“Amateur” Status Doesn’t Work In Eventing- latest COTH [Archive]

canterlope

Feb. 20, 2004, 07:58 AM

Most of you know where I stand on the amateur status issue, so I'm not going to make further comment on that specifically. However, I do want to correct an inaccuracy that Kate mentions on more than one occassion in her article. She first mentions it here:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 3. Riders who compete below the preliminary level are not required to be members of the USEF and are therefore bound only by those USEF rules that are printed in the USEA rulebook. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While it is true that riders below Preliminary are not required to be members of the USEF (for that matter, neither are riders above Preliminary), they are subject to all applicable rules and bylaws of the USEF, not just those contained in Rule XVII. If you have any doubt about this, read the back of your event entry forms. You know, that fine print that most of us say we are going to read some day, but never get around to it.

By signing the entry form, anyone entering a USEF endorsed (BN, N, and most T) or recognized (some T, P, I, A, and three days) competition agrees to be bound by the rules of the USEF. Notice it does not exclude non-members. Also notice it does not limit the applicable rules to just Rule XVII.

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

hosses4me

Feb. 20, 2004, 08:00 AM

Very well said! Thanks!

Janet

Feb. 20, 2004, 08:07 AM

As canterlope siad, there are some errors about the rules. In addition to the error about the whole rule book applying to eventers, the article is wrong about the divisions. The curent diisions are
"Junior Novice", Open Novice", and "Novice Rider", etc,
Not "Open Novice" and regular "Novice".
That was 2003.

As with canterlope, you already know my opinions on this.

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

tle

Feb. 20, 2004, 08:27 AM

Thanks Canterlope... you beat me to the correction. 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

Camstock

Feb. 20, 2004, 08:58 AM

good. I was wondering what in the blue sky "regular" Novice was. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Mudroom2

Feb. 20, 2004, 09:03 AM

the article says:

"The Adult Amateur Rider of the Year could easily be designated the Adult Rider of the Year. Rider of the Year clearly refers to premier riders with points in the triple or quadruple digits and could be called Premier Rider of the Year."

So would it be the less successful pros against the amateurs for the 'Rider of the Year' award?

As stated by others all USEF rules apply. I beleive that is where all or most of the drug related rules are.

As stated in many of these debates the whole Amateur division would be optional to both organizers and competitors. If a N or T rider didn't care about being eligible for an Amateur division, they wouldn't have to have a USEF card.

subk

Feb. 20, 2004, 09:09 AM

Interesting article and comments. It has made me see this problem in a way I hadn't before. We have three classes of people in eventing: Amateur, Professional and "Non-professionals." The rules are screwed up because they are trying to define the three classes with only two designations.

I don't think many "true amateurs" would be unhappy to compete against "nonprofessionals." I think it would work if you could figure out the delineation between Non-professionals and professional. So where would you put the guidelines be to define a "non-professional?"

canterlope

Feb. 20, 2004, 11:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Look for a surreptitious implementation of the rule in the next few years in eventing unless, as Kate says, the leadership listens to us 70-Percenters and tries to do the fair thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No surreptitious implementation of the rule in the next few years is necessary, retreadeventer. We are already bound by the current amateur status rule.

I have to admit that I have some problems with Kate's article, and not just because she presents a point of view different from my own. In addition to the misinformation it contains, I also have an issue with the fact that she referenced the work of the Amateur Status Committee, but she never contacted any member of that committee to verify her facts.

I also have an issue with publically berating a member of the committee without having contacted that individual and allowing him to present his point of view concurrent with the publication of her article. Or, at the very least, giving this individual and the rest of the committee members a heads up that the article was even being published.

Maybe I just have to face facts and realize that I'm not as grown-up as I though I was in that I feel a bit like a horse that was led to water, asked to drink, and then smacked on the head when I took a sip. All of us on that committee put in a great deal of time and hard work for over a year trying to come up with a viable means of defining and regulating amateur status within the sport of eventing and the rules of our National Governing Body. When we presented our findings, not only were we raked across the hot coals then, but now we get to be publically accused of demeaning hard working and dedicated amateurs (of which I consider myself one) in addition to having our commitment to addressing the needs and desires of our adult riders called into question.

If anyone needs me, I'll be out back eating a can of worms.

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

Janet

Feb. 20, 2004, 11:47 AM

canterlope,

Even though _I_ don't agreee with quite a few of the findings, I DO appreciate the work that went into it.

The whole thing is a "can of worms" The committee opened it, but no need to eat it!

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

tle

Feb. 20, 2004, 12:21 PM

Have to ditto what Janet said... on all accounts! Canterlope... you know we luv ya -- but you'd be pushing it if you show up with stinky worm breath! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif Back away from the worms...

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

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

SwizzleStick

Feb. 20, 2004, 01:04 PM

“the problem is that, basically, everybody believes the...line should be right above them,”

This is exactly what the problem is folks. Would it make Kate happier if, instead of "amateur" and "open," the terms "just barely competent rider" and "very competent rider" were used? Then everybody could get a ribbon. Oh goody!

Good God, this topic has been beaten to death in a thread several months ago. Are we going to start all over again? The amateur rule is what we have, folks, and until it can be rewritten to satisfy the (according to Kate) legions of dissatisfied people, it's legally what we've got to go on.

(And by the way, Kate, the USEA "rulebook" you refer to is - as the title page states - just a reprint of pertinent USEF rules in a larger font and more portable format.)

Swizzle Stick

tractor queen

Feb. 20, 2004, 01:17 PM

Hear hear Kate for taking your editorial (which is what it was) straight to the people. I don't personally see any inaccuracies in her facts other than:
1) the no USEF rules apply below Prelim (how did she miss that?) comment. USEA rules are a subsection of USEF rules and HT at Prelim and above are USEF & USEA recognized. Plus you have to be a member of both to compete Prelim and above.

2)The new rule book no longer provides for novice rider/novice horse designations, only novice is being used and rarely at that!

As Kate correctly points out organizers need to realize that even though they think they are catering to the professionals by lumping everyone in the same group (open novice) at some point there is usually a non-professional/adult/{and in some cases} amateur stroking the final check - whether they actually get around to riding their own horse or not.

I am happy to report that Rocking Horse offered the Novice and Training (maybe even Prelim) divisions in addition to the open divisions! {Not that it did this adult ammy anygood since I did a CCI ** almost two years ago and finished close to last and never competed any higher (nor will ever ride that high again).} I had take my new greenie in Open Novice filled with red coats!!!

But at least they offered it {and it was very full}....Kate's point was that last year very few organizers even bothered...hopefully more will see the point this year!!!!

I don't think there needs to be an incentive...only enough entries to make a reasonable size division.

As far a year end awards...I hate to burst Kate's bubble and open another can of worms, but as currently written "adult rider" is not defined by USEA (nor USEF) so we have no age guidelines ( before or after Young rider cutoff) or exclusions for Pro's. Technically, Karen O'Connor could be an adult rider (not that she would want to be)....

What about the way they do it in ice skating where you "turn pro", anyone wearing a red coat in the last ___ {fill in the blank} years...is automaticlly a pro, as is anyone else with ____
points on the pro leaderboard for inter and advanced (or even down to Prelim)...whatever just so it is clear.

Just please don't raise the fees!!! And don't implement an amateur rule on behalf of 70% of the membership that wouldn't satisfy even half of those people....

Janet

Feb. 20, 2004, 01:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2)The new rule book no longer provides for novice rider/novice horse designations, only novice is being used and rarely at that! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read the 2004 rule book. Novice Rider IS there, though not Novice Horse.

There is NO "Novice".

The official divisons are
Junior Novice
Novice Rider
Open Novice.

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

Feb. 20, 2004, 02:02 PM

I have been dismayed over the last 15 years of competing as an AA to see the NR, TR, and PR divisions slowly disappear from many events, leaving only the Open divisions.

Event organizers do their best to seperate the "professionals" from the AA through the A,B,C method. But as an AA it can be discouraging to find yourself at an event that you scraped and saved to go to competing with multiple CCI*** and **** level riders.

I would like to see the USEA require sanctioned events to offer one division of AA-only riders for Novice, Training and Prelim divisions. THis AA division would be on a first come first postmarked basis and, once full, remaining AA riders would be slotted into the Open divisions.

How do we police such a thing? Expecting the time and money to be spent on some kind of card carrying, record checking system is unrealistic in my view. USEA funds are just too short. For now, riders will have to rely on each other to properly represent themselves when it comes to identifying professional verses amateur status.

I think anyone who earns money promoting themselves as a trainer of event riders and/or horses has deemed themselves to be a "professional" and should be competing in Open divisions. It does not seem like all that difficult a distinction to me and the USEA should be able to come up with a sentence that encompasses that definition.

If a local "professional" still feels compelled to compete in the amateur division, then so be it. But I think the good "professionals" looking to be examples for their students will place themselves appropriately in the Open divisions.

canterlope

Feb. 20, 2004, 03:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> USEA rules are a subsection of USEF rules and HT at Prelim and above are USEF & USEA recognized. Plus you have to be a member of both to compete Prelim and above. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>USEF membership is not required in order to compete in USEF/USEA recognized Preliminary and above horse trials. The only time USEF membership is required to event is in a CCI or CIC at any level. For a summary of association membership requirements, got to:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As far a year end awards...I hate to burst Kate's bubble and open another can of worms, but as currently written "adult rider" is not defined by USEA (nor USEF) so we have no age guidelines ( before or after Young rider cutoff) or exclusions for Pro's. Technically, Karen O'Connor could be an adult rider (not that she would want to be).... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>tractor queen, I hate to burst your bubble, but the rules do include a definition of adult rider. Please see Article 107 of the USEF rules. Plus, Karen O'Connor isn't "technically" an adult rider, she is an adult rider. Perhaps you are confusing "adult" with "amateur".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Feb. 20, 2004 at 08:04 PM.]

poltroon

Feb. 20, 2004, 04:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
“the problem is that, basically, everybody believes the...line should be right above them,”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure that there are some people who basically have this attitude. Nevertheless, the problem is bigger than that and to suggest it's just a bunch of whiner crybabies who want to be big fish in a small pond does not serve anyone.

As a former h/j rider, I really like divisions that are based on EXPERIENCE and not money. Understand - the way the rules are written anyone riding with a pink coat can ride in Amateur Novice as long as they are not taking money to teach or ride. Even current professionals only have to renouce their status and refrain from taking money for a year to become amateurs again.

I would proudly ride in a restricted division for Preliminary, if I ever get back to that level again - because I'd be new to the division and ready to see if I've learned something. But even if eligible, I would not ride in Novice Rider or Beginner Novice Rider, because I am seasoned and confirmed at those levels.

If I were to board a friend's horse in my backyard for a month as a favor, and hack it around a few times to keep it in shape, that would make me a pro. But how/why would doing that change who my riding "peers" should be?

SwizzleStick

Feb. 20, 2004, 06:51 PM

"USEF membership is not required in order to compete in USEF/USEA recognized Preliminary and above horse trials. The only time USEF membership is required to event is in a CCI or CIC at any level."

Huh????

Erin

Feb. 20, 2004, 07:26 PM

Y'know, I was just thinking about this the other day... someone at my barn asked if I'd ride their horse, and I had to say no because it would screw up my amateur status. Not that I really need it in eventing, but I don't really want to be in the open division at dressage shows.

I have always liked the fact that eventing doesn't rely on ammy status very much, and uses experienced-based divisions and the honor system instead. Like poltroon, even though I'm eligible, I just wouldn't feel right riding in a BNR or NR division with my green horse.

