The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr. 23, 2003
    Posts
    1,107

    Smile USHJA CONVENTION - ANY UPDATES ???

    It would be wonderful if anyone that is there could gives us a rundown as to what is happening at any or all the meetings. Just some of us couldn't attend, and it would be great if one of you let us in on the news.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep. 27, 2001
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,800

    Default

    Here's the short synopsis of today. I'll probably forget a million things, but hopefully someone with a better memory will jump in here...

    Started the morning with a presentation by Billy on competitions. The competitions committee has been working really hard and they have looked at pretty much every aspect of competitions and are trying to produce a reasonable way of upholding standards including the mileage issue. The proposal sets up standards necessary for each level of show.

    At this point, Billy mentioned that written feedback is extremely important for the committee. Send your thoughts and they will be read!!!

    This afternoon were the hunter and jumper rule change forums. We started off with the Eq rule changes - EQ112.1 has been withdrawn. That's the one about the local shows holding medal classes. There was a lot of discussion about the USEF Medal qualifying criteria. There have been some new drafts to some of the proposed rule changes. It is proposed that there will be a limited number of riders of which "100 will be taken from the top point earners in the country and the riders who have earned 80 points in their first 10 classes. The remaining 125 will be accepted from the Regional Finals Qualifiers." There's more to it - find it on the USEF site under EQ 112.9 tracking #123-09.

    EQ 112.14 - Again requirements for specific classes, in this case the WIHS finals. The intent is to allow more west coast riders a shot at qualifying since there aren't as many competing in classes out there and therefore can't get enough points since it's based on the top 30 qualifying. There would be a certain number taken from the East Coast League and the West Coast League.

    Hunters - Some discussion on the new Green division eligibility - a horse can compete in the green division for one year or until it wins $4000. It's 1st year status starts on whatever day it first shows at 3'6" no matter when during the show year and continues for one calendar year. If it reaches $4K before that year is up it can continue in the green division until it's calendar year is up.

    Discussion about the proposed "Open" division which will have 3 fence heights and horses can show at any height even if they've shown over higher fences. Kind of a schooling division for Pro's to tune up their horses as needed with bigger jumps.

    Discussion of prize money being weighted toward the higher jump divisions - awarding the Regular Working horses more money than the 3'6" classes. Trying to encourage participation in the higher fence divisions.

    I'm sure there are about 20 other things that were discussed that I'm forgetting.

    Jumpers - discussion about the schooling area supervisors and money distribution. JP103 and JP108. And last up was the discussion on removing the word "Owner" from the Amateur Owner jumper divisions. The overwhelming consensus was it is a bad proposal and should not go forward. It will be discussed further throughout the week as will most of this in different committee meetings.



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2004
    Location
    City of delusion in the state of total denial
    Posts
    8,542

    Default

    Tackpud, thanks for the update. Could you elaborate on the reasons for the A/O jumper proposal being so negatively received?
    "I'm not always sarcastic. Sometimes I'm asleep."
    - Harry Dresden

    Horse Isle 2: Legend of the Esrohs LifeCycle Breeding and competition MMORPG



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renn/aissance View Post
    Tackpud, thanks for the update. Could you elaborate on the reasons for the A/O jumper proposal being so negatively received?
    Same here!!

    Also what's the latest scoop on the whole "no more B and C shows" thing?

    Your taking the time to write all this up is MUCH appreciated! Thank you!
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan. 27, 2000
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Thank you so much for taking the time to provide updates to those of us who cannot participate! Interested to hear more (especially re: the B / C shows).



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tackpud View Post

    Started the morning with a presentation by Billy on competitions. The competitions committee has been working really hard and they have looked at pretty much every aspect of competitions and are trying to produce a reasonable way of upholding standards including the mileage issue. The proposal sets up standards necessary for each level of show.

    .
    Was there any discussion about what will happen to the C and B shows? Are they expected to drop down to local shows or perhaps go unrated?
    Was the cost to comply with the standards discussed. Someone will be paying for the changes and they means entry costs will increase.
    Was there any discussion about why USHJA wants to do away with one day shows?
    And how did they arrive at the standards proposed? Who suggested them or did they simply pick a mega show and copy what they had available?



