Craig may have a point----

But maybe for a different reason.

I`d like to see the upper levels fix their own house, acknowledge openly that they have both an image problem and a real problem, take whatever steps necessary to prevent rotational falls, even if it involves what some call "dumbing down", so that eventing ceases to be one of the most dangerous sports.

BUT----IF THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN---if they remain in denial, then, in order to prevent the several hundred upper level riders from messing up the sport for the thousands of the rest of us, I`d cut them loose.

Give them to the USEF to do with as it sees fit, and let the USEA administer the sport for the huge bottom of the pyramid, the "other" 25,000 riders.

I fervently hope this "Civil War" can be prevented, and I think it can be.

But I don`t have much trust at all for either the IOC or the FEI to do the right thing, and I`m not sure whether David can swing the USEF into clearer thinking.

I think he can, but we need to be ready if months go by, and there are no fundamental changes, to save the rest of our sport.

Amen, Denny. Put the problem in the laps of the ones who need to address the problem.

And then...do what needs to be done if they don't look themsleves in the mirror. Some fences are too hard to ride down to and jump. Those fences are not all out on XC courses.

Will be very difficult to run events without volunteers.

I think we should just get 50 volunteers together with some shovels, dig a big pit, and have some fun with the USEF. Sparta style. :D

The upper levels will not be fixed unless UL professional recognize that they ARE in fact the problem. Nor will things improve until the govening bodies recognzed that fact too. I think we are a long, long way from either.

They are patting themselves on the back because the novice rider, who gets bounced out of the tack when their green bean shys at a jump judge's floppy hat, can no longer continue on course when it will do exactly NOTHING to address our current Problem. I really don't know how much more the LL amateurs are willing to take on the chin while listening to those individuals who exactly fit the profile of the riders who are putting this sport at risk intimate that if we fix things at the amatuer/lower levels all will be well. It bites.

"Give them to the USEF to do with as it sees fit, and let the USEA administer the sport for the huge bottom of the pyramid, the "other" 25,000 riders."

Interesting premise and even more interesting math. How do you get 25,000 riders out of an organization whose membership hovers around 14,000?

I think he was just throwing around 50K to make his point. Note that I have absolutely no idea what the membership numbers are myself. It's not uncommon for someone to use a large but rather inaccurate number to represent a significant quantity when making a general statement. For example..

"My girlfriend has too many shoes."
"Oh yeah? How many does she have?"
"At least 3000 pairs or so. She wants a bigger closet now."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subk

The upper levels will not be fixed unless UL professional recognize that they ARE in fact the problem. Nor will things improve until the govening bodies recognzed that fact too. I think we are a long, long way from either. me too - who can we ask or EXPECT to address this fact?

I really don't know how much more the LL amateurs are willing to take on the chin while listening to those individuals who exactly fit the profile of the riders who are putting this sport at risk intimate that if we fix things at the amatuer/lower levels all will be well. It bites.

---

here lie the problems. I intend to ask the hard questions - and these are the questions to be asked - and I'll ask them in venues that are hard to conceal.

25,000 is the number that usually gets bandied about when people are taking a stab at guessing how many riders in No. America think of themselves as eventers.
It is about double the USEA membership.

For years, at clinics, I made a point of asking "How many of you belong to USEA?"
In places like the Radnor Hunt Club, it might be somewhat more than half, in more outlying regions, almost always fewer than half.

So maybe it`s 25,000, maybe 21,000, but we do know that in 2007 about 200 ran in at least one advanced event, and 48 ran at Rolex.

Sure, it`s anyone`s guess. Doesn`t matter. Close enough for government work.

Denny: we have a saying around here for situations like this: "why don't we just put the skunk on the table?" I think you have, and very eloquently.

I really don't think this would be a solution either. I don't think this sport is big enough, popular enough or easy enough to organize to support a split like described by Denny OR Craig. I think it would lead to an end of the sport as a whole. I do not think the LLs stand without the ULs and vice versa. But this is just my opinion.

Personally, I still don't think there has been enough research done to say that this sport is any more or less dangerous than it always has been. Not sure the data is available to even do that research. Sure there are riders at the ULs lacking in skills....there always have been....and to be honest, there are some damn good riders with substantial skills as well. However, with the internet we are all more aware of the dangers and the accidents when they happen. But regardless of whether or not the sport is more dangerous.....we should still, and continually strive to minimize those dangers while still preserving what we can of the heart of this sport.

This to me means no rash decisions or rules or changes with out understanding all the issues...and thinking through the consequences.

And while I do agree that most of the deaths have been at the ULs....there are some pretty major injuries that do happen at the lower levels. No, not always talked about on these BBs...but they do happen. And no, they are not as often as at the ULs...but that is to be expected....the LLs are easier, as they should be.

I personally have seen changes at the events that I have attended...both good and bad. And have little doubt that I will continue to see changes...both good and bad. I just hope that forums like this BB do more to come up with good solutions and less to create more issues.

Quote:

---

I really don't think this would be a solution either. I don't think this sport is big enough, popular enough or easy enough to organize to support a split like described by Denny OR Craig.

---

And I think the split is underway and has been for a while. There are a huge number of unrecognized events that run BN, N and T and are well attended and well organized. Especially once you leave those small areas of the East Coast where eventing is most popular and events are most likely to be run under USEA rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silver2

And I think the split is underway and has been for a while. There are a huge number of unrecognized events that run BN, N and T and are well attended and well organized. Especially once you leave those small areas of the East Coast where eventing is most popular and events are most likely to be run under USEA rules.

---

I agree to a point. Yes there is already a split to a point. Unrec. events have been around for a very very long time. Pony clubs and and other clubs and local groups been holding them since before I was born (which is a long time)....I think this is why there is no need to create two formal tracks or change the focus of the USEA. I also suspect that there are even MORE unrec. events here on the East coast...at least I can easily think of at least two a month spring-fall within 2 hours of me. I see no need to split off the USEA to just run LL events or to try and more formally organize the events that are currently run as unrec. events. I'm not sure I understand the benefit of that proposal.

ETA: It really isn't a split. In fact....LLs being included with the USEA is relatively new within the life of the sport. Wasn't Training the lowest level 15-20 years ago? I think BN was only included in the last 10 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bornfreenowexpensive

Personally, I still don't think there has been enough research done to say that this sport is any more or less dangerous than it always has been. Not sure the data is available to even do that research. Sure there are riders at the ULs lacking in skills....there always have been....and to be honest, there are some damn good riders with substantial skills as well. However, with the internet we are all more aware of the dangers and the accidents when they happen. But regardless of whether or not the sport is more dangerous.....we should still, and continually strive to minimize those dangers while still preserving what we can of the heart of this sport.

This to me means no rash decisions or rules or changes with out understanding all the issues...and thinking through the consequences.

---

I agree!! lets get the data and make intelligent decisions and rules that make sense not knee jerk reactions!!

Let the "elite" have their own tracks at their own shows on their own dates. All of their students and clients will be at their OWN shows with their own horses, having a good time. Who is going to pay their way and volunteer at shows where there are 12 "elite" people riding? Not us Smurfs--we're busy that weekend. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deltawave

Let the "elite" have their own tracks at their own shows on their own dates. All of their students and clients will be at their OWN shows with their own horses, having a good time. Who is going to pay their way and volunteer at shows where there are 12 "elite" people riding? Not us Smurfs--we're busy that weekend. :D

---

This was one of my thoughts about Craig's letter, and I think I asked this early on: What is the advantage to the levels being bifurcated (I'm not really sure what kind of separation he means)? I'm sure Craig has a reason; I just can't think of what it might be. Whether they like it or not, and really I think most ULRs get a kick out of seeing their LLR students learn and do well, it is a symbiotic (my big word for the day) relationship that mostly would be severed under the type of bifurcation that Deltawave suggests.

And that just doesn't seem like it would serve the ULR or the LLR well.

His last paragraph made sense to me (about having the proper qualifications to move up), but the rest of the letter I didn't get.

Can someone enlighten me?

Exactly. When most of the eventers are at training and below, we don't need them to keep our part of the sport going.

And let's face it. Even if we "dumb it down" a bit the upper levels are still way out of reach for most of us. Why should we cater to the highest common denominator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denny

25,000 is the number that usually gets bandied about when people are taking a stab at guessing how many riders in No. America think of themselves as eventers.
It is about double the USEA membership.

---

Good point. I am not a member because I am not competing now, but I still consider myself to be an eventer.

It will be interesting to see how the UL events run with little to no volunteers to JJ/scribe/etc.... :winkgrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denny

Close enough for government work.

---

HEY! I represent that!
heh. :D

I agree w/ Silver2 - I think the split is already underway. In Colorado, we have VERY few events that run Intermediate or Advanced. Most of the recognized shows only go to Prelim. We have one fabulous facility that could easily run Intermediate but she doesn't run it because she doesn't like the UL attitude.

Interestingly enough, at the Area IX meeting there was talk of changing the schedule to 'accomodate' the UL rider schedules - most of the organizers effected said 'no', they would not change to accomodate less than 1% of the riders.

I think the split is well underway.