And I may be in the minority on this, but I don't really mind competing against pros if an open division is all that's available. Of course, most of my eventing experience is in the midwest... on the East Coast, and especially Area II, it's different. I might feel differently if I'd spent a good portion of my eventing career constantly being beaten by an O'Connor! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Peggy

Feb. 20, 2004, 09:19 PM

You can ride the horse, Erin, just not for money http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I did ride in an amateur division (Training) about 14 or so years ago at Ram Tap, but am almost sure that a USEF (then AHSA) amateur card was not required--I had one, but a friend who did the Novice Amateur division wasn't a member. I think it basically operated on the honor system and, since not much was at stake, it worked. Were Training and Novice not AHSA sanctioned then and that's why it was allowed?

IMHO, whatever system you use (ammy/prof or experience), people will cheat if the stakes are high enough. Also, no system is perfect. Any black and white definition is going to end up "misclassifying" a few people, such as the TFK who can afford to ride full time and has done a **** but is still any ammy or the professional that teaches beginner lessons, but has never evented above novice. Gray definitions are pretty tricky to write, let alone enforce.

I'm not sure I have any solution for this. Maybe a system that ranks riders somehow according to placings, levels shown, clear XC rounds, and so on (sort of like the rankings for international show jumping) and then splits them into classes accordingly? Then, of course, the person that has the lowest ranking in their class will probably complain, but it might even out over the long run.

Before they split amateur divisions off into separate classes, some of the California dressage shows ran concurrent amateur and junior divisions with the open divisions. Everyone paid a basic entry fee. Then, if you wanted to be considered for ribbons in the amateur group, you paid a smaller additional fee for that (sort of like paying the extra money to ride for a Qualifying score at a dressage show). Three sets of ribbons were awarded--one that included everyone, and then two others for the subsets of juniors and amateurs. Would something like this work?

canterlope

Feb. 21, 2004, 02:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Before they split amateur divisions off into separate classes, some of the California dressage shows ran concurrent amateur and junior divisions with the open divisions. Everyone paid a basic entry fee. Then, if you wanted to be considered for ribbons in the amateur group, you paid a smaller additional fee for that (sort of like paying the extra money to ride for a Qualifying score at a dressage show). Three sets of ribbons were awarded--one that included everyone, and then two others for the subsets of juniors and amateurs. Would something like this work? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Peggy, it might work. However, you still come back to the root of the problem which is how do you define who gets to be included in that amateur subset.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'm sure that there are some people who basically have this attitude. Nevertheless, the problem is bigger than that and to suggest it's just a bunch of whiner crybabies who want to be big fish in a small pond does not serve anyone.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First, it was never suggested that this was the whole problem. Kate took, out of context, one sentence made in a discussion that lasted for over an hour and attached a meaning to it that the speaker never intended. This was not the belief of the committee. Personally, I know that I would not have put in the amount of work I did on this project if I thought I was only doing it for a group of whiner crybabies.

Second, like it or not, during the course of its work, the committee discovered that a majority of the riders who were against using the current USEF amateur rule drew the line right above themselves when asked where it should be drawn. So how else was the committee supposed to report its findings? And, how fair is it to ascribe a cynical meaning to it and attribute it to the committee or one of its members when it was a fact that was perpetuated by the very group of people the committee was created for in the first place?

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

subk

Feb. 21, 2004, 08:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canterlope:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Before they split amateur divisions off into separate classes, some of the California dressage shows ran concurrent amateur and junior divisions with the open divisions. Everyone paid a basic entry fee. Then, if you wanted to be considered for ribbons in the amateur group, you paid a smaller additional fee for that (sort of like paying the extra money to ride for a Qualifying score at a dressage show). Three sets of ribbons were awarded--one that included everyone, and then two others for the subsets of juniors and amateurs. Would something like this work? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>_Peggy,_ it might work. However, you still come back to the root of the problem which is how do you define who gets to be included in that amateur subset.[QUOTE]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been suggested in the past and not implemented. I think because it doesn't solve the whole problem. On the other hand it would certainly address a good part of the problem and seems rather easy to implement. Maybe if we stopped trying to fix the whole thing and deal with it a segment at a time we could get somewhere--certainly farther than we've gotten to date.

As far as the "crybaby attitude." While Kate may have pulled that quote out of context, it certainly is in keeping with the tone of discussions that I've seen by the head of the committee. I know you guys have worked hard canterlope but the communicating has left a little to be desired.

SwizzleStick

Feb. 21, 2004, 11:52 AM

Canterlope - At the risk of being a bore, I'm repeating my earlier posting.

posted Feb. 20, 2004 10:51 PM
"USEF membership is not required in order to compete in USEF/USEA recognized Preliminary and above horse trials. The only time USEF membership is required to event is in a CCI or CIC at any level."
Huh????

Surely you don't mean to say that one isn't required to be a member of USEF to compete in Preliminary and above at a Horse Trials? And I thought you were the rules guru!

Swizzle Stick

msghook

Feb. 21, 2004, 08:45 PM

In the first place, Canterlope, despite her many admirable qualities (and I can think of a long list), is not the "rules guru"; that would be me.
In the second: USEF membership is in fact not required to compete at the Preliminary level and above (exception - you must be a member to compete in FEI competions) but you have to pay a non-member fee for each competition, so you might as well join if your bank account is of any importance to you.
This is the second thread on this subject since the Boston meeting. I think I have pretty firm grasp of what you guys don't want. Why don't we talk about what you do want?

Malcolm

Janet

Feb. 21, 2004, 08:47 PM

If you are not a USEF member, you can pay the USEF non-member fee, and the discipline fee.

Not cost effective if you are doing many events, but you don't HAVE to be a uSEF member, the way you HAVE to be a USEA member.

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

poltroon

Feb. 21, 2004, 09:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msghook:

This is the second thread on this subject since the Boston meeting. I think I have pretty firm grasp of what you guys don't want. Why don't we talk about what you do want?

Malcolm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like what we have - the idea of "you have not competed above X level." I am not all that picky about the exact standard - I am OK with it being "you haven't competed above the current level" or "you haven't competed above the current level +1"

I like recognizing people who are true adult amateurs, and who do not take any money - but IMHO that is less important to me than giving people who are new to a level a chance to ride against other people new to a level and perhaps take home a ribbon. Frankly, I'd rather lose to David O'Connor than to 10 stay-at-home wealthy types (without kids) who own multiple horses and ride several hours a day and 5 people who make their living buying and selling horses they own. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Erin's point is one of the biggest problems with the rule - and it creates huge headaches for us amateurs. We're busy people, and our budgets are stretched - taking $10 or $15 for a ride - or paying $10 or $15 for a hack - often makes things way easier. So, sometimes adults just skate along and take the money, knowing that it won't be reported - or, the requestor is stuck paying $60 for the pro to ride the horse instead.

Janet

Feb. 21, 2004, 10:21 PM

Malcolm,

What _I_ want is this:

If there is a restricted division, as distinct from an open division, I want the following to be eligible for the restricted division:
-Someone competing in evening for the first time, regardless of whether they are amateur or non-amateur.
-Someone moving up to a new level for the first time, regardless of whether they are amateur or non-amateur.

As such, I am perfectly happy with the current rules for splits: Jr/YR level, level rider, open level.

Having heard some of the comments of others, there are some changes that I am not seeking, but would not object to. Basically, a change which allows more people INTO the restricted division (within reason) is OK with me. A change which EXCLUDES people currently in "level Rider" is NOT OK with me.

- Changing the definition of "level N rider" (which is currently "has not completed more than 2 events at level N+1 in the last 24 months) to "3 events", "level N+2, or "36 months" or "12 months" would all be OK.

-Changing the definition to "has not competed THIS HORSE at more than 2 (or 3) events at level N+1 (or N+2) in the last 24 (or 12, or 36) months would also be OK. This sort of combines the old "level Horse" and "level Rider", and reflects the approach taken for additional restrictions in the version of the amateur proposal that I read.

The version of the report from the committee that I read said, IIRC, that you could only split amateur vs non amateur AFTER you split Jr/YR, level Rider, Open level. If that restriction remains (so that there is still A restricted division for the first time eventer who makes her living galloping racehorses), AND there is no increased cost from the USEF for enforcement, then I don't object to amateur divisions. But if the rule is structured so that an organizer is allowed to offer "Amateur level" and "Open level" as the only two divisions open to adults, then I DO object. If enforcing the amateur rules for riders who are USEA members but not USEF members increases the costs to USEA, to riders, or to organizers, then I also object.

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

Janet

Feb. 21, 2004, 10:33 PM

Also if eventing is going to make ANY use of the USEF amateur rules, I want rule change proposal 026-03.

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

canterlope

Feb. 22, 2004, 01:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In the first place, Canterlope, despite her many admirable qualities (and I can think of a long list), is not the "rules guru"; that would be me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As always, I am humbled by the mere presence of "The Hook", rules guru extraordinaire. The Coffee Procurement Technician and I stand at the ready to do his slightest bidding. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

And yes, SS, that's exactly what I mean.

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

Robby Johnson

Feb. 22, 2004, 03:59 AM

From the perspective of communicating the rule, I think the committee has indeed done a good job of fostering discussion and involving the membership. Where there seems to be conflict is in the "moving ahead" phase which, of course, will not appeal to everyone involved. Managing change is a very calculated process and eventually the rubber must meet the road and, as a former marketing professor of mine would say in lecture, we need to "sing a hymn, pass the plate, and move on."

I can think of a plethora of other cliches to add for impact but I shall spare you as it's a lovely morning dawning here and I'm going to take Rhodes for a hack before we head down to Hot Springs for a day at the Oaklawn Jockey Club.

Malcolm's suggestion for "what would work for you?" is very diplomatic and I will add my thoughts here:

1. Abort the "amateur" word and substitute "non-professional." Add the word "professional" to the definition as well. Pro ranks and non-pro ranks are a lot more definable:

Professional - I make my living in this sport. I will probably beat the stuffings out of a non-professional.
Non-Professional - I make my living outside of this sport. I would probably get the stuffings beaten out of me by a pro.
Young Rider - Age-limited to 23. Can be pro or non-pro.
Junior - Who the Hell cares? I am under the age of 18. Bring on the fast galloping and wild parties.

Any questions?

2. Work with a noteworthy event in each area to roll this sucker out. A very comprehensive presentation of the rule and the new process will be required to avoid the snakepit of organizational clutter often associated with a rule change.
Evaluate the roll-out and report it immediately. What worked, what didn't work, etc. Include testimonials. Even if they're not great.

3. Commit to a long-term evaluation period! Don't roll this out and then have a town meeting in San Francisco for a rule change. The more I'm involved in this sport the more I think a 36-month window is appropriate as a "product life cycle" for a rule.

Membership, my cry to each of you would be to seriously assess whether this rule is really going to affect you as a competitor. Will it? Seriously? If it will, perhaps you should be honest with yourself and everyone else and move into the pro ranks. If not, then it really isn't an issue.

At this point the myriad of scenarios that can be presented are just that - a myriad. The rubber has met the road, folks.

Sing a hymn, pass the plate, and let's move on. I'll lead ...

"Someone's praying Lord, kumbaya ..."

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

[This message was edited by Robby Johnson on Feb. 22, 2004 at 08:14 AM.]

asterix

Feb. 22, 2004, 06:53 AM

1. I agree with Janet's points, in their entirety

2. Very much like Robby's idea of a testbed and eval cycle.

3. Am worried that how any change is received is largely dependent on Area -- in Area II it is matter-of-course to see an Olympic veteran on a horse (or three or five) in N/T divisions, but in other areas this might never happen. As an Area II N/T rider, Janet's thoughts sound right on, but I respect the need to make something work across the country. Thoughts from other Areas?

