The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar. 5, 2008
    Location
    The sandbox (aka the dressage ring)
    Posts
    117

    Default Bravo! HDS keeping members informed on proposed rule change!

    Bravo to HDS for keeping GMO members informed, just saw that Syrisse added this to the site for us:

    Latest News


    More Info & Statistics Relating to Proposed Establishment of
    USEF Performance Standards

    These detailed reports (click here for Handout and Score Analysis) are provided to help inform members regarding issues involved in the upcoming USEF proposed rule change. If you have specific questions on the content of these documents, please contact Dr Rebecca Yount, dryount@yahoo.com

    Thank you also to Rebecca [Yount] for dedicating so much time and effort that you've put into keeping us informed, and keeping appropriate parties on their toes (so to speak)

    Edited to add: Thank you also to Ana and Mary. The information, numbers, and graphs were EXCELLENT!
    Last edited by AMDressage; Apr. 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM.
    "The higher you hold your pinky, the more dignified you be." -Patrick Starfish

    "Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance" -Coco Chanel



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr. 23, 1999
    Location
    Rosehill, TX
    Posts
    7,092

    Default

    Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

    The reports states, “Elizabeth reported that she accidently put down this pony, ........, at the show.”



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul. 4, 2000
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,968

    Default

    Thank you for the feedback.

    Not every region / GMO is being as forthcoming in passing along the data .... an odd reaction to my mind, since data is data and informed decisions are made by examining data.

    *star* aka Mary
    "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
    - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct. 23, 2001
    Posts
    2,433

    Default

    Adding my Bravo!

    That was an extremely well done and thoughtful report! Thank you.



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul. 1, 2000
    Location
    Goochland, VA
    Posts
    1,495

    Default

    Thanks for the compliments. We sent those documents to all GMOs to do with what they please.

    We think posting them on the websites is an excellent idea, so that members can be informed as to background on the proposed rule change.

    We are really not sure when the next draft of the rule change proposal will be released by the USEF Dressage Committee. But we feel that it is important for people to be ready to respond when/if it is released.

    As can be seen by reviewing the documents (click on links above, that'll take you to HDS website and there are links to the actual docs on there), a GREAT DEAL of work and analysis went into preparing this.

    Most of the credit for the stats and analysis goes to Shotenstar and Pluvinel. I am just the leader of the gang. (Even in Kindergarten they said I had "leadership qualities". That was their way of saying I was bossy. I have two t-shirts courtesy of Star: one says "She Who Must Be Obeyed" and the other says "Teamwork: A Whole Lot of People Doing What I Say").

    PS: There's a 3rd t-shirt, but I can't post on here what it says...



  6. #6
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2007
    Location
    Napanee ON
    Posts
    5,301

    Default

    Wow, impressive. Thanks for all the hard work



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2003
    Posts
    2,529

    Default

    also Oregon Dressage Society

    scroll down to third item
    http://www.oregondressage.com/news/



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun. 1, 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    13,966

    Default

    I overheard this week that the performance standard rule change will be voted on in June and not later in the year as some people think, possibly in an effort to pass it without protest?



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul. 4, 2000
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,968

    Default

    Enjoy

    what is the source of that information?

    If true, we need to pounce on the right people.

    However, at the Region 1 meeting, Sam Barish and Scott Hassler, both members of the USEF Dressage Committee, stated that the next version of the proposed standard would be made available for review and that website 'voting and commenting' would be set-up to get member input. So, is it possible that your information refers to the possible timeline for this?

    *star*
    "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
    - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun. 1, 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    13,966

    Default

    The source sits on the USEF board.



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct. 26, 2002
    Location
    Youngsville, LA
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rebecca yount View Post
    Thanks for the compliments. We sent those documents to all GMOs to do with what they please.
    Who sent this to the GMOs, and who in the GMO was this sent to? I'm the newsletter editor for a GMO in Texas, and I have not received this information.
    Elisha



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul. 4, 2000
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,968

    Default

    The reports were sent to GMO presidents or preferred points of contact if that was what was listed. The sender was 'sm' of this board, who used her professional email software through Summit Marketing to help us do this.

    Please check with your GMO officers to see which one received it. If we missed you, or the email address rejected the attachments, or there was some other delivery problem, let us know and we will send copies directly.

    *star*
    "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
    - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan. 16, 2002
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    3,554

    Default

    I overheard this week that the performance standard rule change will be voted on in June and not later in the year as some people think, possibly in an effort to pass it without protest?
    So has anyone here actually seen or been told what the new version of the standards will be?