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep. 27, 2001
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,800

    Default

    I'll see if I can get the jist of the competitions committee proposal (disclaimer here - I am not on this committee and none of this is an actual rule at this time - they are proposals for discussion):

    My understanding is they were tasked with the following - define the ratings, figure out how the recognition/awards structure tied to ratings, and create access to competitions for all members at all levels.

    They came up with:

    The current "AA" rated shows will become "AAA"

    The current "A" rated shows will become "AA"

    The current "B" and "C" rated shows will become "A"

    The current "Local" rated shows will still be called "Local Endorsed" competitions - possibly with lower membership level requirements.

    There will be a specific set of competition standards for all shows starting at the local level and increasing as the rating goes up. The proposed start date is 12/1/11 - so this is not something that's going to change overnight. They want input.

    I am a little confused with another aspect of this dealing with options shows can choose, so I am not going to speak about it. If you need to understand it more in depth, please contact someone on the committee. They want to talk with you!

    They are not trying to do away with the one day, "B", "C", or "Local" shows. They just want a set of standards so the shows will be well run and consistent. The costs to get shows recognized was not discussed, but I know from other meetings I have attended that members are concerned about the federation fees related to holding a show and that is being looked at.

    The list of standards was created from data gathered from a large number of shows of ALL levels. Major concerns that the committee mentioned exhibitors had mentioned to them include:

    Lowering the B/C level standards
    Provisions for indoor competition standards (schooling areas, etc.)
    North/South weather related issues
    How long a porta-pottie can last without cleaning (apparently this was brought up a number of times)
    Priority date holders
    Size and number of schooling areas - includes footing and supervision
    Many others - those were just the ones they pointed out to us

    This is just the start of what they are doing - nothing is set in stone and nothing will begin without more work.

    The Amateur Owner issue was a hot topic! One of the biggest issues was compliance with the hunter rules - if you are showing in the A/O hunters you can not show someone else's horse at the same show. Therefore the jumper side needs to be the same. There was also concern (pointed out by an AMATEUR) that this might be a hardship to professionals if their amateur customers stop buying horses and just ride other people's horses. We all know there are some good riding amateurs out there! Sorry I didn't write down more about this topic - I only do juniors so I wasn't really affected by this.

    General Rule change forum this morning had some hot topics. Extraordinary rule changes were discussed with the mood being that people want the membership to have more opportunity to have input before a rule is changed immediately. Many of these rule changes come from the "effective date" proposed by the proponent so that is going to be explored.

    Drugs and Medications - this one took up a good hour. The proposal from the Drugs and Medications Committee is to only allow one (1) NSAID in a horse at a show. The proposal by the USHJA allows for 2 with one being reported on a medication form.

    Major issues with the D & M proposal was the issue of an injury or illness at a show when the horse had already been given one NSAID. Ie: horse has been given Bute for days 1 and 2 of a 5 day show - colics on the second day and the vet gives it Banamine. It may have been a mild colic and the horse is ready to show on day 4 of the show but now it can't because it has both Bute and Banamine in its system.

    Or the older school horse that you put on Bute for the longer lasting effect and then give Ketofen the morning of the show for a quicker effect for that day. You'd either have to put the horse on Bute earlier in the week or not get the lasting effects of that med in favor of the quicker effect of the Ketofen. Which is better for the welfare of the horse?

    The members felt they would like to see studies done to identify the guidelines that the USEF should implement. They want to know what are the acceptable amounts of specific meds and what are the withdrawl times. This will be an ongoing issue...

    Chin straps - what happens when a chin strap comes undone during a round? The judges feel they often are not in a physical position to see if/when the chin strap came undone and therefore can't make the decision to stop the person on course. But then what happens if the chin strap comes undone, someone falls and is hurt because their helmet came off? The current rules state the helmet must be properly secured but there have been instances of them coming undone in the ring and the judges didn't know how to proceed - do you eliminate someone for stopping to fix it? Or do you just continue judging after they fix it and go back to the rest of the course? That's going to need a lot more attention. There are so many issues that are a part of this discussion.