Heather

Feb. 22, 2004, 09:21 AM

This may already be being discussed (a little bird told me it was being considered) but why not use (or use as a starting point), the ATC rules (I know, they are guidelines, not rules). But I would be completely happy and satisfied with division (adult, non-pro, what ever you wanted to call them) being based on these specs (from the USEA website):

The Rites of Entry

Entry requirements for the Adult Team Championships are pretty relaxed to favor the adult amateur rider or the local "teaching pro."

QUALIFYING CONDITIONS:

1. Adult Team Novice Championship:
Riders: Open to current members of the USEA, who are at least 22 years old (born in or before 1981). The following are not eligible: Any rider who has competed at the Intermediate or Advanced level, or in any FEI recognized competition at the two-star level or above- including the North American Young Riders Championships- within the previous five years.

Horses: Open to horses four years of age or older, of any grade, who have not been competing at the Intermediate or Advanced level within the current calendar year.

2. Adult Team Training Championship:
Riders and Horses: Same qualifying conditions as for the novice level (see above).

3. Adult Team Preliminary Championship:
Riders: Open to current members of the USEA, who are at least 22 years old (born in or before 1981). The following are not eligible: Any rider who has competed at the Advanced level, or in any FEI recognized competition at the two-star level or above- including the North American Young Riders Championships- within the previous five years.

Horses: Open to horses five years of age or older, of any grade, who have not been competing at the advanced level within the current calendar year.

Normal entry requirements apply to the horses, except that the horse cannot be competing at the intermediate or advanced level within the current calendar year for novice or training, or the advanced level for preliminary. A rider cannot ride more than one horse on each team, but a rider with more than one horse may ride on more than one team.

To me this seems fair and equitable--you won't ride against someone with sginificantly more expereince that you ( horse or rider), but we aren't fussing about how people pay their bills.

This is what I would want Malcom, if we have to have something at all.

SwizzleStick

Feb. 22, 2004, 09:43 AM

"USEF membership is in fact not required to compete at the Preliminary level and above (exception - you must be a member to compete in FEI competions) but you have to pay a non-member fee for each competition, so you might as well join if your bank account is of any importance to you."

Ouch - the real Rules Guru is too smart for the old Swizz! Correction noted.....

JackW

Feb. 22, 2004, 11:24 AM

My suggestion would be to go back to the definition that was used previously, novice would be someone who has not competed more than one level higher, i.e., training. If you want to restrict those eligible even more, then limit it to any horse/rider combination who has not won 5 times at that level or higher. And by the way, that would put me and my current mount into the open division, so I drew the line just below me! Seriously, this would restrict the upper level riders from competing against the competitors with less experience and also limit the "professional" novice rider at some point.

subk

Feb. 22, 2004, 05:52 PM

I agree with Robby in that we should create a new classification of "Non-Proffessional."

A Non-proffessional is anyone who has not done any of the following:

1) Worn a "red coat" in the last five years.

2) Have paying student(s) who have competed at training level or higher in the last 2 years.

3) Ridden at a 3 or 4 star in the last 2 years.

4) Competed 3 or more different horses at any level within the last calendar year.

Malcolm as always I'm delighted to see you around here!

Janet

Feb. 22, 2004, 07:24 PM

Robby said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Professional - I make my living in this sport. I will probably beat the stuffings out of a non-professional.
Non-Professional - I make my living outside of this sport. I would probably get the stuffings beaten out of me by a pro. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Robby, where would you put the following people?

1- I make all of my income in this sport, but it is all from the gound. I am an excellent teacher, but becuase of some old injuries, I can't ride my way out of a paper bag myself.

2- I make all my income outside the sport, but I regularly beat the stuffing out of the local professionals.

3- I make approximately half my income in another profession, and approximately half in eventing. It varies a bit from year to year. Given the right horse, I can beat the stuffing out of most of the non-pros, but get MY stuffing beaten out by the "real" pros. Besides, I am rarely "given the right horse", as I have developed a reputation for retraining rogues. In the process, I usually get the stuffing beaten out of me by the non-pros on more reliable horses. And my dressage sucks.

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

Robby Johnson

Feb. 23, 2004, 02:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janet:
Robby said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Professional - I make my living in this sport. I will probably beat the stuffings out of a non-professional.
Non-Professional - I make my living outside of this sport. I would probably get the stuffings beaten out of me by a pro. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Robby, where would you put the following people?

1- I make all of my income in this sport, but it is all from the gound. I am an excellent teacher, but becuase of some old injuries, I can't ride my way out of a paper bag myself.

I am a professional.

2- I make all my income outside the sport, but I regularly beat the stuffing out of the local professionals.

I am a non-professional with some kick-ass ribbon quilts. Lucky me.

3- I make approximately half my income in another profession, and approximately half in eventing. It varies a bit from year to year. Given the right horse, I can beat the stuffing out of most of the non-pros, but get MY stuffing beaten out by the "real" pros. Besides, I am rarely "given the right horse", as I have developed a reputation for retraining rogues. In the process, I usually get the stuffing beaten out of me by the non-pros on more reliable horses. And my dressage sucks.

Not so easy, but I'd likely still say "professional" here.

I also think it is up to the rider, in a situation like this, to be honest with themselves and their fellow competitors when declaring their own status.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

rileyt

Feb. 23, 2004, 05:36 AM

Janet and Robby, I think your example illustrates exactly what I think is wrong with the amateur definition... that is, categorizing people's riding skills based on where they earn their income.

I think, at the root of this debate, that is what I see as the crux of teh problem.

The purpose behind the "amateur rule", it seems to me, is to keep competitors competing against other competitors of like skill. But making that determination based on money just doesn't make any sense... look at the hunter/jumper world.

I used to love the fact that events had Novice Rider, or Novice Horse... "open to horses/riders who have not completed 4 or more horse trials above the Novice Level within the current or preceding year..."

I may be getting the standard wrong, but that was the basic gist of it. I think, in theory, this is one of the best ways to divide people. Sure, its not perfect. But it makes a lot more sense to me than making that distinction based on whether or not someone teaches an up-down lesson once a week.

If the problem is, that organizers are no longer offering Prelim Rider, or Prelim Horse divisions,... but only Open Prelim... Then lets address that question. But PLEASE GOD don't turn us into the HUNTER WORLD... complete with its allegations of shamateurs and all of the nonsense, backstabbing, and allegations that goes on there.

I'd rather ride against the USET in every division I ever enter in for the rest of my life.

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Feb. 23, 2004, 06:06 AM

At the lower levels, (through Prelim, I'd say) I am much less interested in where someone earns their money than in how high they have competed. When "I" beat Mike Plumb at Training or Novice, it's pretty darn sure the horse is off the track less than two months (I exagerate slightly, but you get my point) When "I" beat, oh, canterlope, it's a sign I've put in a darn good dressage test, and jumped clean.

At Intermediate and ADvanced, I am sympathetic to riders who fit in riding around their day jobs, and still manage to compete at that level. I'm all for additional recognition for them, a separate leaderboard, whatever.

If at Prelim and below we want a separate leaderboard, no skin off my back. But separate "amateur" divisions I thinnk starts us down the ugly HJ road. I'm all for reformalizing the NR, TR divisions, if there is demand for it. I won't be entering them, but I won't fight them. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Robby Johnson

Feb. 23, 2004, 06:29 AM

OK, so the underlying current is, "situations in your daily regimen - be it financial, physical or just plain more talent/better instruction - put you in a position to beat me in competition. I would like to occassionally win. I would like the playing field to be leveled."

How do we level the playing field?

If I am wealthy and can hire a top-level instructor to train me regularly and find me stellar horses that result in me regularly beating USET combinations, am I a professional?

If I am 27 years-old, do my best to produce young horses, or off the track horses, as a primary source of existence, but haven't been able to tap into the upper-level machine of training and winning, does it make me a non-professional?

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

Janet

Feb. 23, 2004, 06:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'm all for reformalizing the NR, TR divisions, if there is demand for it. I won't be entering them, but I won't fight them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read your 2004 rulebook. They are there.

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

Gry2Yng

Feb. 23, 2004, 06:36 AM

It will be difficult to level, I think Packy's statement that everyone wants the line drawn just about them, has some truth. It is a muddy pond.

rileyt

Feb. 23, 2004, 08:00 AM

See... I totally disagree with that Gry2Young. The people that I have spoken to don't want the line to be drawn just above them.

I don't care WHERE they draw the line... Just so long as if the purpose of that line is to "even the playing field"... then lets base that line on the closest thing to ability that we can get (whether its the rider's experience, horse's experience, number of years riding, whatever). But lets not choose "WHERE YOU EARN YOUR MONEY" as the indicator of ability. Because we all know that doesn't work.

Gry2Yng

Feb. 24, 2004, 05:37 AM

rileyt,
You statement assumes that ability is how you level the playing field, but someone has to have the have the best ability in any given system. So under the ability format, the winner is the best rider that has never gone intermediate (or whatever).

Why is that a more level field than the best rider who works nine to five at something other than horses.

I prefer the "where you earn your money" criteria, because there is an implication regararding how much time you spend riding. Those who get to do it all day every day have an advantage over those who don't.

Heather

Feb. 24, 2004, 06:15 AM

But Gry, there are plenty of people who do ride all day every day, with top notch horses and instruction, who are not pros.

I think that's why so many people DON'T think how you make your money is ANY sort indicator of ability.

And I agree, I haven't seen an epidemic of people who want the line drawn just above them. Most people want to ride against someone of similar expereince to themselves. That means many people would feel eminantly more similar to a local pro who is mounted on an OTTB at his first event, than a weathly (non-working) amateur moutned on her new schoolmaster from England.

That is not a judgement, there is NOTHING wrong with being a wealthy amateur with a schoomaster from England (hell, I'd take that gig, LOL), BUT most adult riders are more similar to the local pro than the non working amateur.

After many discussions, and reading many threads, this deosn't seem like rocket science.

How about:

Riders are elgible for the (use whatever word, rider, restricted, adult, non-pro) division if they have not competed two levels above the current level (so people who have gone prelim, must ride in open BN or N, people who have gone OI must ride in open training). If you or the horse has gone advanced, neither of you is eligible for the (use the word you want: rider, restricted, adult, non-pro) division.

That seems pretty simple, no? All info can be verfied via the USEA--no need to involve USEF at all . . . {heather steels herself for people to point out all the reasons it wouldn't work}

Heather

Feb. 24, 2004, 06:21 AM

Let me also add, at the ATC's Mr Heather rode on a prelim team, which was comprised of two fully amateur, working full time riders with one horse each (persons A and B), one rider with a part time "desk" job but who rides multiple horses each day(person C), and a local pro in her first year at prelim and (person D).

The top score on the team (and in the entire division actually) was person C. The drop score for the team (still a very good score) was person D. Person A and B were the middle scores.

To me this is a classic example as to why the classic income definition as indicator of skill means next to nothing.

Robby Johnson

Feb. 24, 2004, 07:23 AM

But if you derive your main livelihood from the equine industry it is likely you have more resources for success in the sport (i.e. better ring/training conditions, professionals, possibly sponsors, etc.).

Also, in your scenario my Advanced schoolmaster could not take me around my first preliminary. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The writing I see on the wall is that we're all going to eventually be required to be USEF-compliant, and this committee is doing their very best to ensure the shackles of the current Ammy situation in USEF-land are as loose as possible for eventing.

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

Janet

Feb. 24, 2004, 07:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The writing I see on the wall is that we're all going to eventually be required to be USEF-compliant, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where do you see this writing?

I mean, obviously we have to be USEF compliant, but where is the writing that says we have to split "amateur" vs. "non-amateur"?

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

Heather

Feb. 24, 2004, 07:45 AM

I actually see different writing on the walls, but Lord knows I've been wrong before. I do not in any way, take away from the job the committee did, nor question that ti did waht it was told to do. It was told to use the USEF definition, and it di, and it did a great job at that. Kudos to everyone on the committee, and I think it's a shame this discussion has made them feel attacked or bad.

But that being said, the bottom line is the majority of people don't want the USEF definition. They want other options. I've suggested one. Not meant to be the final word-take out the advanced restirction if you want! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

But most people I've talked to, if they give a damn about this at all (many people are, like me, happy to ride in open divisions) would rather things be divided by expereince, rather than income.

Dezi

Feb. 24, 2004, 08:02 AM

Robby:

That advanced schoolmaster can take you around prelim, it would just have to be the "open" division. Here in Area V, I suspect that is about all you will have to choose from anyway!

But you need not worry about that, since I will quickly liberate him/her from you anyway!!

SwizzleStick

Feb. 24, 2004, 08:13 AM

"...But most people I've talked to, if they give a damn about this at all..."

I think this is the bottom line right here. The seeming majority who feel strongly are against the USEF definition. This is the majority of the people who care. The true majority of those who event across the USA don't give a rat's butt about the whole amateur/professional flap.

Swizzle Stick

Robby Johnson

Feb. 24, 2004, 08:45 AM

Heather, I am actually with you in that I could care less what division I am put in. I look at it this way - I'm still going to ride the same dressage/sj/XC as the other divisions and I can compete as best as I can compete. Will it make me feel better to win against a group of my peers or to win against a pink jacket? I can't say, seeing as how I've never won an event except for the local CT with Rhodey when he beat 3 of the 12 year-old pony girls. That was hardly gratifying! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Janet, I "see" because that's they way all other USEF divisions are run.

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

pgm

Feb. 24, 2004, 11:49 AM

Hey you guys...

Did I miss something?

Janet

Feb. 24, 2004, 12:05 PM

I dunno. Did you?

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

SwizzleStick

Feb. 24, 2004, 12:28 PM

Hey pgm - we missed you! This whole thread needs some spicing up. Everyone is being hideously PC and polite to each other. No fun.

SS

RacetrackReject

Feb. 24, 2004, 12:31 PM

I would have to agree with everyone who says the proposed new divisions should be based on experience and not money. I would gladly ride against any of Janet's 3 examples.

I also have a problem with the use of money as the dividing line because of my personal experience. I was a working student a few years ago. I taught lessons and the trainer I was working for paid me to teach the lessons in her absence. I was also paid by JR riders to school their horses when they would be gone on vacations or other functions the week before shows. I rode the trainer's horses at schooling shows and sometimes received payment for it along with room and board at the show. This would have made me a professional by these definitions correct? I had no other job than to be at the barn almost 24/7. I had also never competed above Novice at that time. So would this be considered drawing the line right above me? Maybe. *disclaimer*- I have not been paid for horse-related duties in over 2 years, so it would not count against me now.

I understand what people are saying about, "yeah well you may be competing against an O'Connor, but they are on a 4 year old OTTB", but, so? I'm competing on a 4 year old OTTB too.

"Faith is the our hardest thing to find-- true faith rather than false faith. The horse between your legs is closer to your body than your own head is, so he feels your loss of faith before you realize it yourself"- Jane Smiley

subk

Feb. 24, 2004, 01:34 PM

If we are going to define a Non-proffessional it can't be based on income; we already know that doesn't work. I would even suggest that it shouldn't be based on skill. If they divide based on skill it's the same as saying these are the good riders and that group over there is the "bad" riders. To make a non-proffessional division have any credibility it MUST include good riders--especially if it will include Prelimiary where points are awarded.

The distinction needs to made by ADVANTAGE.

What gives the "pro" an advantage? I say it's because they ride multiple horses a day. They compete multiple horses and have more time spent "being judged" in one year than most of us regular Joes spend in a lifetime. They also get an advantage when they coach other competent riders--and walk that many more courses. There is also the exceptional pro who has completed at the very top of the sport. Once you complete a 3-star you then have the advantage of the whole USET program.

Those are the reasons I think a Non-proffessional should be defined as I mentioned earlier:

A Non-proffessional is anyone who has not done any of the following:
1) Worn a "red coat" in the last five years.
2) Have paying student(s) who have competed at training level or higher in the last 2 years.
3) Ridden at a 3 or 4 star in the last 2 years.
4) Competed 3 or more different horses at any level within the last calendar year.

That definition would eliminate individuals whose riding experience gives them an advantage because they ride so many horses, including the rich amatuer who does nothing but ride a barn full of horses. It eliminates an individual whose caoching has advanced to a level where it is a bonus to their own riding. It also keeps the regular Joe who sends $100 bucks a year to the USET from getting the snot beat out of him by someone who got to have a training session that was supported by the regular Joe's dollar.

Janet

Feb. 24, 2004, 01:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Once you complete a 3-star you then have the advantage of the whole USET program.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not clear what you mean by this- especially since many of us are not US citizens, and thus not eligible for ANY USET programs.

That aside, I would be quite happy with the first 3 of your 4 criteria. To make pgm happy, I'd even change 1) to "the last 20 years". I am not so sure about the 4th. If you mean 3 horses in the same competition, then I am OK with it. But I can think of plenty of scenarios where a "ordinary joe" competed 3 different horses within 2 years.

For one-

Rider has own horse that she competes. Horse suffers career ending injury.

While dealing with this, and organizing finances to get another horse, a friend allows her to compete friend's horse while friend is on vacation.

Rider gets finances organized, and buys (and competes) a new horse.

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

subk

Feb. 24, 2004, 02:32 PM

Janet--My point about a 3-star is once you complete a 3 star that puts you on the short range radar screen of the USET (I would imagine that would include the equivalent in any country.) I believe and am happy to be corrected that if you complete a 3-star that pretty much puts you in the Developing Rider Program. I know that completing a 2-star puts you on the long list.

As for as your other point I'm sure there is not a definition in this world that is perfect. Number 4 on my list isn't either, but to clarify I do mean 3 different horses in a single calendar year would disqualify you as a non professional for the remainder of that year and the next. Could your senerio happen? It's not a very common occurrence, but sure it could. However, the "penatly" is only a year and a little more. The exchange is that #4 would go along way in eliminating EXACTLY the type of rider whose "pro-dom" gives him an advantage, but stills allows the the little guy leeway in picking up some schooling dollars without putting him in league with the O'Connors.

Gry2Yng

Feb. 24, 2004, 03:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I prefer the "where you earn your money" criteria, because there is an implication regararding how much time you spend riding. Those who get to do it all day every day have an advantage over those who don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess in essence I am with subk, and don't speak my mind as eloquently as she does. Money or no money. If you have the time/ability to ride multiple horses you have an advantage.

A rider who has a full time career as a doctor and somehow manages to ride at the intermediate or advanced level should not be forced to ride against people who ride all day every day. That is not to say that said rider cares one way or the other. My only point is that despite the statement "I don't know anyone who wants to draw the line right above themselves", anyone who wants to draw the line on experience and place this doctor in a different division just because she has accomplished more with her limited time than the rider who has only made it to prelim IS drawing the line right above themselves.

Perhaps I was wrong to use "money" and I should have used time. Talent is talent and cream rises to the top. A talented part time rider is forced to ride against full time riders under the experience scenario. This rider may spend only the very few hours per week at the barn as the career novice rider...but he/she is better.

That being said. I don't actually care what division I ride in. I just think saying that training level riders don't have to ride against riders who have gone intermediate IS drawing the line above yourself.

Gry2Yng

Feb. 24, 2004, 03:42 PM

Okay, so I had some brie and a glass of wine and now I have an example.

Rider A - top top top level executive. Works 70 hours per week but manages to make the one hour and 30 minute drive to ride her ONE horse three nights a week and Saturday and Sunday. Has competed at Intermediate, but is now riding a green horse at training.

Rider B - works from home 20 hours per week. Rides her ONE horse five days a week and takes care of her home and husband. Has competed at the Intermediate and two star level. Is now riding a green horse at Training. Rider B has time and ability to teach, but doesn't because it would affect her amateur status.

Rider C - Full time local professional. Rides and teaches all day. Has not ridden above preliminary level.

Rider D - full time job, happy at training level forever and very competent. Teaches a few up/downs and cleans stalls to pay for her habit.

According the most favored rules of division, Riders A and B must ride their training horses in the open division, perhaps against pink coats, but riders C and D can ride their training horses in the restricted division.

So what is a level playing field. Should A be force to compete with B. B has an advantage over A in that she does not have to ride at 9pm after a heavy day at the office. Rider C certainly has an advantage over A and B as she rides all day and may compete multiple horses in a weekend. Using the USEF definition of Amateur or the definition of experience, Riders C and D would compete against each other - not a level field, in one case against pink coats, in the other not.

Rider A is certainly not rewarded for all of her hard work on a limited schedule in comparisson to rider C, who works with horses all day, just because rider C does not have either the talent, the experience or the horse to ride at the next level.

Using the criteria of "what they do all day", Riders A, B and D ride together and C rides in the open division. Riders A and B have more experince, but their horses are green. It this a level field?

Does this make my point. More wine I think...

Robby Johnson

Feb. 24, 2004, 07:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janet:
Not clear what you mean by this- especially since many of us are not US citizens, and thus not eligible for ANY USET programs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would daresay the majority of USEA membership *are* US citizens.

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

Dale Area 1

Feb. 25, 2004, 04:58 AM

According to Kate's letter, 70% are lower level adult riders. Has anyone done a breakout of the precentages of BN, N, T, P of the USEA membership? (who makes up the memberships of USEA) I think that would be very interesting data. Another point, has anyone done a survey, focus group and/or feedback on what the USEA membership wants??? What we can do to support them, etc.

Sorry for the rant -- but if USEA was a private corporation -- they would be long out of business. Want recognition for the sport, but don't want to listen to anyone other than a select few members.

BTW -- Great Letter to the Editor Robby J -- as a PR professional, I could not have said it better! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Proud & Poor New Horse farm owner

Gry2Yng

Feb. 25, 2004, 05:11 AM

How did I miss Robby's letter? Is it in the lastest mag?

Dale Area 1

Feb. 25, 2004, 05:55 AM

The latest magazine -- in the back -- letter to the editors http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Enjoy!

Proud & Poor New Horse farm owner

Janet

Feb. 25, 2004, 06:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I would daresay the majority of USEA membership *are* US citizens. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The majority, yes. But you would be surprised how many of us are not, and have to deal with the nuisance of a foreign competitor's license.

I know of at least 5 definites (starting with my sister and me), and probably 10 possibles, just within CDCTA.

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

[This message was edited by Janet on Feb. 25, 2004 at 10:21 AM.]

asterix

Feb. 25, 2004, 06:11 AM

There seem to be pretty clear distinctions between the problems we are discussing
a) at the upper levels - I, A, 3 days -- here true adult amateurs are rather rare because it is so hard to ride at this level and have a fulltime job elsewhere. Can we recognize these riders separately on a leaderboard, without breaking up divisions? Would that work for them (don't want to speak for them, have no idea)

b) at N, T, possibly Prelim, we have at least one or two Areas where it is typical to have international-level pros riding green horses, alongside all manner of amateurs and local pros. But is this a problem in other Areas as well? I for one would be happy to be beaten by an Olympian every time in exchange for planning my season from an overflowing selection of events within 1.5 hours from home (I am still struggling with figuring out an optimal schedule because I have SO many choices of great events in an easy drive). For riders in other parts of the country, do you typically have big names in Novice?
If not, perhaps we Area II and I types should just accept that this is what we get for living in Eventing Central...I don't want to impose a solution on a bunch of people who have no problem, if you see what I mean...

Robby Johnson

Feb. 25, 2004, 06:15 AM

Dale Area 1 -

I happen to have that information as I used it for a separate project last week:

Starters by Level, 2003

4* - 55
3* - 171
2* - 210
1* - 360
A - 1161
I - 2580
P - 6975
T - 9886
N - 17181

Total - 38579

It's apparent where the bulk of the membership exists, and there are programs being cut and tailored to fit the lower-level competitor too.

Just this year we have the Aloha Challenge at Wayne for qualified Novice Riders - a chance at a $1500 purse, plus and "add-back" (10% of the entry fee for that division added back to the purse), a chance for big prize money at the AEC in Southern Pines in September, and as it develops, actual recognized Training level three-day events for USEA members.

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

Janet

Feb. 25, 2004, 06:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Janet--My point about a 3-star is once you complete a 3 star that puts you on the short range radar screen of the USET (I would imagine that would include the equivalent in any country.) I believe and am happy to be corrected that if you complete a 3-star that pretty much puts you in the Developing Rider Program. I know that completing a 2-star puts you on the long list. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't want to take this on a tangent away form the amateur issue, which is far more important, but I can't help replying.

First, British Eventing has more than enough "short list" candidates living and competing in Britain, without needing to reach out to expats in the US.

Second, even if she WERE invited to attend British Eventing Training sessions, it wouldn't do her a whole lot of good, since she and the horse are in the US.

It is a tangent to the amateur discussion.

It involves a conscious choice.

But just don't ASSUME that every rider who has completed a *** has access to the USET training sessions.

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

Dale Area 1

Feb. 25, 2004, 06:30 AM

Robby,

Numbers speak! But will they listen http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Is anyone going to work on a communications plan and focus groups for the majority of the membership? I know we had this discussion a few times http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif e-mail me, if you don't want to discuss on this forum. Dale

Proud & Poor New Horse farm owner

deltawave

Feb. 25, 2004, 07:09 AM

Haven't read every detail, but an idea occurred to me: why not base things on points and experience in competition? For instance, if you want to compete in "Amateur" Training (or call it whatever you will) you cannot have accumulated more than 20 points at Training level. This is assuming 5 points for 1st, 3 for 2nd, etc. etc. Or, once you've completed 10 HT's at a level with no XC penalties you must move to "Open".

---------------------------------------------
"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!

tle

Feb. 25, 2004, 07:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>actual recognized Training level three-day events for USEA members.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMG. I'm the first to admit I LOVE the training 3-day CLINIC idea, but please tell me this isn't turning into a "recognized" division? It's an educational effort, and a brilliant one at that, but I'm not 100% convinced that this type of competition is "right" AS A FULL BLOWN COMPETITION for the developmental state of the average Training horse/rider.

*flame suit on*

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

Feb. 25, 2004, 07:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>actual recognized Training level three-day events for USEA members.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMG. I'm the first to admit I LOVE the training 3-day CLINIC idea, but please tell me this isn't turning into a "recognized" division? It's an educational effort, and a brilliant one at that, but I'm not 100% convinced that this type of competition is "right" AS A FULL BLOWN COMPETITION for the developmental state of the average Training horse/rider.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you feel that way, tle?

I was actually pretty excited about it as I think it will sharpen the skills at Training, and build a better bridge to Prelim. Most riders cite the Training to Prelim move as the hardest where skill and precision are required. So if the added skill to get around a three-day format at Training enters the equation, we may see an increase in riders moving up to preliminary and possibly the higher levels. Our sport is very much a pyramid-shape, but it would be nice to have a little more weight on the top.

Even if it doesn't fill the upper levels with more competitors, that sort of competition at that level still introduces the horse/rider to a more managed approach to horsecare, which will increase their involvement with a (hopefully ICP) instructor, and will give them a more clear idea of the things that happen at a big three-day.

I also personally believe a Training three-day as a competition (most likely run concurrently with a regular HT) has greater potential for spectatorship for the HT, which will feed the spectatorship for the higher levels.

I'm anxious to hear why you're reluctant!

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

deltawave

Feb. 25, 2004, 07:56 AM

I agree, what's wrong with making a Training 3-day a recognized division? If you don't aspire to the upper levels, if you don't have the time to devote to training an upper level horse, it's still an opportunity to get a "taste" of the 3-day format. If you or your horse are limited in scope or bravery, you can still get a "taste" of the 3-day format. What is the downside to having these (VERY popular and getting more popular every year) formats barred rom some sort of recognition?

I think it's a great way to introduce the LARGE MAJORITY of USEA members to the 3-day format personally. Everyone's crying about the "death of the full 3-day"...what does it tell us poor lower level people if a 3-day "for the masses" is considered some sort of permanent bastard child or half-assed competition? (not saying that was your intent, tle, but what IS your reservation?)

Yes, the "jump" from T to P is a big one...what BETTER spot than Training to introduce a venue or format where the competition is just a little tougher, but not yet at the level of Prelim? A perfect "bridge" is how I look at it, and personally that's how I'm looking at the one this spring: if we can pull it off well, then and only then will I consider doing Prelim. The fact that I'm technically "qualified" doesn't mean enough to me--I want to see how I handle the format of a 3-day as a litmus test. I know a Prelim HT isn't the same, but I'm viewing the T 3-day as a sort of final "test". Just my $0.02, though! 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!

retreadeventer

Feb. 25, 2004, 07:58 AM

I LUFF SubK's points and I think three of the four make a lot of sense and would work. Number 2 however is unenforceable; might be better if stated, "has signed the USEF entry form for another as either Trainer of Record or Coach of Record" in same calendar year for a recognized event.
JMO. Those qualifications are not discriminatory, they are based on fact and not supposition, they categorize the person properly and neatly and all have researchable backup proof available if there is any question about the status of the person. Now we have to figure a way to take the burden of the new division off the organizers somehow!

tle

Feb. 25, 2004, 11:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why do you feel that way, tle?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy I hope that I can explain myself well enough. Flame suit is still on though.

Ok, Do we all agree that there are certain tasks that are asked at the upper levels that are not asked at the lower levels because they are deemed "too difficult/too advanced/too whatever" for the AVERAGE horse and rider at the lower levels? Sure, of course we'd all agree to that concept because it's true. We don't see corners and bounces at levels below Prelim for this precise reason. In addition, this is one of the cited reasons why people like Deltawave (not picking on ya... you know I love ya!) are not anxious to move up to Prelim and question if they'll ever get there -- because the difficulty of the level... the questions the horse & rider are EXPECTED to be able to answer are harder than they are comfortable with. And why are the "standard" questions difficult? Because according to the eventing standard of training, that is where horse & rider should be in the progression from BN to CCI**** and those questions "fit" into that training progression at a certain stage.

So, for the same reason that a bounce is not an acceptable question to ask of the average Novice horse, nor do I feel that a recognized 3-day is appropriate at Training.

Sure, I bemoan the demise of the CCI as much as anyone. I LOVE that format and would someday love to compete in it again (possibly with Char's baby!!). But I see more educational 3-days as the way to increase the knowledge and acceptance of the traditional 3-day ...not to mention desire to keep them around and compete in them in the future. I guess I'm just not convinced that the questions of fitness, horsemanship, etc., can properly be equated to the AVERAGE training level horse/rider, within the scheme of how the natural progression of training is equated at this point in time and without doing vast changes in its nature, in a **true** competition setting.

As for the drastic jump in difficulty between Training and Prelim, tell me... why do you believe that having a recognized Training 3-day will help overcome those obstacles to going from a Training horse trial to a Prelim horse trial? I'm pretty sure (although no personal experience here) that a CCI* does not equate better experience to do the Prelim horse trial to Intermediate horse trial move-up.

flame suit still on...

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

Feb. 25, 2004, 11:45 AM

I don't think it has to be harder questions to be a three-day. I think the thought is that the maximum standards for the level - things you could face even now on a Training level horse trials course - will be imposed at the three-day level. So as opposed to bounces or corners, you might see more related distances, full coffins, ditches, etc. You'd just get the added benefit of A,B,C before D. As well as the vet inspections, the show-jumping reverse order of go, etc. To do well in that sort of competition, a rider must be more focused and self-aware of skill level/horse level, etc.

Also, many of our YR's do their very first three-day at NAYRC CCI*. Usually that works out because they have access to good coaches, etc. But a good dress rehearsal at Training level would send them to compete for medals with a little more practice under their belt.

And I totally disagree that a CCI* isn't a good bridge between P and I. The 1*'s I've been to have been much more similar to an OI HT track than a OP HT track.

And the other thing it does is present our sport in a more true-to-type format. I will likely never do a CCI*, but I'd love to do a Training level three-day.

Robby

Dance and sing get up and do your thing ...

deltawave

Feb. 25, 2004, 01:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I guess I'm just not convinced that the questions of fitness, horsemanship, etc., can properly be equated to the AVERAGE training level horse/rider <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if they're not, then they SHOULD! Nothing wrong with introducing the concepts of horsemanship right at the beginning, if you ask me! Maybe then we'd see fewer scary types hauling ass around Novice courses out of control. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Your points are well taken, tle...but if you object to the Training 3-day, you object to the Training 3-day. How is a Training 3-day clinic SO different from an honest-to-goodness competition?

---------------------------------------------
"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!

asterix

Feb. 25, 2004, 02:21 PM

We've gone on a bit of a tangent here (though for the record I LOVE the idea of the Training 3 day...in my case in addition to exposing me to the various logistical aspects of a 3 day and skills such as steeplechase, it gives me a peek at whether I could get my big horse conditioned for more of an endurance-day format without going full-tilt at a 1*)...
but I didn't want deltawave's idea of points to get lost.

What about that? It seems reasonable on its face...most pros on green horses aren't going to stick around in novice or training if they are winning -- they'll move on up as soon as they can -- so...
I guess it might be unfortunate for the people who want to stay permanently at their level, in the sense that it will put them in a more "competitive" pool...but maybe if you are going to go Novice for 5 years on the same horse, you SHOULD be in a more competitive pool --- at a minimum you and your horse will eventually have ridden all local venues multiple times and have an edge there...

Janet

Feb. 25, 2004, 02:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deltawave:
Haven't read every detail, but an idea occurred to me: why not base things on points and experience in competition? For instance, if you want to compete in "Amateur" Training (or call it whatever you will) you cannot have accumulated more than 20 points at Training level. This is assuming 5 points for 1st, 3 for 2nd, etc. etc. Or, once you've completed 10 HT's at a level with no XC penalties you must move to "Open".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is "you" the horse or the rider?

How far back do you want to go? If someone accumulated 20 points back in the 80s, does that still "count"?

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

jodyjumper

Feb. 25, 2004, 03:10 PM

Gee, I got knocked off the site last night when I was just about to suggest basing the division lines on EXPERIENCE in recognized EVENTING! And you guys are ahead of me again, cause I went to bed.
You have to admit there is NO equine sport like this one, experience in any single equine sport doesn't quite qualify one to be EXPERIENCED in eventing. Don't be nit-picky yet as to details, but entertain the thought! A point system is great idea..base it on a rolling 5 (or some year ) year participation. I evented more than 25 years ago, and the sport has changed just a tad--do I have to base my experience on what I did as an athletic twenty something???? So someone gave lessons to 5 year olds--is that actual riding experience in an event? NO--anyone can read the rule book (or post here and get answers!) Competitive nerves at any level are a personal problem.

Let's dispense with the amateur/professional crap, and, as a unique sport, come up with a solid performance based criteria to "level the playing field". After all, that is why I left H /J many years ago, so I could be judged on my own and my horses merit!

Tootsie

Feb. 25, 2004, 04:12 PM

Janet, can the points not be applied to both? Say both the horse and rider might have to have 20 points each before moving into open. My example:

A rider competes novice with her horse, wins five events, so she gets five points with each win and the horse gets five points. So now the rider and horse each have 20 points.

Now the next year, the rider has a new horse who has never competed novice, so she is allowed to compete in the resticted divisions until the horse has 20 points. Same if she sold her last horse to a rider who had never competed novice, they would be able to compete in the restricted divisons until the rider had 20 points as well as the horse.

A system could be worked out that prevented advanced riders from entering the restriceted divisons however my brain is a bit fried from school that I cant really think clearly about this.

I can see a few advantages to this system. This would make the playing feild a bit more level within the divisions. Say a rider who rides and trains all day competing at novice(but not higher) vs. someone with a full time job who only gets to ride 5 times a week. The professional novice rider would have more restriction placed on them because they would have more points and more horses while the rider with the full time job would be slower in gettng the points.

I know there are many holes in this theory, but something along these lines might work. If someone is interested please feel free to rearrange the points and my reasoning because it might not be entirely logical or I might have no considered a few things.

"Event parties are all about adrenaline release, beer, loud music, and unacceptable behavior. Dancing on the table is strictly OK, as is climbing up the tent pole."-Denny Emerson

deltawave

Feb. 25, 2004, 04:30 PM

asterix, thanks for resurrecting my original point! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

OK, point taken: should the points apply to horse, or rider, or both? Well, how about "horse and rider as a pair"? That way a beginning rider on an experienced horse can go ahead and show at Novice for a while (forever, if they wish, but they'll have to go Open after a quota of points is filled) without unfairly "cleaning up" in the so-called "easier" divisions. (whatever those wind up being called) Similarly, a professional OR very talented amateur (define them how you will) can take their greenie around Novice for a while before moving them up. Anyone can enter "Open" divisions any time they want, but the "restricted" (for lack of a better term) are open only to horse/rider teams who have fewer than the set amount of points to their credit.

If you wanted to make "Horse" and "Rider" divisions again, that would work, too...let's use the term "restricted" again: In the proposed "Restricted Training Horse" division Amy Jo Pro can compete on a horse who has fewer than (say) 20 points as of (for simplicity) closing date of the given Horse Trial. Once that horse has 20 points, it must go in Open Training (or move up) or, if the horse is sold to a newcomer, that new rider could compete the horse in "Restricted Rider" divisions. Similarly, in "Restricted Training Rider" Betty Lou Ammy, riding her ex-four star horse, can compete until she (Betty Lou) has 20 points, and then must go in Open Training. (or move up)

If Amy Jo Pro gets a new horse, she can still show it in the Restricted HORSE division, but obviously she wouldn't show in Restricted RIDER divisions because after years of competing she has WAY more than 20 points in Training HT's. And if Betty Lou Ammy gets a new packer she can only still show in "Restricted Training RIDER" if she's still under her 20 point "quota".

This way nobody can hang around forever in a restricted division...more room is continually being made for newcomers. (horse and rider) If you show once or twice a year and bring home a low ribbon now and then, you're not going to have to move out of these divisions for a long time. If you're a "fast burner" you'll be out of them quick but are more than likely going to be just fine competing in the "Open" divisions.

Maybe 20 is the wrong number--I'm only outlining things broadly--but this seems to be really very simple and fair to me. I realize it's similar to the old "Horse" and "Rider" divisions, but I always found them to be WAY too vague and liberal. For instance, my horse is as close to a "packer" as you can get with multiple CCI*s under her belt, but according to the letter of the law I could still be competing her at Training HORSE, because she never competed higher than Prelim. I would never do that, but I *could*. Under my proposal there is no way I could show the same horse in a "Horse" division, and if I showed in the "Rider" division I'd be among my peers: riders without much experience at my level.

Hope that makes sense. As usual, I could probably have gotten by with half the verbage! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.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!

[This message was edited by deltawave on Feb. 25, 2004 at 08:38 PM.]

[This message was edited by deltawave on Feb. 25, 2004 at 08:44 PM.]

jodyjumper

Feb. 25, 2004, 05:00 PM

Pretty much my thoughts, Delta! This wouldn't keep anyone from competing in an open division against riders with more points, but it WOULD allow most competitors to compete in a division that did not pit them against more experienced horses/riders.

But as you know, someone will slip in under the radar! So, there will have to be (an) amendment(s), ad nauseam.
I don't know how closely the results are kept, could last week's placings be available for an event the following week???

deltawave

Feb. 25, 2004, 05:15 PM

jj, I doubt you could follow results that closely without logistical nightmares...that's why standings "as of the closing date" for a given HT would be my suggestion, and now that I think about it "as of opening date" would be better, in order for the entrant to not have to worry about who had a record of what points by the time the competition started. It would simply go on the bottom of the entry form where "Experience" is currently listed.

---------------------------------------------
"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!

Hilary

Feb. 26, 2004, 04:38 AM

Well said everyone. I come down on the side of having experience be the dividing factor if our goal is a more level playing field. When I first competed at Prelim, the divisions were P & OP, and if you or the horse competed above prelim, ever, you were in OP. Because my horse competed at Interm. once or twice, 5 years ago, we had to go in the Open divisions. I didn't have a problem with that.

Neither do I have a problem with having to ride in Open Novice or Open Training b/c I've competed at Prelim. I like the "within 2 years" restriction, too, because if you don't ride at a higher level for a while, you DO lose your touch! At least, for the normally talented among us, riding is not entirely like riding a bike - your skills DO slide if you don't do something for a long time! But as a current prelim competitor, I have more experience than someone who's only done Novice.

I don't like the $$ division of amateur. I think it is too hard to enforce, and not really fair to the people who take on a few up/down lessons here and there.

I did just have a little epiphany about why earning a little extra money teaching kids steering and grooming would make me a better competitor - it would give me extra funds to pay for more lessons and more competitions. Does it put me in the same professional boat with my coach (who's got her red jacket)? I don't think so, but perhaps it does give me an advantage over the other adult who does not have her own farm with a nice pony and 3 hours on a weekend. Does it give me MORE of an advantage than the person who's salary is 3 times mine and buys a far nicer horse and takes 3 lessons a week? I don't know.

Perhaps I should toss my amateur card, teach the lessons and just keep competing in the open divisions like I do now. But with an extra $100 a month in my pocket.

asterix

Feb. 26, 2004, 05:04 AM

Hilary, I think that extra up-down money makes YOU a slightly better competitor than the YOU that didn't have that money, but it doesn't confer any discernible advantage over other people (any more than having a better-fitting saddle, or having schooled that course earlier in the season, or a 1000 other small differences)...

We need a clear, objective system that is not difficult to track/enforce, and achieves the goals of allowing for divisions of non-O'Connors to have fun and be competitive against each other, WITHOUT introducing ANY divisive or onerous new ways of dividing the eventing community.

I think this points idea has legs!!!

Aren't we the same group of people that beat this topic to death before the annual meeting? Did no one come up with this before? Did the committee consider something like this and reject it?? Canterlope?

wendy

Feb. 26, 2004, 07:24 AM

why do we need these divisions? so people who, for whatever reason aren't as skilled can win competitions more often? what's the point of that?

Frankly, I'd feel honored to be beaten by an O'Connor, and thrilled to just be allowed to ride in the same division.

caballo_saltando

Feb. 26, 2004, 08:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Frankly, I'd feel honored to be beaten by an O'Connor, and thrilled to just be allowed to ride in the same division.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's kinda cool the first time, but trust me, it gets very old very fast.

deltawave

Feb. 26, 2004, 08:04 AM

wendy, yes. I'm not sure I understand why so many eventers look down on those of us who enjoy getting a ribbon now and then! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif I love to watch an O'Connor ride, but don't consider it an "honor" to ride in the same division as one, because I know DARN well that they're just going through the motions at Training level with some greenie and not really "struggling" like I am! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif I mean this with all respect to them...I just don't see why I can't compete against my peers, get a ribbon now and then to brighten my drive home and my office wall without getting some sort of "tsk tsk" from folks who don't care about ribbons. I care about them, would gladly compete even if I never really GOT any, but am not going to pretend they don't make me happy! 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!

Dezi

Feb. 26, 2004, 08:35 AM

I've gotta say, that once again I agree with you DW. While the "ribbon" is not the reason that I compete, it is nice once and a while to get one. Fortunately we do not have to compete against the O'Connor's here in Area V, but we do have many good trainers, and even a pink coat or two.

I personally do not show in "rider" divisions, but do utilize the "horse" ones when offered, as for the last 4 years all that I have had are green beans. By any and all of the "rules" proposed, I could show in all but BN rider divisions, but it would not be right! I guess it comes down to personal ethics for me (which I think should be the bottom line however I do live in the real world!!).

subk

Feb. 27, 2004, 10:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by retreadeventer:
I LUFF SubK's points and I think three of the four make a lot of sense and would work. Number 2 however is unenforceable<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Number 2 being someone who has coached a rider at Training or higher. Right now the Amateur rule is unenforceable because income and activity is not public knowledge making it SO easy to lie. At least in the senerio of #2 you would have to lie about an activity that took place at a recognized event. That's a big difference from lying about an incident that took place on your private property.

As far as amatuers wanting to win a ribbon on occassion--for those who work in a non horsey world, how successful you appear to someone like your boss may have something to do with how cooporative that person is with your work schedule. Been there, seen it.

gahawkeye

Feb. 27, 2004, 11:06 AM

This may have been brought up earlier, if so I apologize for redundancy....

I generally don't mind being in a division of red coats at nov, training or even prelim. But now, as thoughts of qualifying for the AEC enter my mind, I think "how hard is it going to be for me to qualify in Area III this spring when I'm always competing with these guys?" It is based on top 1-3 placings right?

Maybe they (USEA) could do something where top placings of non-previously qualified horse/rider combos would become qualified. Probably an administrative nightmare trying to keep track of something like that.

deltawave

Feb. 27, 2004, 11:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> for those who work in a non horsey world, how successful you appear to someone like your boss may have something to do with how cooporative that person is with your work schedule. Been there, seen it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, I'm still trying to get my boss to sponsor me...she says the group pays my salary and that's enough! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Maybe if I tell her I'm "qualified for the American Championships" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif it will sound more impressive?

I never thought of it that way, subk, but good point! I'm still working on educating people I work with that what I do isn't "like a rodeo" or "you do horse racing?!?" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

GAHawkeye...I actually did a rough count and there are nearly 900 qualified pairs at Novice, something like 600 at Training already...and this season is just barely under way! I think maybe there will be a LOT of people going to the AEC...at least I hope so! 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!

Gry2Yng

Feb. 28, 2004, 03:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As far as amatuers wanting to win a ribbon on occassion--for those who work in a non horsey world, how successful you appear to someone like your boss may have something to do with how cooporative that person is with your work schedule. Been there, seen it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have already agreed with subk on this point, but would like to do it again.

jodyjumper

Feb. 29, 2004, 05:28 PM

Hilary, guess I wouldn't mind WHERE you earned that money to take the extra lessons, buy the new saddle, etc, but the fact that you did use it to fund lessons,etc., might enable you to perform better, ie, experience/points.
As an aside,
You also might use the money to pay vet bills, etc, so that you can continue to compete and support eventing. So your riding may not improve, but eventing would still benefit.

NeverTime

Nov. 20, 2005, 06:37 PM

I've read this thread with interest, but it seems like a lot of wasted effort and energy. First, because I think that 10-cent pieces of polyester ribbon are NOT the main motivating force behind riding for the vast majority of us.
Second, because I think that even if the committee can do the impossible and come up with a way of adequate separating the rich/professional/highly trained from the rest of us ... we'll find we don't want it anymore.
Some amateurs probably would switch themselves to the open division after the novelty of winning the first few ribons against other average joes wears off. Others would be so content in their ability to be the "best of the rest" that they wouldn't push themselves to continue improving or to ride against the pros.
In most sports, they say that the best way to improve is to practice with people better than you. I know that's true of biking, skiing, snowboarding, etc. I think that's true of riding, too -- at least as far as it applies to competition results providing a yardstick by which to help measure progress.
I'd much rather ride respectably and be near the bottom of a Crimson Tide division than be the least gory smash-up in the train-wreck division.