    I seem to recall that the USEF DC stated that after their March meeting they would send out the new proposal to the GMOs and take public comment through them, then have discussion at the summer meeting with a vote to follow. Is the meeting this June for board/committee members only? Or open to the public. And where will it be held?
    "We don't ride the clock. We ride the horse." Reiner Klimke.
    http://community.webshots.com/user/arnikaelf



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct. 26, 2002
    Location
    Youngsville, LA
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShotenStar View Post
    The reports were sent to GMO presidents or preferred points of contact if that was what was listed. The sender was 'sm' of this board, who used her professional email software through Summit Marketing to help us do this.

    Please check with your GMO officers to see which one received it. If we missed you, or the email address rejected the attachments, or there was some other delivery problem, let us know and we will send copies directly.

    *star*
    That explains it. USDF keeps listing the wrong person for our official contact, even though I have requested this changed several times. Thanks for clearing that up!
    Elisha



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar. 3, 2008
    Location
    US
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha View Post
    Who sent this to the GMOs, and who in the GMO was this sent to? I'm the newsletter editor for a GMO in Texas, and I have not received this information.
    Elisha, I have no answer for the Texas question you have, but I find it rather frustrating that some posters think that there is a responsibility for GMO or USDF officials to get this data report out to the members. While the data itself is very interesting....the report summary is certainly NOT unbiased and there is no question that the report draws conclusions that are meant to steer people down a certain path.

    I am not at all surprised that the report may not have been disseminated by all who received it.

    It would make more sense to me to share the data AFTER the new proposed qualification system comes out. This data report may not even be relevant to the new proposed system for all we know. I think the data report may INDEED be very helpful to those who are currently devising a new proposal, and I'm glad that there were those who were willing to do all the work on this.

    Personally, I think it is presumptuous to expect GMO officials be required to share a data report that is clearly meant to persuade the readers of that report that there is no need for "Performance Standards". Especially when there is NO qualification system proposal on the table yet.

    Again, I want to reiterate that I am glad the data was collected and that this information is available, but the conclusions and summary of the data as it is written in the report are certainly biased in one direction as to how the data was perceived.

    Another person might look at all of the statistics and data and form a very different "summary" as to what it means.



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul. 4, 2000
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PennyRidge View Post
    ....
    Another person might look at all of the statistics and data and form a very different "summary" as to what it means.
    Go for it ... the data is on the USDF website. Pull it out for yourself. Do your own analysis with the tools of your choice. That is what data is for ... to be examined from different perspectives.

    And for the record: the conclusions are where the data took us, not where we took the data.

    If the data had indicated a broad pattern of problems, say with lots of low scores at 3rd and 4th level, or a track record by individual riders of moving up levels with low scores at the previous levels, then the conclusions would have been much different.

    *star*
    "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
    - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar. 3, 2008
    Location
    US
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShotenStar View Post
    Go for it ... the data is on the USDF website. Pull it out for yourself. Do your own analysis with the tools of your choice. That is what data is for ... to be examined from different perspectives.
    You miss my point... IF the GMO officials/representatives are supposed to be neutral, and IF they are supposed to represent the views of their membership and not their own..then it would seem unwise for them to post a report on their website or in their newsletter that clearly states a strong position AGAINST A QUALIFICATION SYSTEM of any kind. The report says this!

    I have read on another bb and even a few posts here where folks ARE IN FAVOR of a qualification system. It seems that even some trainers are in favor of one because it will help them keep their students from showing above their abilities, etc. I imagine that there are riders, instructors and
    judges who support a qualification system who are also members of a GMO. Shouldn't the GMO leadership take their opinions into consideration as well?

    Are these GMOs who have posted the data report on their websites trying to lead their membership down a particular path? It would seem that way to me.

    Your data report is more than just a sharing of statistics and information, it is intended to spread the gospel to the nation that a qualification system is not needed and ill-advised. Those who choose to publish that report on their websites and in their newsletters are sending a strong message out to their membership that a qualification system is NOT NECESSARY. It speaks out against a proposal that is not even on the table anymore. And you surely know that many GMO members have NO clue what is going on with this qualification system and when they read the report they will start making assumptions that are incorrect.

    I think it is a mistake for GMO officials to start spreading fear that a qualification system is going to hurt your average rider. To me, this is what that report does. For those of you who WANT TO STOP such a system from taking place, then this is a fine thing...but for those of us who believe that a form of qualification system is needed, it is very unfair propaganda.



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar. 3, 2008
    Location
    US
    Posts
    52

    Default

    I'm actually getting pretty riled up about this now. As I look at the websites of a couple of GMOs who have posted this report, I am more concerned than ever.