    Last thing that came up for debate was the issue of "longing area supervisors." There is a proposal to have someone supervise the longing area at shows. Of course this brought up many issues - cost, who is to say what too much longing or dangerous longing is, would the supervisor have to be bi-lingual? We all know that the majority of longing is done by the grooms and what is needed most is education of those doing the longing - not a supervisor.

    Headed back for the zone meetings.



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr. 23, 2003
    Posts
    1,107

    Thumbs up Thanks

    Tackpud

    You are wonderful !! Thank you for such good updates from down there. It is really appreciated. Is there a good atendence at most of the meting you have gone to ?? Thanks again



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan. 27, 2000
    Location
    On Blue Run
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Someone told me they planned to limit comments from the floor to 45 seconds. Did they?



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep. 27, 2000
    Location
    Southern California - on a freeway someplace
    Posts
    9,700

    Default

    Thank you Tackpud!
    The Evil Chem Prof



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,121

    Default

    From the perspective of he USEA rules meeting, there was a strong opinion that both the lunging rule and the chin strap rule need to be hunter-specific and/or jumper-specific rules rather than general rules. Both would be problematic for Eventing.
    Janet

    chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    14,961

    Default

    Tackpud, thanks for the reports!

    I don't know how they could ever, ever make it feasible to have someone "supervise" a lunging area. The person would have to be out there all day from 4-5 AM, and even earlier at Indoors. Who would want that job, and who would absorb the cost? (Hint- rhymes with texhibitors!)

    A schooling ring supervisor can enforce the rules that govern schooling. What rules govern lunging?



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 1999
    Location
    Middleburg VA and Southampton NY
    Posts
    6,095

    Default

    No rules seem to govern longeing.

    There are no rules as to how many can occupy a certain area, no rule that it has to be a designated area, no rule about time limits, no rule about footing, no rule about horses having to have their numbers so you can at least tell who it is that is careening around at a gazillion miles an hour sideways on a cross canter with it's nose being yanked off.

    It would be hard to supervise, especially as so much goes on from an early hour, but requiring numbers with the horses at all times when being schooled or longed would go a long way toward allowing for general enforcement of existing rules against "excess" that could be considered abuse.



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb. 22, 2000
    Location
    Keswick, VA
    Posts
    7,868

    Default

    Major issues with the D & M proposal was the issue of an injury or illness at a show when the horse had already been given one NSAID. Ie: horse has been given Bute for days 1 and 2 of a 5 day show - colics on the second day and the vet gives it Banamine. It may have been a mild colic and the horse is ready to show on day 4 of the show but now it can't because it has both Bute and Banamine in its system.
    I'm confused. I thought the current rules, allowing 2 NSAIDS but not Bute and Banamine together, had a clause that, even with a medication report, bute and banamine could not be present in the same sample.
    I don't like the proposal, but that doesn't seem like a very effective argument against it if we don't currently have that option. Am I reading the medication rules incorrectly? I'm not the only person I know who has scratched a horse showing on bute because it had a colic episode requiring banamine.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBoylen View Post
    I'm confused. I thought the current rules, allowing 2 NSAIDS but not Bute and Banamine together, had a clause that, even with a medication report, bute and banamine could not be present in the same sample.
    I don't like the proposal, but that doesn't seem like a very effective argument against it if we don't currently have that option. Am I reading the medication rules incorrectly? I'm not the only person I know who has scratched a horse showing on bute because it had a colic episode requiring banamine.
    From the phamphlet.

    "* Do not administer phenylbutazone and flunixin at the same time (violation)! Allow seven days withdrawal from one before using the other."

    USHJA also has a proposal to make stacking 3 NSAIDS legal but with a limit on the amount of the 3rd NSAID.

    JMHO but if the horse needs 3 NSAIDS why is it showing at all?

    http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/647-09.pdf



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep. 27, 2001
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby G. Weber View Post
    Someone told me they planned to limit comments from the floor to 45 seconds. Did they?
    Believe me they did not do that in any meetings I attended. Everyone was listened to and their opinions were respected. They passed microphones around so everyone could be heard.



  17. #17
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2000
    Location
    Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    23,388

    Default

    CBoylen, I think the bute+banamine argument is more in favor of the 2NSAIDS w/report 1 requirement proposal - that would (I presume) eliminate the current bute/banamine prohibition (even though there are a plethora of other NSAIDs that are currently legally stackable) and as a side argument offers up a thought on why the D&M Committee's proposal is not as useful.

    Color me cynical, but I think that proposal would open the floodgates wide open for a lot of stacked B&B and bury USEF under an avalanche of D&M forms. I think the D&M committee has the right idea.
    Definition of "Horse": a 4 legged mammal looking for an inconvenient place and expensive way to die. Any day they choose not to execute the Master Plan is just more time to perfect it. Be Very Afraid.



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep. 27, 2001
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBoylen View Post
    I'm confused. I thought the current rules, allowing 2 NSAIDS but not Bute and Banamine together, had a clause that, even with a medication report, bute and banamine could not be present in the same sample.
    I don't like the proposal, but that doesn't seem like a very effective argument against it if we don't currently have that option. Am I reading the medication rules incorrectly? I'm not the only person I know who has scratched a horse showing on bute because it had a colic episode requiring banamine.
    Correct - the current rule is one or the other but never both. (Didn't it used to be trace amounts of one if both were present or an I imagining things...)

    As I understood it, the discussion about colic and Banamine was centered around the withdrawl period of the Banamine - if you withdrew the horse for 24 hours and filed the appropriate med form, would you be called up for a rule violation?

    Or how about if a horse shows on Bute one week and then the trainer wants to switch it to another NSAID the next week - how would that be handled? The real issue was not having the data to be able to answer these questions about knowing the withdrawl times for the meds to leave the system. And since each horse can metabolize meds at different rates, how would that be handled.

    The large majority was against this change. There was agreement that using 2 NSAIDs with one being reported was a better way to go. Follow the forms for a couple of years and see what is being used and how often. Then discuss what might need to be changes.

    It was asked if there were any data on what's being found in the test samples and the answer was the overwhelming majority only had 1 NSAID in them - I'm not going to try to quote the numbers in case I get it wrong and somehow that becomes fact... So the thought of making 1 NSAID ok with a 2nd reportable sounds like a good solution to me.

    Spent the afternoon in a zone meeting and then briefly went into the Show Standards meeting. Nothing I can report that would be of general interest. These meetings take up hours and they have celebrations scheduled for the evenings. So the other COTH members I know are around are busy and will chime in here when they have a minute.



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep. 27, 2001
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMK View Post
    CBoylen, I think the bute+banamine argument is more in favor of the 2NSAIDS w/report 1 requirement proposal - that would (I presume) eliminate the current bute/banamine prohibition (even though there are a plethora of other NSAIDs that are currently legally stackable) and as a side argument offers up a thought on why the D&M Committee's proposal is not as useful.

    Color me cynical, but I think that proposal would open the floodgates wide open for a lot of stacked B&B and bury USEF under an avalanche of D&M forms. I think the D&M committee has the right idea.
    Thanks! You made a little more sense out of it than I did. But as I mentioned above, currently they are only finding 1 NSAID in the large majority of samples taken, so I doubt it would encourage more medication useage.



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    14,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M. O'Connor View Post
    No rules seem to govern longeing.
    That's my point. Since there are no rules on the books, what could a supervisor do? Make judgment calls about fatigue, soundness, control, and safety on a case-by-case basis? That sounds like a terrible idea. Plus you just know inevitably people would make claims about favoritism and uneven enforcement.

    I'm all for something in the rules that requires a show to have ample lunging areas, with good footing that gets dragged regularly, and (ideally) a perimeter fence to prevent loose horses from getting away. Beyond that, I think any attempt to regulate lunging is just going to open a giant can of very squirmy worms.



Similar Threads

  1. USHJA Convention?
    By AppleBird in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Dec. 8, 2011, 11:47 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: Nov. 30, 2011, 05:56 PM
  3. USDF convention and symposium updates
    By flynride in forum Dressage
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec. 3, 2010, 12:29 PM
  4. USHJA Convention--New Rules & Changes
    By 111 in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: Dec. 19, 2008, 12:49 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
  •