Janet

Nov. 20, 2005, 07:11 PM

Please see
Proposed rule change 573-05 (http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/573-05.pdf)
Which defines an amateur divisions for eventing:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 2.4 AMATEUR RIDER (AR) - Open to competitors who meet the classification of Amateur as set down by USEF GR808-810 and have
not competed more than one level above within the preceding 24 months, e.g. a Novice Amateur Rider may have competed at
Training level, but not Preliminary level or higher; a Training Amateur Rider may have competed at Preliminary level, but not
Intermediate level or higher, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If approved, it will go into effect 12/1/06.

RAyers

Nov. 20, 2005, 08:40 PM

Amateur: Devotee. One who engages in a pursuit, study, science, sport as a pastime rather than a profession.

From that, this rule makes no sense. The definition of an amateur should NOT be the level at which they compete. This rules means folks like Nevertime are excluded from competing as an amateur for 2 years since she went Advanced this year. And I will tell you what, Nevertime and others like her are the dictionary definition of amateur which makes me respect their abilities even more so. This will exactly produce what Nevertime predicts. People will see no reason to move up if it means they lose their "amateur" status.

The other possibility is that you will get a bunch of older amateurs who went all the way to the top start competing in the lower levels and filling them. We all know that life at the top of the game is limited and we all will back off as we get older. Now you push out the amateurs that this rule is supposed to protect.

Like Nevertime, I am glad I am happy getting my ass kicked in the open divisions. I know it makes me a better rider.

I will have to talk to my contact on the eventing committee.

Reed

fergie

Nov. 20, 2005, 09:43 PM

The funny thing about this topic is that there is still NOOOO money in eventing!!! It's a joke! It's not like there is prize money or purses like at the races. Phillip got an acrylic cooler last year when he won Fair Hill ***!!! Like, woooow!!! So we're really competing for bragging rights only, right????

canterlope

Nov. 21, 2005, 02:49 AM

Reed, just wanted to let you know that the rule change proposal concerning Amateur status is going to be asked to be ammended to remove the skill portion and add a money level exception.

Also FWIW, the full dictionary definition of amateur is:

Amateur: 1. One who engages in a pursuit, study, science, sport as a pastime rather than a profession. 2. One who lacks professional skill.

In looking at the entire definition of amateur, the rule change proposal as it is currently posted does make sense. Especially when you consider the intent of the USEA when creating a definition. It was hoped that the rule would ensure that true amateurs would not have to ride against the professionals and would find themselves in a division of riders who were of a similar skill set. I don't think it is unrealistic to think that, on average, a rider who has ridden up to Advanced does not have the same skill set as a rider who has only ridden up to Novice. So, without that restriction, there is no way to ensure that amateurs will compete against their "true peers".

However, at this point, the question is moot as that part of the rule proposal is most likely going to be removed and replaced with a money restriction.

tle

Nov. 21, 2005, 05:27 AM

But DC, don't the "Rider" divisions already do that WITHOUT having to create another rule? riding against similar skill sets. At least from a skill POV. Is that what has been argued over and over? Even if a pro rides Training Rider they have to be qualified for it.

It seems like a REALLY complicated system... especially when one will be able to say "well, I'm an amateur at Training but a professional at novice" ... ???

From a selfish POV, I use the amateur definition a lot with the Area 8 awards and personally, the less confusion the better! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RunForIt

Nov. 21, 2005, 06:02 AM

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There's a "smart" solution to the amateur dilemma proposed by Deltawave (November 1, 2004)which I would copy and post here if I hd the time to figure out how to do it - she basically suggests using a point system for all ribbons earned in lower level divisions - once you have accrued x number of points, you move into the Open division of a level - don't have to ever move up, but also don't get to be a "professional" ribbon mizer either. That way folks who show infrequently, or who have ok horses that have gaps in their education can still get a ribbon now and then. Makes too much sense to be adopted though - not enough room for debate. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

deltawave

Nov. 21, 2005, 06:41 AM

I saw this thread this morning--all 6 pages--and was like "holy crap, how did this explode all of a sudden?" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Then I saw it is the SAME THREAD, just "revived". Whew!

RunForIt, thanks for the vote of confidence. I do think that system has potential, but I'm not gung-ho enough about the whole points/ribbons/amateur thing to jump up and down and shout about it. I'll save my energy for saving the Three Day Event. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I do wish someone would look at it critically at some point!

Briefly, my "plan" would be to limit "Rider" divisions by points earned in recognized HTs. Once you have earned XXX number of points (by pinning, with points varying by number of riders in your division, etc. just like grading points) you have to ride in "Open". It should be GENEROUS, yet still encourage people to leave room in the "Rider" divisions for the up-and-comers. It in NO WAY forces anyone to move up a LEVEL, just clears the way in the "Rider" divisions for those who are new to the level so they have a shot at nice ribbons, too.

I actually had a long drawn out explanation somewhere about what to do if you get a new horse, etc., but haven't time to search for it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

deltawave

Nov. 21, 2005, 09:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Posted Nov. 01, 2004 05:07 PM
I've often thought (AND proposed, but only in a sort of "what if" mode) that a points system ought to exist rather than "Rider" and "Horse" and "Open" divisions...once you pin high enough at a given level to accrue a certain number of POINTS, you either have to move up or ride in the "Open" divisions. No more 10-year veterans in the "Rider" divisions, but nobody has to move up a LEVEL if they don't want to.

So there would be NOVICE divisions and OPEN NOVICE divisions. You may show in Novice until you (the rider) accumulate "x" number of points (based on placings) and then you must ride in Open Novice. No requirements for horses: you can ride your ex-Advanced packer in Novice forever and ever, if all you do is show twice a year and/or you don't pin high enough to "score out" of the Novice division. But if you win everything in sight, you move up or you go "Open" with all the other packers, pros, and veteran Novice riders. This keeps the "plain" Novice division the domain of those who are learning, who show infrequently, and/or those with moderately talented horses, etc. Those folks can still get a nice ribbon now and then, but wouldn't have to go "Open" unless they earned so many of them that they're probably now at least reasonably competitive anyhow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is my "blurb" from last year.

Janet

Nov. 21, 2005, 09:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by canterlope:
Reed, just wanted to let you know that the rule change proposal concerning Amateur status is going to be asked to be ammended to remove the skill portion and add a money level exception. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Canterlope,

Do you know when the new version will be available? The USEF web site still has "draft 1".

bornfreenowexpensive

Nov. 21, 2005, 10:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deltawave:
I saw this thread this morning--all 6 pages--and was like "holy crap, how did this explode all of a sudden?" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Then I saw it is the SAME THREAD, just "revived". Whew!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the same thing http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'm clearly an amateur by most defintions. To be honest, I don't care what the rule is--I don't have any issue competing against a pro and think on any given day I could (and have) bet them. I'm more sorry to see the horse divisions disapear--but ribbons have never been important to me--nor staying in Novice any longer than a horse needs. What I do know is the non-pro/pro rules in other organizations such as the AQHA are worse and there is never a perfect solution. Hats off to those of you on the committees trying to come up with the "perfect" solution!

BarbB

Nov. 21, 2005, 10:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bornfreenowexpensive:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deltawave:
I saw this thread this morning--all 6 pages--and was like "holy crap, how did this explode all of a sudden?" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Then I saw it is the SAME THREAD, just "revived". Whew!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the same thing http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'm clearly an amateur by most defintions. To be honest, I don't care what the rule is--I don't have any issue competing against a pro and think on any given day I could (and have) bet them. I'm more sorry to see the horse divisions disapear--but ribbons have never been important to me--nor staying in Novice any longer than a horse needs. What I do know is the non-pro/pro rules in other organizations such as the AQHA are worse and there is never a perfect solution. Hats off to those of you on the committees trying to come up with the "perfect" solution! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ditto, all of the above.
The energy expended finger pointing, ranting, defining and re-defining regarding the amateur/professional thing in H/J land is mine boggling.

canterlope

Nov. 21, 2005, 10:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Janet:
Canterlope,

Do you know when the new version will be available? The USEF web site still has "draft 1". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Janet, I'm not sure. The decision to ask for amendment was just made last Tuesday. I don't know how quickly the actual request will get to the USEF or how quickly the USEF will process it.

ss3777

Nov. 21, 2005, 03:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">once you pin high enough at a given level to accrue a certain number of POINTS, you either have to move up or ride in the "Open" divisions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HEY DW, that sounds like a plan with a lot of merit.

I vote for the DW plan.

Dr. Doolittle

Nov. 21, 2005, 05:51 PM

I second the motion--Deltawave's proposal is logical, fair, and a "win win" for everyone--with no apparent down-side. (Which of course guarantees that "the powers that be" would *never* go for it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)

MissFit

Nov. 21, 2005, 06:44 PM

I would like to third deltawave's suggestion. Easy to keep track of and makes sense!

canterlope

Nov. 22, 2005, 01:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr. Doolittle:
I second the motion--Deltawave's proposal is logical, fair, and a "win win" for everyone--with no apparent down-side. (Which of course guarantees that "the powers that be" would *never* go for it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Committee that proposed the amateur rule change did explore every angle of a system such as what DW proposed and would have put it forward for consideration had it not been for two major stumbling blocks that they could not find a way around.

The first is who would be responsible for tracking the points? While the National office would be the logical choice, a system such as this would require that points earned at an event enter the USEA's tracking system almost immediately in order to check the points of riders entered in a horse trials the following week. To achieve this, organizers would have to submit their results within hours of the completion of their events. For some organizers, this is just not possible. Plus, given the number of staff members at the USEA national office and their current workload, there is no way to ensure that one of them would be available to enter results into the system in this sort of the time frame.

So the next logical choice would be the riders themselves. The biggest drawback to this is that it would create a system that was spread across the entire country with thousands of administrators. It would be a nightmare to police and impossible to know if each individual rider was calculating his/her points correctly and/or moving into the open divisions when he/she earned the required number of points.

Unfortunately, after the USEA national office and the riders themselves, there are no other logical choices for tracking the points. The organizers can't do it because they don't have the time. The point coordinators for each Area can't do it because, again, they don't have the time. So, while this system is great in theory, in reality it is one that would be impossible to administer.

The second stumbling block the committee encountered was whether or not it would be possible to ensure that competitors who enter two consecutive events as an amateur and "point out" at the first one actually ride in the appropriate division at the second event? Given the first stumbling block, it would be impossible to make any guarantees that a situation such as this would be discovered and dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. Furthermore, it would place an additional burden on the organizer of the second event because they would have to move the "pointed out" rider out of the amateur division, into an open division, and redo the ride times for all of the riders in both divisions. I think it is a safe bet to say that most organizers have enough to deal with in the last few days leading up to their events without having this additional work thrown at them at the last minute.

Elghund2

Nov. 22, 2005, 01:55 AM

If you are trying to define the difference between an amateur and a professional, you will never get it done. Its laughable that anyone in the horse world spends time on this. Where do you put the independently wealthy person who does nothing but ride his/her horses? Technically, since they don't get paid, they are an amateur but in reality their profession is "rider".

If you are arguing about how to split this up then you are in it for the ribbons. Personally, I've never understood why someone would choose to ride in a division other than the open divisions. I'd rather take the opportunity to beat a world class rider then mary jane housefrau.

One of the great things about eventing is that, below the highest levels, you can compete ad win without having major financial support. I find the splintering of the divisions that is taking place to be disappointing.

deltawave

Nov. 22, 2005, 03:17 AM

I think if the system I proposed were implemented on a YEAR BY YEAR basis rather than a SHOW BY SHOW basis it would still be fair in the long haul.

By that I mean if you "point out" in the early part of 2006, you still could ride in the "regular" division until the following season. It's a lot less burdensome that way WRT points-keeping, and still essentially the same otherwise.

This is very roughly modeled after the Jr. Equitation divisions that used to (and still may, for all I know) exist: remember the old Maiden, Novice, Limit, Open eq. divisions? Once you got one blue you were out of Maiden, once you had 3 blues you were out of Novice, etc. I'm not saying BLUE ribbons are what ought to be used to qualify people for Open divisions (if that were the case, I'd be a Novice Rider forever, LOL!) but having points accrued in a given year apply in the NEXT year would be a lot less of a burden on the point-counters.

deltawave

Nov. 22, 2005, 03:19 AM

If you are puffing yourself about "beating" someone in the Open division, then you are also "in it for the ribbons". http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Why can't we just allow that getting ribbons is cool instead of looking down our collective noses and acting like it's something shameful to like them? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

RunForIt

Nov. 22, 2005, 04:04 AM

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I agree Deltawave; unless you're just filthy rich, and can afford to pay the fees,trainer costs, motel bills, food costs - JUST FOR A SOCIAL ACTIVITY, then we go to COMPETITIONS to do just that: COMPETE. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif If I could afford to go twice a month and get me and the ponies used to the competition atmosphere, I'd do it in a second, no matter what division I rode in to try and win. There DOES need to be a way to level the playing field just a bit. I have a neighbor who has won and won and won in NR (including a ribbon this year at AEC), and this weekend is again riding Novice at Pine Top. Well, low and behold, she's in OPEN Novice; I am MAKING myself not ask if that was her idea - I seriously doubt it because she is a SERIOUS ribbon hunter, and would stay in NR forever until Werner MAKES her move up to Training. I think she'll do a fabulous job in Open - packer horse, very nice rider.

Back in the (running road race) "day", I had a friend tell me that she didn't like to go to races with me cause I always wanted to win; I'll forever be amazed at that statement - its why I I was at a RACE. Could've cared less about the cups and trophies and plaques - just loved the feeling of training hard, and putting it to the test. My husband really helped me get there, particularly when I'd be reluctant to state out loud what my intentions were at races, to set a time goal. Billy told me you had to be willing to lay in on the line, be willing to fail trying, or you never can get there. The same idea works for eventing. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif (Its so nice to be home and have a chance to really sit on this BB a while - BUT, the stalls are calling, and the run, and the adopted doggie to the vet...)

slp2

Nov. 22, 2005, 05:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think if the system I proposed were implemented on a YEAR BY YEAR basis rather than a SHOW BY SHOW basis it would still be fair in the long haul.

By that I mean if you "point out" in the early part of 2006, you still could ride in the "regular" division until the following season. It's a lot less burdensome that way WRT points-keeping, and still essentially the same otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just what I was going to suggest. In fact, at the end of the year, they could send a postcard/e-mail to a competitor stating something like: "Congratulations! Our records indicate that you have accumulated "X" amount of points at USEA competitions at this level. Next season you are qualified to compete in the "open" divisions of this level." They could say "required to" instead of "qualified" but I was trying to put a positive spin on it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It would take some logistical gymnastics to keep track of all this. But I do think this idea has good merit. There is a local dressage association that offers "maiden" classes. They define "maiden" as a horse that has not won 3 blue ribbons in previous competitions held by that organization. After someone wins their 3 firsts, they are no longer able to compete (with that horse) in the maiden division. It's a much smaller organization (so it's easier to track) but it seems to work.

KSevnter

Nov. 22, 2005, 06:08 AM

I agree with slp2, I don't understand why USEA does not do this already. For prelim and above they monitor grade points and bump you automatically out of restricted divisions according to the horses grade.

Since USEA is now requiring registration of Novice and Training horses, it could not possibly be that hard.

Janet

Nov. 22, 2005, 06:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KSevnter:
I agree with slp2, I don't understand why USEA does not do this already. For prelim and above they monitor grade points and bump you automatically out of restricted divisions according to the horses grade.

Since USEA is now requiring registration of Novice and Training horses, it could not possibly be that hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> There are no longer any restricted divisions based on grade.

Haven't been for many years.

And I think that one of the reasons is "because it IS "that hard"".

bornfreenowexpensive

Nov. 22, 2005, 06:33 AM

AHH this sounds like a job for a computer person. If there was a program that could be given to all the organizers as part of a scoring package--the scores and results could be sent electronically to the USEA and not be labor intensive to keep track of--that could be the way the event results/recap are sent in.

Even at our little HT, our scorers had a lap top that they used to track the results.

A little off topic but how are year end awards tabulated or doubled checked?

I still think in the end the current system for amateur status isn't too bad. Yes you will always have those who fit through a loop hole but on any given day--they too can be beaten.

KSevnter

Nov. 22, 2005, 07:31 AM

I didn't realize they did away with the straight prelim and intermediate divisions (as opposed to open) I always thought that was a good idea. I guess I didn't notice they had disappeared. I am happily in the camp of those who enjoying competing against the pros http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Janet

Nov. 22, 2005, 08:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KSevnter:
I didn't realize they did away with the straight prelim and intermediate divisions (as opposed to open) I always thought that was a good idea. I guess I didn't notice they had disappeared. I am happily in the camp of those who enjoying competing against the pros http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The current options are
For Prelim
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 4.1 JUNIOR PRELIMINARY. Open to competitors through the end of the calendar year of
their 18th birthday.
4.2 YOUNG RIDER PRELIMINARY. Open to competitors through the end of the calendar
year of their 21st birthday. Approved EC 10/19/04 Effective 1/1/05
4.3 PRELIMINARY RIDER. The competitor may not have completed more than two Horse
Trials at the Intermediate Level or higher within the previous 24 months.
4.4 OPEN PRELIMINARY. The competitor may have completed more than two Horse
Trials at the Intermediate Level or higher within the previous 24 months. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
For Intermediate
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 5.1 YOUNG RIDER INTERMEDIATE. Open to competitors through the end of the calendar
year of their 21st birthday.
5.2 INTERMEDIATE RIDER. The competitor may not have completed more than two
Horse Trials at the Advanced Level within the previous 24 months.
5.3 OPEN INTERMEDIATE. The competitor may have completed more than two Horse
Trials at the Advanced Level within the previous 24 months. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NeverTime

Nov. 22, 2005, 09:55 AM

First, mea culpa for reviving this thread, but it IS a very interesting topic. DW, I will conceed that winning ribbons *is* lots of fun! But I do want to compete in the open division, where I can see how much my skills compare agains the "open" field.
My point is that it's silly to say we want to "compete" but only on a "level playing field" -- by which, I assume, we mean a playing field where lower standards/abilities can be rewarded. I think the existing rules, or the amateur definition being considered, level the playing field as much as should be expected.
I'd rather not see the amateur division become the "best of the rest," where people are either content with mediocrity or don't get the credit they deserve b/c they "only" competed in the ammy division.
I've competed on the East Coast and in the Rocky Mountains, so I can empathize with the people who have spoken about never being able to win a ribbon b/c their divisions are flooded with Olympians.
I also can say that the opposite situation isn't much better. Out West, while we have some very good riders (look at the Colorado woman who finished 2nd in the novice AEC -woo hooooo!!! -- or Sara M., or Mikki Kapaun, who is making a name for herself now), we've got small divisions and few pros. It usually means that the six (or 8, or 10) people who didn't drown in the water jump or otherwise spontaneously combust go home with a ribbon. Yes, you get the ribbon, but it's not very rewarding. And I think that produces a situation where some riders are content with their less-than-ideal skill levels (hey, I win ribbons so I must be doing something right -- I'll keep on going out and riding like an idiot because I'm an "eventer" and we don't care what we look like! Yay!) and others, who win consistently, wonder how/whether they'd stack up in a division where most people score in the mid-30's or better in dressage and no one gets eliminated XC.
Maybe I'm making the wrong assumptions about what the amateur division would become, but I'd hate to see it institutionalize mediocrity in the name of fairness.

deltawave

Nov. 22, 2005, 10:04 AM

But at most shows (at least in area 8) the "Open" divisions are much more numerous. One could ALWAYS *choose* to ride "Open" if they wished. With a "regular" vs. "open" system there would NOT be a slide into mediocrity because the "cream" will always rise, point out of regular, and go into open divisions where they would then be further challenged. Those "up and comers" who are just getting their feet wet, or who don't compete very often, would still get some ribbons to encourage their continued interest in the sport.

If we allow (can we agree?) that ribbons are a nice incentive, then we shouldn't make it impossible for someone who is not a "fast burner" to win one now and then. Again, if someone really didn't want to ride in the regular division, they should always be able to CHOOSE open, regardless of their status.

tractor queen

Nov. 22, 2005, 11:37 AM

I am happy with the way things are in Area III now - and looking at the most recent omnibus the Area III organizers are on board with offering more than just an open divisions.

I like the experience based divisions at horse trials (current scenario) and an Adult Am leaderboard for the national level (like now).

It is not a perfect system, but I haven't seen any better alternatives offered. I see a lot of changes in area III from where we were the last time this thread went around.

msghook

Nov. 22, 2005, 10:15 PM

My, this is certainly getting to be fun. Let's go over a few things.

Where did the idea of Amateur divisions come from? I promise that it was not invented by one of the committee so that they would have a job and feel important. I was going to say that none of us is that crazy, but then realized that some are. However, I always find a pressing need for the restroom when "those" people start to talk.

In fact what happened is that a sufficient number of competitors expressed an interest in the idea and someone in USEA decided that a committee should be formed to examine the idea.
So a committee examined the idea, and three years (and much discussion) later, there is a rule change proposal. Now here is where I start to get confused. Listening to the discussion, I get the idea that not only have a lot of the contributors not read the proposal, but many of them don't even read the same rulebook that I do.

Many people involved in this thread seem to think that experience based (e.g training rider) divisions have been eliminated. Well they are right there in my rulebook. There also seems to be a view that the proposal will do away with experience based divisions in favor of an arbitrary, income based system. Well, that's not what the proposal says. [Try to forget for the moment about the specific definition of Amateur. It is going to change between now and Charlotte and the new one will be distributed there.] The proposal simply adds "Amateur" to the veritable panoply of available divisions already available. Organizers will be able to chose to offer it, or not, just as they can offer any of the current possibilities. No one will be forced to be an "Amateur" instead of being a "Training Rider".

So it seems to me that the correct question to be asking is "Do we need another possible division?" Well, heck; I don't know. Part of the problem is that we could invent a division for left-handed blond women on chestnut horses with short cannon bones, but unless an Organizer offers it, none of the half-dozen or so of you who qualify will ever ride in it. And THAT[/B] is where the problem lies. What good is "training rider" if all the Organizers offer is Open Training and Junior Training?

If you accept the premise that Organizers are in the business of marketing to you, the competitor, then why are you not getting "training rider" divisions when so many of you seem to like the idea? And if you are getting them, then why do so many of you think that they were eliminated from the rulebook? I don't know if the Amateur division is going to fly, or not. All it will be is a marketing opportunity for those Organizers who think it may work for them. It is not taking away anything that is currently available, in fact, the proposal returns a couple of things that have been missing for a few years (e.g. "horse" divisions). It also creates new ways of dividing classes (see RCP 574-05) that makes the whole process a lot more flexible.

So, in the interest of creating another 8 pages in this thread before Charlotte, everyone please go to the USEF website, print and read the proposals, and then get busy online because there are only eight more days before the meeting to build those additional pages.

Your friend in sport

Malcolm