What I meant was, though, that I have been communicating with someone who is there and she felt that it was best to refrain from posting a lot of specific information, because everyone's feelings were pretty raw right then and she thought best not to further inflame the situation.
I was taking her word for it. She is there as a representative from CDS and has been lobbying all week.
Voting has apparently not taken place yet. There is some talk of adding another year to the proposed effective date.
If the general proposed rule change (that there will be qualifying criteria) is voted on and passes, you can be sure that there will be continued action on the parts of almost every GMO. Shame on us for not being more active. I have learned that my GMO did receive the USEF booket of proposed rule changes (of which this was one), but the person who got it apparently didn't GET IT that she should study them and then ask for feedback from the GMO re the rule changes, so she could go to the USDF convention prepared with our GMOs position. That WILL NOT happen again.
I had suggested on this board previously that I may attend the convention to assist in lobbying regarding this issue. There was very little response so I dropped the idea.
At this point, I personally have called USDF and USEF officials; written to every single member of the USEF Dressage Committee (multiple times); sent emails and snail mail letters individually to every single member of the USEF Board of Directors; publicized the information on this, UDBB, and TheHorseCommunity as well as participating in the Dressage-L list and forwarding relevant information to various dressage officials; spoken personally to the President of the USDF, Sam Barish, as well as to Scott Hassler, George Williams, several judges, and Jeff Moore; contacted Mary Phelps at DressageDaily and been the impetus as well as contributing to writing (and editing several times) an article on DressageDaily; saw to it that a letter from PVDA was written and sent to the USEF convention with Connie Davenport from CDS; corresponded with CDS officials; corresponded with PVDA officials re why we didn't hear about it, and continued to participate in bulletin board discussions of this issue to encourage people to let their opinions be known and to help them know where to write.
What else do you suggest be done at this point, Miss Dior???????
Last edited by rebecca yount; Jan. 12, 2008 at 07:49 PM.
I was told by USEF that copies of the rule change booklet were mailed to all GMOs in October. That would have been before the USDF convention, yes.
I was wondering what happened to the one that supposedly came to PVDA, since there was no discussion of that rule change at PVDA meetings, etc. Then I noticed that in an article in the PVDA newsletter AFTER the USDF convention (where this first got a lot of talk) by one of the PVDA delegates to the USDF convention. In it, she referred to the USEF rule changel booklet and said "it landed in my mailbox in October". So therefore she had it.
What awards meeting are you talking about going to?
I just went back to look at the first 'proposal thread', and that was November 7th.
So yes, it was late October that the GMOs etc got mailed the rule proposals.
BUT-- it's a lot of pages, whether in paper or online...and it was just because a friend and I were talking about the proposals and zipping through the pages that we got ,um, excited, when we found 275-07 with its non-specific ' we'll let you all know later the exact criteria' that I decided to start that thread.
And even with that--look how long and how many threads it took for all of us to really UNDERSTAND the implications and then DO something.
I am grateful to Rebecca, among others, for really getting the ball rolling (pardon the cliche)
is a new interview with Janet Brown Foy explaining the latest developments at USEF Convention and how nearly 98% of us all 'misunderstood' the proposal ; AND the current status of the proposal--which has definitely undergone some changes ; AND what is still being worked on.
hmmm, indeed. I thought one of the biggest objections was that it was an Open-ended Proposal?
So, reading this article, does it appear that the "open-ended" rule proposal was passed and now the Dressage Committee is going to determine the implementation and specifics of the qualification system?
Will the rule proposal be re-submitted with the specific criteria attached?
quote Dressage Daily: "While it is premature to cover the specifics of the various proposals as they are not finalized, the plan is to continue discussing with the membership and within the Dressage Committee what the various qualification processes should include. These three proposals will then be finalized at the Dressage Committee’s June Meeting and then distributed through the USDF Group Membership Organizations (GMO) and Participating Membership (PM) Delegates to be disseminated among their constituencies. This will allow “the people a voice to give their feedback,” added Janet.
The Dressage Committee will then take all this feedback into consideration and will go to the December USDF Convention where they will have an open discussion about the proposals."
"I asked Janet (Foy) why she felt there was so much resistance to this proposal.
“This is the United States and everyone is used to being free to do whatever we want. I ran across this a little in the breeding when I was standing a stallion. Everyone thought that even if their horse was lame or mentally unrideable that they should still be allowed to breed to my stallion.
In Europe you have to go through a strict process for breeding and it’s important to set standards. People are used to qualifying in other areas so this shouldn’t be that surprising.”
"Janet continued to explain that overall the committee was able to resolve most of the concerns voiced by the 500+ people who had emailed them.
“Once I explained what we are doing and cleared up any misinformation, I would say 98% came back satisfied and some even apologized.
What people have to understand is that we don’t have hard hearts. We know the adult amateurs drive the sport but it’s a fine line between what is good for the sport and safe for the horses and fair to the riders,” she added."
When you read through all three pages of the Dressage Daily article, all I have to say is that Janet Brown-Foy is the most elitist, obnoxious and stupid person I have ever had the privilege of reading.
Could the USEF and dressage leadership have a more obtuse spokesperson???
If she no longer has a breeding business it isn't difficult to understand why. She will have the recognized dressage arenas cleared out so quickly her head will spin if she is allowed to continue antagonizing people.
I was and still am against the proposed qualifying rule based on its merits but I would be against it in principle due to her ridiculous snobbery if for no other reason!
Has anyone actually seen a 3rd level test where the final score is a 30%? I haven't and trust me, Region 9 isn't exactly the cream of the crop for dressage. Barring a mental meltdown from the horse (which could happen if it was a spooky, hot horse) I just don't think there are a plethora of 30% rides being performed at recognized shows. And if it does happen, I bet it doesn't happen too often to the same rider. Who in their right mind is going to spend the boatload of money it costs to show at recognized shows to get a 30% over and over again.
I like the end comment by Janet that it will take 2-3 shows MAXIMUM for people to get the necessary qualifying scores. I do think with the new proposal starting at 58% and only requiring 10 points, that will be true in a lot of cases. But, I don't think it will be quite as easy as she makes it sound.
I do like that they have pushed this back to 2011 and also will count scores retroactively. It doesn't say how many years they will go back. But, the retroactive scores, even if they start now, should help a lot of people be qualified for 3rd level by the time the rule is in place.
We have been involved in Dressage for many years and have never seen a 30% ride, at any level. And we are in the wild wild west! This qualification system is going to create a record keeping nightmare within an organization who already has trouble keeping things straight! And really, it isn't needed anyway. I don't think too many horses are "suffering" because their riders are SO BAD. I say if the Judges do their jobs, the cream will rise to the top
I know this selection process is going to put into place
I was not happy with the carte blanc they were asking for
somewhere between the USDF convention and the USEF they officially decided to go with the lower 59 / 10 pts rather than the original 60% / 20pts for the approval jump???
that is what the article sounds like. A point level such as the 60/20 was far to restricting on riders from less populated regions where it would mean for some at least 10 shows. I don't know about others but I prefer to show my horse ( 2nd level) only one ride per day. In our area most shows are two day. Some shows at three day and a few make it so friday is one show and saturday and sunday are considered a second show. I notice that this year a few venues are holding 2 one day shows back to back. This is a great way for people to get qualifying rides with minimal travel impact. As long as the judges are arranged to advantage that is a win /win for all
I like that they seem to "get it" that for those of us scoring in the 55% - 62% range, our limitations might be more about our horses basic "non- warmblood quality" rather than heinous riding. I like the idea that someone presented ...the checking a box on the test "rider demonstrates proper understanding of riding basics" gather "X" number and you can pass.
I think they learned that they could not do such a poor job with the communication process. I think a few GMO's are going to hear the same thing as well. I think they learned that dressage riders tend to be very involved with their shows and showing decisions.
-- * > hoopoe
Cookie Dough is the Sushi of Desserts
Introverted Since 1957