    Amongst GMO news about pizza partys and volunteer efforts is this statement included with the data report:

    More Info & Statistics Relating to Proposed Establishment of
    USEF Performance Standards

    These detailed reports (click here for Handout and Score Analysis) are provided to help inform members regarding issues involved in the upcoming USEF proposed rule change. If you have specific questions on the content of these documents, please contact Dr Rebecca Yount, dryount@yahoo.com

    For crying out loud...GMO members who don't read this bb and aren't in the know about this issue will read the above statement and assume that this data report is some sort of official report coming from USDF or USEF or something. And then to have DOCTOR Rebecca Yount as the contact makes it sound even more official and important.

    I'm sorry...I'm really letting loose on my thoughts here..but what would be more appropriate for GMO websites to say in the statement about the report is something more like:

    Here is a report that was compiled and analyzed by people who oppose any form of qualification system for dressage riders. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this executive board.

    And then...the GMO website should put videotape of 3rd level riders slamming around on their horses' backs, jerking on their faces and spurring them (with their faces blotted out of course) and say something like:

    Here are video clips that supply the anecdotal evidence that supporters of a qualification system find very compelling.



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar. 3, 2008
    Location
    US
    Posts
    52

    Default

    I just looked at PVDA's website and was surprised to see that the President of that GMO is asking members to vote on whether or not they support or oppose the "rule change" for performance standards! Do I understand this correctly, Rebecca? Are members still under the impression that the old proposal is still on the table? Why is that polling thing even there? How can members decide whether they are for or against something when the details of that something aren't even known?



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr. 9, 2008
    Posts
    2,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PennyRidge View Post
    Elisha, I have no answer for the Texas question you have, but I find it rather frustrating that some posters think that there is a responsibility for GMO or USDF officials to get this data report out to the members. While the data itself is very interesting....the report summary is certainly NOT unbiased and there is no question that the report draws conclusions that are meant to steer people down a certain path.
    .....
    The data is the data. I, author Diaz in the report, did the bulk of the Minitab statistical analysis. Given the length of the report, the analyses were actually very simple...there was no particularly sophisticated use of statistics. The conclusions arrived at in the report are just summary words for what the data represents:

    1-There are few scores below 40%
    2-The regression analysis showed NO CORRELATION between 2nd4 and the average scores for 3rd level.
    3-The data is "bell shape curve" perfectly suitable for analysis and represents ALL SCORES from open competition. No "representative samples" were done...it is the whole population from the dates the data was available.....the population in its entirety.

    Quote Originally Posted by PennyRidge View Post
    It would make more sense to me to share the data AFTER the new proposed qualification system comes out. This data report may not even be relevant to the new proposed system for all we know. I think the data report may INDEED be very helpful to those who are currently devising a new proposal, and I'm glad that there were those who were willing to do all the work on this.
    ......
    Thanks for the compliment....There was probably 1 man-month (person-month) spent on the analysis between ShotenStar and me. The data is the data. It is enshrined in history. It will not change. The analysis is appropriate to ANY qualification rule proposal that may come out in the future as the data represents the current state of competition scores.

    Quote Originally Posted by PennyRidge View Post
    ...........
    Another person might look at all of the statistics and data and form a very different "summary" as to what it means.
    I challenge anyone to look at the data and come to a different set of conclusions. As a volunteer, I was willing to donate my time and skills to the effort of understanding the data. I offered Sam Barish to help the USDF with the analysis. I personally did not care how the results came out. I just wanted there to be some analysis behind the qualifying rule proposal. Also, if not me, I offered referals to an unbiased, "non-horsey" PhD statistician....who would, of course, charge for their time. The offer still stands.

    If anyone has any questions about how the data was analyzed, how conclusions were arrived at, or any other questions about methods, etc., our e-mail addresses are all in the report. This includes the PennyRidge.

    We are available and willing to answer any questions. We have nothing to hide. The data is the data. It was analyzed by 2 professional analysts with standard statistical tools, nothing particularly exotic (ANOVA, regression, statistical summaries), very plebian analyses that anyone who has taken Stats101 would be familiar with.
    Last edited by pluvinel; Apr. 12, 2008 at 06:33 PM.



Similar Threads

  1. What do you think of this proposed rule change?
    By Rel6 in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Oct. 28, 2011, 10:29 AM
  2. USEF Proposed Rule Change for Eventing - Helmets
    By Innocent Bystander in forum Eventing
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: Feb. 3, 2011, 11:00 AM
  3. Proposed rule change....USEF
    By JRG in forum Dressage
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Feb. 23, 2010, 08:34 PM
  4. Proposed USHJA rule change STINKS
    By elizuhowell in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 261
    Last Post: Dec. 7, 2009, 10:45 AM
  5. Replies: 102
    Last Post: Mar. 21, 2006, 10:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness