is signed we can get divisions for red hed horses approved? I'd surely be on the leaderboard then..even if I still don't know how to ride, I just have to make sure I stay on the horse...but wait..we need a non-pro division with a one ear subgrouping.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Right now, I have several riders who are upset that their placings in subgroups at the Area II Championships will not count for year end award purposes, one who is absolutely livid and remains on the warpath fully two months after the Championships took place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was really botched and should be addressed for next year for sure...the ECC was on a similar path and then just decided to have ONE division..isn't that what Championships are all about? Over the last 3 years the way championships have been held keep changing, and they seem for the worst. Maybe if we stick to the fundamental philosophy of competition we won't have this..if we finish 35th out of 50 in a championship at Novice..well, welcome to the real world.

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com/images/2004_STALLIONAD.jpg) : CBF

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 08:22 AM

Regarding Grading points-

We do not restrict horses from moving through divisions anymore by grading points. They do not matter - it is completions that matter and -for CCI's- scores. Thats all. So whether points are won in an open division or in AA section it won't matter.

As for national leader board awards, this is an issue to be worked out byt he USEA and we have not addressed it.

Tle:

Just to explain, there are plenty of people who have posted on this board who, by now, filled out the survey entirely. You are the only one who opted not to give us answers to section I. That means that your ansqwers in section II and III are less meaningful because I do not know how knowledgable you are to start with. So yes, I was a little miffed that you didn't do that part of the survey.

Please understand that many, if not all, of our committee members came to study this issue with many of the same preconceived ideas about amateurs and rules as you and many others do. BAsing our opinions on false understandings of the rules would have led to a false conclusion. Garbage in - garbage out. We had to work through the issues one at a time in an attempt to get to the truth of the matter.

And seriously, ad hominem attacks on indiviudals have never won me an argument nor will it win you support in this case. I have never been afraid to lose an argument. I am not worried if the membership majority doesn't want to approve this change after a full and fair discussion of the issues. But, for you, I will admit that, because I am condescending, have an irrationally high opinion of myself, and because I obviously believe that I am superior to everyone else in this discussion, you must have already figured out that my feelings aren't hurt that easily. You'd have to get a lot meaner than this to get that done!

asterix

Nov. 18, 2003, 08:33 AM

Packy, check your PTs...or, if I have otherwise missed the (probably obvious, but now lost in the many pages of this discussion) way in which you'd like the survey sent back, just post it again...
thanks!

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 08:37 AM

asterix

done

subk

Nov. 18, 2003, 09:16 AM

Here's my overall impression.

The base of this sport is made up of amateurs. Amateurs regularly compete against professional and feel they are missing out on getting recognition for their abilities as it exists under the limitations of being amateurs.

The powers that be of this sport who are generally viewed as being out of touch with the wants and needs of the lower level amateur have now decided to address these issues for amateurs. There is this big convoluted effort to supply amateurs with exotic imported chocolate when a Hershey Kiss may very well satisfy the need. (sorry, Canterlope but after the can of peas I couldn't resist.)

In the end we're not doing something simple because there is this hang up on year end points that will only recognize/and make happy a handful of people out of the several thousand that make up the base.

I say forget year end results. Supply a handful of ribbons to amateurs in open divisions and see what the reception is. That change will generate some very specific feedback on actual reality and we'll have a much better idea of what might and might not work--and it's completely non-invasive. It doesn't involve changing rules, doesn't involve complicated computations that no matter what you come up with won't be representative.

Instead, we're going to do something very complicated that very well may not work. Because it's voluntary, evaluating its effectiveness will be iffy at best. Then the same powers that be can throw up their hands and say, "well screw the amateurs, we tried, they didn't act right, so we don't have anymore responsibility toward them for another few years."

Maybe I'm just a cynic.

I'm actually not against this rule change because even if I don't think it is an outstanding solution it is a rare attempt to address a huge need. It becomes difficult to be picky.

Martie

Nov. 18, 2003, 09:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by canterlope:

_Martie,_ I keep track of the points for Area II and we do our points pretty much the same as Area III, except we require our riders to register for the awards program and include placings from outside of the Area. The issue is not where do points get applied, because our riders earn points in whatever division they signed up for in the award program meaning an Amateur will still get points towards the Amateur year end award even if they ride in an open division at an event. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm - sounds pretty much just like my suggestion to have the ammy declaration be on membership rather than the entry form.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Nor is the issue how many points should a rider get if the results of the division are submitted as a whole to the national headquarters or Area points coordinators. For Training and below, the top five riders, regardless of their status (Pro, Ammy, YR), earn points and everyone else is SOL. For Preliminary and above, points may be earned for positions below fifth depending on the number of starters in the division. Period.

The issue is how many points should a rider be awarded if a subgroup is broken out of a full division. Should it be based on the number of riders in the entire division or just the subgroup? And, which placing should count, the one in the entire group or the one in the subset?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I agree entirely - once you start dividing into subgroups that Didn't Actually Occur At the Event - you have opened a HUGE can of worms. My opinion is that the organization awarding points is better off sticking with what happened in real life - rather than making up scenarios that could have happened. (Jane Ammy WOULD have been in 1st place IF she was competing against just other Ammys - but, in real life, in the division she rode in, she actually placed 8th). Yes, I realize that 'but it's not Fair that HT#45 didn't offer X division for me to compete in' - life is not fair - but we can strive to be accurate.

This whole points thing is actually another topic - fascinating philosophical discussions can (& do) arise. For instance, the nitty gritty of how points are awarded should stem directly from the reason for having year-end points in the first place. There are many different reasons - problems arise when people don't agree on those reasons. I'd be very interested in hearing how each Area awards points - & what system (I use a database that I customized) the points person uses to keep track of them - but, it is another topic.

I think Packy said something along the lines of how yearend points will be determined and awarded was up to USEA not this committee if this rule change comes to pass - but, I think that since one of the stated objectives was to develop an accurate Ammy leaderboard and Ammy Championships, that the determination of Ammy points based on this rule change proposal is a big part of the proposal. The ramifications are huge.

This rule change proposal will come under fire (has already) simply because there really is a large number of comps who just don't believe that the USAEq definition of an Ammy is a good one. You can probably get past that as it's highly unlikely that anyone can come up with a better definition. But, why shoot yourself in the foot by ignoring the very real practicalities of the proposal? ie, the money and the points.

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 09:34 AM

MArtie-

Check your private topics

Boss Hoss

Nov. 18, 2003, 10:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>This rule change proposal will come under fire (has already) simply because there really is a large number of comps who just don't believe that the USAEq definition of an Ammy is a good one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Herein lies the crux of the proposal..if the definition of USAEq Amateur were acceptable, the proposal would be a cake walk. I can't wait till next years champs when they put me in the Am divisions because they didn't recognize my name as a pro..we'll have the same old problems again (the only ones who care are the Ams who know if I go double clean I'll cleanup in dressage, so they want me in another division no matter what). Organizers will have to SEE the USAEq Am cards in order to put them in the Am divisions...but then there are "Pros" who hold Am cards, no?

I like the idea of not subgrouping Amateurs but recognizing them out of OPEN or RESTRICTED divisions...if we must have this USAEq Am definition. However what defines an Am vs a Pro is in fact EXPERIENCE and SKILL. Until event riders start signing contracts to ride for Professional Teams and make $$$$$ we're all one in the same..competitors..this isn't a professional sport like Golf, Football, Basketball, Hockey, Bullriding...etc. Currently, someone turns "Pro" when a client decides they are qualified to take their money for services rendered in the discipline.

Just ask anyone at the top level if someone who boards horses, or is on the barrell racing circuit, is a "Pro" in eventing..the USAEq definition is absolute nonsense IMO. It doesn't mater to me, I still get to ride restricted training due to my lack of experience for now...we should have our chances to be "Rookies" at the level..even "Pros".

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com/images/2004_STALLIONAD.jpg) : CBF

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 10:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Supply a handful of ribbons to amateurs in open divisions and see what the reception is. That change will generate some very specific feedback on actual reality and we'll have a much better idea of what might and might not work--and it's completely non-invasive. It doesn't involve changing rules, doesn't involve complicated computations that no matter what you come up with won't be representative.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True at Prelim and above- no rules changes needed- everybody submits a copy of their USAEq card, and you know which are card carrying amateurs. Works in principle (except that, as someone else pointed out, some of the top pros happen to carry amateur cards, even though they never "enter" amateur divisions. But that can be fixed).

But unfortunately it doesn't work at N and T. Most riders at N abnd T DON'T HAVE a USAEq amateur card, so they can't submit it. At a minimum, even to give out "best amateur in a mixed division" ribbons at N and T, they need the rule change to allow the rider to "certify", either on the entry blank, or in their USEA membership application, that they comply with 808.

THAT is the problem they are trying to address. If they don't make a rules change, then at N and T, either they are going to "unfairly" leave out all the amateurs who don't have USAEq cards, or they have to go with an unenforcable self declaration: "I am an amateur by MY definition".

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 10:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Just ask anyone at the top level if someone who boards horses, or is on the barrell racing circuit, is a "Pro" in eventing.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>STOP SCARING PEOPLE.
BOARDING horses does NOT make you a non-amateur.

RIDING, TRAINING, SHOWING horses for which a family member or employer is paid baord makes you a non-amateur.

But just boarding DOESN'T make you a non-amateur.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 10:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> We do not restrict horses from moving through divisions anymore by grading points. They do not matter - it is completions that matter and -for CCI's- scores. Thats all. So whether points are won in an open division or in AA section it won't matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then why not get rid of grading points entirely?

To answer my own question- becuase they are used for the various "leaderboards". To the extent that the leaderboards "matter", the grading points DO matter.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 10:45 AM

Janet:

Now you are getting a bit of your own medicine. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The rules need to be read carefully to be understood. As I said to you several weeks ago, you have pointed out places where the rule is amibiguous or badly worded. It is important to always state how the reul is applied and not how it "could be" applied.

And I see that you have answered your own question re: grading points... Yep that is precisely it. We really don't need gradings anymore. But the points won system is still a good thing.

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 10:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
Janet:

Now you are getting a bit of your own medicine. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The rules need to be read carefully to be understood. As I said to you several weeks ago, you have pointed out places where the rule is amibiguous or badly worded. It is important to always state how the reul is applied and not how it "could be" applied.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is why I changed from "pre law" to "math" 30 some years ago.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

tle

Nov. 18, 2003, 10:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>THAT is the problem they are trying to address. If they don't make a rules change, then at N and T, either they are going to "unfairly" leave out all the amateurs who don't have USAEq cards, or they have to go with an unenforcable self declaration: "I am an amateur by MY definition".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So how are the organizers who are offering AA divisions at this moment doing it? How is the Leaderboard done now?

Packy,

If you will look closely you will note that I wrote on the survey a reason why I didn't answer the first part. Perhaps if it had been presented different in the first place, I might have felt differently towards it. Or if you had reitterated your request when I turned the thing in. However, what's done is done and applying such minscule tactics of peer pressure ("others have done it") isn't really going to change my mind. Plus as I noted earlier, there are other people here that are stating the same things I have so I'm sure my opinion will make its way into the mix somehow. Use my answers or not... whatever. I also believe there's another question somewhere in the survey I didn't really answer... miffed about that too? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, wasn't thinking about you at all really... except in that old adage of "a leopard doesn't change its spots."

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 10:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> So how are the organizers who are offering AA divisions at this moment doing it? How is the Leaderboard done now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Inconsistently.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

tle

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:00 AM

You're probably right, BUT if they have possibly come up with some way to do it other than what this current proposal states, perhaps that woudl be a BETTER way?

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:03 AM

On the subject of the effectiveness of enforcement, check this poll I posted on the H/J forum
effectiveness of amateur enforement (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=6656094911&f=7076024331&m=687608701)

Currently running better than 60% "not effective".

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tle:
If you will look closely you will note that I wrote on the survey a reason why I didn't answer the first part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember that the Section I instructions state "No fair looking at the rule book for the answers"

To which you wrote the following:

Not sure what the test was for, but I feel the answers are there for everyone in the rulebook and to ask me to take a "test" is a bit...well, I honestly feel that you're looking for reasons why you shouldn't have to consider opinions.

First, We specifically indicated that we didn't want the actual rulebook answers. It should have been clear to the reader that we wanted to see to what degree people help inaccurate beliefs about what the rules actually say.

Second, section one of the survey simply asks what you believe certain rules say. But in a sense you are absolutely right. We were trying to see who had a good working knowledge of the rules and who didn't for the express purpose of judging the validity of the other opinions of the survey. If you believed for example, that USEA makes and enforces the rules, you might also believe that creating the infrastructure to enforce this rule would be wildly time consuming and expensive. If you believe that Organizers are allowed to split by amateur status already, then you might also believe that there is no reason to amend the rules, and so on...

But by your response, what UI hear you saying is that regardless of whether you have a competent grasp of facts or not, your opinion, as faulty as it may be, is just as valid as an opinion based in fact. Is that what you are saying? No? Then explain the comment.

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:19 AM

Janet:

Although polling the membership for their perceptions of effectiveness is opne interesting piece of data, the actuakl enforcement is what I am interested in. As I said above, we are trying to get actual data from the uSAEQ hearings committee.

Further, if our hearings committee isn't enforcing the rules, then we need to address that, not whether the amateur rule should be scrapped.

Boss Hoss

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>why I didn't answer the first part. Perhaps if it had been presented different in the first place, I might have felt differently towards it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok. let me offer a moderation here...tle take Packy's survey, turn it into a scientific survey without leading questions or directed towards getting something specific approved and let's see what the eventing population really thinks. I have polling software all ready to post the poll of questions and police the entries pretty well by IP address. Submit the survey to me as a series of questions with multiple answers based on this discussion. I can be the impartial one here and just collect the data.

http://www.cdcta.com/poll/poll_usea.php

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com/images/2004_STALLIONAD.jpg) : CBF

Mudroom2

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:22 AM

Ahh PGM you may not realize that TLE can basically recite the rule book from memory. For her, recollection is the same as looking at the book.

Boss Hoss

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Further, if our hearings committee isn't enforcing the rules, then we need to address that, not whether the amateur rule should be scrapped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe the enforceability has a lot to do with the fundamental definition of what's to be enforced. If most people DISAGREE with it..then it's not enforceable.

If there is no need to STOP at a country Y in the road, then it should be a YIELD sign versus having cops ignore people who roll through it.

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com/images/2004_STALLIONAD.jpg) : CBF

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:31 AM

Boss:

As AI said before. the survey was created after the proposal was created and reflected the process by which the committee discovered things that mattered. The statements made in this thread that are incorrect assumptions regarding the rules are all refelcetd there as well. We ask directly, what concerns do you have? We have asked people to take a range of opinons with regard to statements and then explain their answers. Many people have provided us with very thoughtful and genuine responses that do not agree that the proposal should be implemented. And quite frankly, if I wanted to steer the discussion in a certain direction I certainly would not offer that survey to anyone that is negative on the issue to begin with!

Anyone with a point of view will find plenty of food for thought and room on which they may base opinions and assist in educating the committee as to the attiotudes that we will hear in Boston.

Hilary

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:31 AM

I think Janet asked my question, but I'll ask it again since it hasn't been answered.

If we implement an Amateur divsision will everyone who competes at N/T now have to become a USAEq member?

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If we implement an Amateur divsision will everyone who competes at N/T now have to become a USAEq member?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No.

Hilary

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:38 AM

I should have expanded my question.

IF we implement an amateur division, and USAEq is the body who governs who is or is not an AM, then how will USEA determine who is/is not an amatuer if, as it says in the proposal, that USAEq will be the group policing this rule?

If you aren't going to ask N/T riders to become USAEq members, how will they be classified by USAEq as amatuers?

poltroon

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet:
(Ignoring, for the time being Martie's point that "once a lady rider always a lady rider- but you can change from amateur to pro during the year.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... I know someone who changed from a lady rider to a gentleman rider last year... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

tle

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>If you believe that Organizers are allowed to split by amateur status already, then you might also believe that there is no reason to amend the rules, and so on...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but see.. that is a valid assumption because organizers ARE allowed currently at BN-T to split based on amateur status. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Per article 1704.6.3

What I hear you saying is that because I didn't choose to complete the "test" portion of the survey, my answers and opinions on this proposal are now considered faulty. Is that what you're saying? Are you going to administer the survey prior to any conversation you have, including the ones in Boston? I highly doubt it and therefore you'll have to come up with responses for those queries and concerns that are not based on facts and without quizzing anyone on their knowledge of the rulebook (thank you, btw mudroom2, for your faith in me!). So if this is truly a prepatory exercise for the committee members to be able to field questions in Boston, my not answering the survey test portion would then be a more accurate representation of things you'll hear at the meeting because anecdotal evidence supports the fact that people don't read the rulebook/have it with them to look up stuff... right? Kudos to me for helping more! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by poltroon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet:
(Ignoring, for the time being Martie's point that "once a lady rider always a lady rider- but you can change from amateur to pro during the year.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... I know someone who changed from a lady rider to a gentleman rider last year... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, I figured that had to happen at least once. But a LITTLE more complicated than changing frpm am to pro.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

flutie

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:50 AM

"Well... I know someone who changed from a lady rider to a gentleman rider last year..."

Only in California!

Flutie

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hilary:
I think Janet asked my question, but I'll ask it again since it hasn't been answered.

If we implement an Amateur divsision will everyone who competes at N/T now have to become a USAEq member?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, they won't have to join USAEq.

They will be able to sign a "CERTIFICATION", either on the USEA membership application, or on the entry, that they meet 808. The rule change says that that "CERTIFICATION" will be enforceable, and enforced by the USAEq. I THINK that answers your expanded question too.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

caballo_saltando

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:55 AM

Packy/Janet/TLE/Other RJs (Rule Junkies) -

This is a dumb question I should be able to answer on my own but you can probably save me a lot of time if you could help me with this one:

If I board horses but do not train them or give lessons (just take money in exchange for boarding the horses) am I considered a pro? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

According to the rule that someone posted above, the answer is "yes." Could someone please confirm?

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:57 AM

pgm
You can safely put tle's survey in the pile of "people who have a pretty good grasp of the rules".

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Hilary

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:57 AM

Yes, it does answer my question. What will USAEq charge for this? And will it appear as another fee on our entries?

What if the competitor is a member and has a card, will they NOT be charged the fee b/c it won't take as much effort to track them down?

I know this is sounding really pedantic, but it seems that if USAEq will be the enforcers, yet they won't be getting any membership $$ from these people, they might want to charge for having to keep track of them anyway.

I know my business charges for weird oversight of things like this.

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 11:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tle:

Ah, but see.. that is a valid assumption because organizers ARE allowed currently at BN-T to split based on amateur status. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Per article 1704.6.3

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

PGM responds:

We have already been through this. Organizers are free to define amateur anyway they like. Unless the USEA Aopoendix 3 states how to do this and article 1704 is amended as well, there are bno guidelines that can be strictly enforced by the USAEQ.

**********

More tle:

What I hear you saying is that because I didn't choose to complete the "test" portion of the survey, my answers and opinions on this proposal are now considered faulty. Is that what you're saying?

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

PGM responds

No. I am saying that I do not know whether or not your opinions are valid because you didn't show us what your understanding of the rules is prior to answering the questions. I would be a fool to assume that everyone has the same working knowledge of the rules.

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

More Tle:

Are you going to administer the survey prior to any conversation you have, including the ones in Boston? I highly doubt it and therefore you'll have to come up with responses for those queries and concerns that are not based on facts and without quizzing anyone on their knowledge of the rulebook (thank you, btw mudroom2, for your faith in me!).

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

PGM responds

Actually, we are considering doing a review of the survey responses in powerpoint format that says "here are some questions we asked and here were the results and here is the factual material...

In this manner, we can get people to understand several issues 1) that people don't always know what they are opining about 2) that we all can get the facts wrong and 3) after reviewing the facts, we are now all on the same page and now we can mull it over on a level playing field- everyone has the same factual information.

That way, anyone who is basing their commentary on faulty information will be less able to whip the crowd up into a frenzy using bad information.

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

More Tle:

So if this is truly a prepatory exercise for the committee members to be able to field questions in Boston, my not answering the survey test portion would then be a more accurate representation of things you'll hear at the meeting because anecdotal evidence supports the fact that people don't read the rulebook/have it with them to look up stuff... right? Kudos to me for helping more!

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

PGM Responds

[sigh] do you really want a response to that comment? And by ryour silence on the issue, Itake it that you are comfortable with the "My opinions are valid even if they are based in falsehoods" position from your last post?

**************
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
Janet:

Although polling the membership for their perceptions of effectiveness is opne interesting piece of data, the actuakl enforcement is what I am interested in. As I said above, we are trying to get actual data from the uSAEQ hearings committee.

Further, if our hearings committee isn't enforcing the rules, then we need to address that, not whether the amateur rule should be scrapped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am interested in both - perceptions and reality. I am looking forward to your report from the hearing committee.

I think the "poll" is as informative, in its own way, as your survey.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Boss Hoss

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Well... I know someone who changed from a lady rider to a gentleman rider last year<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since this is no longer a cavalry thing, it would seem everyone is dressing in drag now. Women wearing Men's clothes..tails and a top hat. If it all made sense, Men would be riding sidesaddle.

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com/images/2004_STALLIONAD.jpg) : CBF

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hilary:
Yes, it does answer my question. What will USAEq charge for this? And will it appear as another fee on our entries?

What if the competitor is a member and has a card, will they NOT be charged the fee b/c it won't take as much effort to track them down?

I know this is sounding really pedantic, but it seems that if USAEq will be the enforcers, yet they won't be getting any membership $$ from these people, they might want to charge for having to keep track of them anyway.

I know my business charges for weird oversight of things like this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A couple of pages ago, pgm PROMISED that the rule proposal won't go forward if the USAEq imposes additional fees for it.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet:
I think the "poll" is as informative, in its own way, as your survey.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me, the survey we put out and the poll you are taking are useful if the purpose is to find out what perception is only. What you do with it is important. We are trying to see how preconceived notions are based on an inaccurate understanding of the rules. Your poll simply asks for perceptions with no room for explanation of why this perception is as it is.

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by caballo_saltando:
Packy/Janet/TLE/Other RJs (Rule Junkies) -

This is a dumb question I should be able to answer on my own but you can probably save me a lot of time if you could help me with this one:

If I board horses but do not train them or give lessons (just take money in exchange for boarding the horses) am I considered a pro? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

According to the rule that someone posted above, the answer is "yes." Could someone please confirm?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NO, not a pro.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> e) Having the occupation of veterinarian, groom, farrier or owning a tack shop or breeding
or boarding stable in itself, does not affect the amateur status of a person who is otherwise
qualified. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "loophole closed" I was referring to is that if ONE person is paid "board" and another person, either an employee or family member of the person being paid for board, trains the horse, then it is treated as if the employee or family member were being paid for training.

But if all you do is run a boarding stable you are free and clear.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet: A couple of pages ago, pgm PROMISED that the rule proposal won't go forward if the USAEq imposes additional fees for it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Janet:

I promise lots of stuff. I dissapoint lots of lovers.

remember that your example was with non-member USAEQ in the H/J divisions. USEA is already paying the affiliation fee to USAEQ to get the to enforce the rules. I see no reason why we should pay extra to enforce this one over any other. The same is not true of the H/J divisions.

I know that if eve $.50 is charged I will undoubtedly face a lynch mob of angry horse crazy broads with pitchforks screaming "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! You promised no Fees!" Nad now it costs us more." I'll do my best, but What I said was that if I have anything to say about it, it won't happen. You asre assuming they will give nme the say.

tle

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:18 PM

Oh good grief.

PGM responds:

We have already been through this. Organizers are free to define amateur anyway they like. Unless the USEA Aopoendix 3 states how to do this and article 1704 is amended as well, there are bno guidelines that can be strictly enforced by the USAEQ.

**********

Yes, but it makes that assumption (that organizers can split the divisions by AA now) no less valid.

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

PGM responds

No. I am saying that I do not know whether or not your opinions are valid because you didn't show us what your understanding of the rules is prior to answering the questions. I would be a fool to assume that everyone has the same working knowledge of the rules.

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

Well, I'll agree with the fool portion of that retort. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Of course the same fool would think that everyone but him/her is an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

The "test" questions are more or less reiterated in the rest of the survey... so I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

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

PGM responds

Actually, we are considering doing a review of the survey responses in powerpoint format that says "here are some questions we asked and here were the results and here is the factual material...

***********

That's a good idea. Really.

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

PGM Responds

[sigh] do you really want a response to that comment? And by ryour silence on the issue, Itake it that you are comfortable with the "My opinions are valid even if they are based in falsehoods" position from your last post?

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

My turn... [sigh] do you really want a response to that? Oh puleeze. I think my first sentence dealt with how inane that type of thinking is. Just because I didn't complete your "test" doesn't mean that I don't have a grasp of the rules and my opinions are based on falsehoods... (refer to the fool section of this reply http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif ).

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

tle

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:

I promise lots of stuff. I dissapoint lots of lovers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WAAA TMI!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>remember that your example was with non-member USAEQ in the H/J divisions. USEA is already paying the affiliation fee to USAEQ to get the to enforce the rules. I see no reason why we should pay extra to enforce this one over any other. The same is not true of the H/J divisions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I were in USAEq's spot, I'd look at the original affiliation agreement was for X services rendered... now we want to ad Y services. See the possible reason now?

Is there a way to poll USAEq and find out if this would increase fees BEFORE USEA committees approve it and send it on to the USAEq committees?

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

[This message was edited by tle on Nov. 18, 2003 at 03:46 PM.]

Boss Hoss

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>a lynch mob<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that's agreeable .. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif "A rope..a tree..someone stop tle!"

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com/images/2004_STALLIONAD.jpg) : CBF

tle

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Boss Hoss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>a lynch mob<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that's agreeable .. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif "A rope..a tree..someone stop tle!"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone calls me a "broad" and that just might happen, with or without the rest of the "mob"

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Martie

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pgm:
USEA is already paying the affiliation fee to USAEQ to get the to enforce the rules. I see no reason why we should pay extra to enforce this one over any other. The same is not true of the H/J divisions.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on, Packy - you are not that naive - and you know very well that the agreement w/USAEq for rule compliance over the 'endorsed' divsions is subject to periodic review. Furthermore, you know that even tho' the orignal agreement called for review after 3 years, in point of fact, they have been reviewing the amount every year. (who wouldn't?) Now, it is my understanding (this could be just rumour) that the reason the original $75,000/year has so far been deemed just fine & dandy by USAEq is that there hasn't been any real rules compliance issues for them to spend money on. It's been explained to me that the money is 'like an insurance premium'. Well, if it's like MY insurance premiums, when I add a new feature - my premium goes up! Adding amateur status to the 'endorsed' non-members is definately adding a new feature to our 'insurance policy'.

So - am I against it? No - am I for it? No - I don't really care.

I just like to have the facts straight.

Martie

pgm

Nov. 18, 2003, 12:55 PM

Okay...

I've had enough. maybe canterlope willplay. I am in serious danger of liosing my job and my sense of humor so I am off the boards for a while. Anyone who wants to find me can use myu e-mail address.
so Bye

See ya in Boston. You'll know me by the target on my ass.

poltroon

Nov. 18, 2003, 01:44 PM

I would suggest that the issue of amateur certification for non-USA Eq members is being overthought.

Currently, you can declare yourself a non-member amateur on a one time basis for some exhorbitant fee, I think $30, in the h/j or dressage divisions.

I say, keep that. Say you either have to pay for the affidavit or you have a USA Eq card... or you show open. Or Restricted (etc).

See, that's not so hard. And, if we're primarily worried about prelim and intermediate, those members will already have cards (the Amateur designation is free).

Any extra costs are purely voluntary this way.

tractor queen

Nov. 18, 2003, 03:15 PM

poor packy http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Just for the record, I was the one who called you "condescending" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif...would love to be in Boston to see the whole thing play out (after starting this especially...tee hee http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but alas no more vacation days and I can't take any more days off with no pay or my boss will start to wonder why I am needed anyway http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif But I will have a friend who can fill me in on the whole thing...

I agree with Poltroon (that was the whole reason I initially joined USAE - was because our dressage shows required you to have an ammy card to show in the ammy divisions...go figure...but I did show in open the first few times until I was sure I was staying with it...and I didn't whine... silly me... I figured a rule was a rule...

That being said, I think that the likelihood of actual enforcement "opportunities" would be low enough (born out by a trial period, perhaps) that USAE will not have much basis for charging more than they already do. Thus PGM's requests to ascertain how much "enforcing" they undertake currently.

I vote for signing a certificate that novice and training USAE members could send it in with their annual membership in order to have AA on their USEA membership cards. Non-members would have one more piece of paperwork to send with their entry (AA certificate), but I am sure would rather do that then pay a USAE membership (or ammy card fee).

I don't vote for the multiple ribbons within a division because that doesn't address the problem (as I see it anyway)...{see previous posts}. It's not about a ribbon anyway...

I also think if we still leave the make up of divisions completely to the organizers they will still cater to the pros, even if the ammy's are their bread & butter...a pro can bring twenty horses and even more students, most ammy's don't wield the same power individually, we have to group together to make ourselves heard. I guess USEA is finally noticing all the "pheasant" voices http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also I would like to clarify that it is my perception that discipline specific rules originate within the national governing body and are enforced by USAE..thus it is not all black & white. For example speeds on cross country the rules for refusal etc are different than general rules regarding meds & ammy status...otherwise why would this proposal be brought to the USEA convention...it could just go straight to USAE (unless the national affiliation plays a role in the process)...

Which is probably why USEA members that are not USAE members (our lower level quasi-professionals perhaps) don't know where to find rule changes (which I think should be explained better on the USEA website anyway - if they impact eventing)...

[This message was edited by tractor queen on Nov. 18, 2003 at 06:30 PM.]

Janet

Nov. 18, 2003, 03:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> remember that your example was with non-member USAEQ in the H/J divisions. USEA is already paying the affiliation fee to USAEQ to get the to enforce the rules. I see no reason why we should pay extra to enforce this one over any other. The same is not true of the H/J divisions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My example was the non-member amateur card for $30. Nothing specific to h/j. It also applies to dressage, and ANY discipline that wants to offer amateur classes.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

His Greyness

Nov. 20, 2003, 07:09 AM

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gasp! The protagonists have exhausted themselves. No response for 24 hours. I claim vindication of my reaction of who knows how many pages ago that this proposal merely substitutes on set of complex problems for another equally complicated set! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Therefore I suggest that this idea be referred back to the committee from whence it came with the recommendation to apply KISS principles. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

pgm

Nov. 20, 2003, 08:56 AM

Greyness:

Just when I thought it was safe...you decide to throw that little stink bomb.

You posted only once on this thread, and did not, to my knowledge, request that I send you a copy of the proposal text. As such, please read the proposal again before you publicly start to criticize the methodology behind it.

In fact, the discussion hasn't really criticized the actual proposal. Rather, criticism has centered on two basic issues: 1 - the question of whether we should do this at all in eventing and 2- whether or not the USAEQ amateur rule is adequate for this purpose. Both discussions are valid points that should be and have been raised.

As to whether we should do this, the committee has assumed the answer is yes based on the fact that the membership "appears" to want it. And as for the second issue, this will be debated until the end of time and should involve other segments of the horse industry that would be effected. So rather than attempt a global reorganization of an entire industry, we decided to let that dog sleep right where it is until such time as eventers have experience sufficient to give them standing to comment. Anyway, I fail to see how rewriting a rule that has been in use for a period of over 40 years, is reflective of the KISS approach in the first place.

If you had read the proposal, or the thread for that matter, you would know that the we tried to keep five basic policy statements in mind when crafting the proposal, two of which were geared toward implementing the simplest,least disruptive change possible. KISS was specifically mentioned by me on this trhead several times.

Lastly, no point of view has been vindicated by any silence. And your last poke in the eye was uncalled for. No one should be claiming a victory here. While the anti-amateur rule folks have been extremely vocal, as is their right, the majority of the opinions on this board were pro-amateur with a minority taking no position at all.

[This message was edited by pgm on Nov. 20, 2003 at 01:07 PM.]

His Greyness

Nov. 20, 2003, 01:20 PM

pgm,

You are so easy to tease. <insert noise of agitated chicken> http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Why do you think this BB software includes all the http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif and such like symbols?

Your style of promoting your proposal, in my opinion, diminishes your effectiveness in doing so, particularly to skeptics like myself. I have read this entire thread, the rule book and your "survey".

Eventing is sinking under an increasing burden of ever more complicated rules. Not every official and judge are conscientious in keeping themselves up to date. More than once when helping run an event I have found that I am the only person who has an up to date rule book and has actually read it. If officialdom can't keep up with the rules, why are we making yet more rules?

Therefore I am opposed to any proposal that does not simplify the environment under which events are run. Your proposal merely shifts complexity from one area to another.

Hey, http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I want a division for horses that cost less than $2500 so rich people don't have all the advantages. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

I want a division for just for grey horses/arabs/quarter horses because dressage judges are all biased. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

I want a division for horses thirty years old or older so I can compete by myself. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Where will it ever end? The simple answer is don't let it start.

riverpup

Nov. 20, 2003, 01:49 PM

I still can't see how the AA division would improve eventing.

Nay.

~Whisky for my men, beer for my horses~

pgm

Nov. 20, 2003, 02:09 PM

Greyness:

Criticism is not muted simply because it has a smiley face attached to it. Your post above is critical of the proposal as being too complex, and it is critical of the committee for not trying to Keep It Simple Stupid. And you make this comment without having read the document.

If you haven't read the proposal, you have no business opining as to its merits.

You may have a valid opinion regarding whether to even institute amateur divisions and whether the rule 808 is adeaquate, but if you haven't read our proposal (which is not contained in any of the documnets you say you've read) then you really ought to leave criticism on that document to someone who has read it and considered it thoughtfully.

This issue is too contentious and improtant to allow this kind of misinformation to creep into the fray even if it has a cute emoticon attached to it.

poltroon

Nov. 20, 2003, 03:50 PM

I have specifically criticized two points:

1. I don't see any point in allowing the split for Intermediate and below, but not allowing it for Advanced. Even though it is not likely to be used at Advanced, the points you've raised about why it would be desirable for Preliminary and Intermediate apply as well or better to Advanced.

2. I think that a separate free non-member affidavit for eventing will not fly. I do not see how the current rules would allow it, and if they did, I cannot see why the other disciplines would not lynch us, and honestly, rightly so. I strongly suggest leaving this out.

from the documents:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The USEA does not require that members state whether they are amateurs or professional as part of their membership application. Therefore, we cannot quantify the numbers of amateurs at lower levels. Oddly, USA Equestrian, the national governing body for equestrian sports, has long offered and regulated a strict amateur status in several disciplines, including eventing. While eventers are not required to become USA Eq. members at levels below preliminary, those competing at upper levels must maintain a USA Eq. membership. This membership allows all riders who qualify as amateurs under rules 808 through 810 of the USA Eq. general rules, to so indicate upon application for membership. USA Eq. records show that amateurs make up ___% of total membership. Within the eventing discipline, USA Eq. shows a total of _____ declared amateurs, comprising ____% of the total eventers recorded as USA Eq. members. These figures may not reflect the true situation within eventing. With no amateur classes to enter, the need to declare amateur status does not arise amongst our participants. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just some comments on this passage - since the amateur certification is free, and since most eventers occasionally attend a dressage or hunter show, I think it's safe to assume that any eventer who is a USA Eq member and fits the amateur definition will sign for the amateur status.

However, I do agree that separate amateur divisions are likely to cause more people to declare as amateurs - people who currently engage in the borderline 'on the side' teaching and training may give up those activities to hold an amateur card.

Here is some of your text:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
6.2. - An Organizing Committee shall first divide a level of a horse trial into regular and open sections, as defined in Appendix 3. It may then divide a section by age, as defined in 2 and 3 above and by amateur status as defined in 4 above. All of these divisions may be specified in the prize list/Omnibus Schedule page for the event. Further division may be done by draw.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would make that "It may then divide a section by age, as defined in 2 and 3 above and/or by amateur status as defined in 4 above." This way you are not requiring the age split first.

Note that the way this is written, you have to split into Regular and Open sections BEFORE you can split out an amateur section. So you could NOT split Open/Amateur - you could only split an already split division ... ie, Regular/Amateur Regular/Open. You could also go Regular/Open Amateur/ Open ... but the section below makes that effectively the same:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
3. Amateur sections of each level shall be restricted to horse and rider combinations that have not competed more than one (1) level higher than the division entered within the previous twenty-four (24) month period. (Example, Amateur Novice entries may not have competed, as a combination, at the Preliminary level or above.) This will require substantial revision to Appendix 3 of the USA Eq Rules For Eventing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the big criticism I heard about the Regular division from some of the Amateurs here was that they felt amateur riders should ride against other amateurs, even dropping down in class. Since organizers could already choose to divide a Regular or an Open division by the first change, why add the "24 month" restriction?

Frankly, even if you do want to keep some sort of Restricted on top of amateur, I would lose the 24 month angle and make it "horse and rider have not competed more than 1 level above as a combination." If you've been Intermediate as a pair ever, I don't think you need the protection of the amateur division to run at Training. Open is the right place.