The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 258
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Jan. 19, 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    13,078

    Default

    I've helped write a few laws....it isn't brain surgery. It isn't that hard to do...unless you are not clear on what you are regulating or trying to slip something by people or too many cooks in the kitchen. This "rule" is so badly drafted that it isn't funny. So what it implies to me is that they want it ambiguous enough that they can say it means what ever they want....and change what they say the rule means to suit their mood. BS that I do not support.....and it does raise a lot of red flags.
    Last edited by bornfreenowexpensive; Nov. 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM.
    ** The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has its limits. -- Albert Einstein **


    3 members found this post helpful.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Apr. 13, 2005
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    If it were as easy as believing a press release isn't open to interpretation & sanctioning as the FEI see's fit - this rule itself is unenforceable, and could cause quite the headache for something unenforceable. For instance, make your show a 'Society show' and you are fine. Eventing Derby society, Exclusive Dressage Society, Grand Prix Jumper Society. A 'small show' and you are OK (wtf is a small show, btw? some of the local shows can get a huge turnout, more so than a rated. so by exhibitors? prize $? plenty of local shows have more entries than Rolex, lol!) Heck, decide you are part of 'etc etc' and do as you see fit. And if FEI decided to place limits & terms to acceptable non-threatening competitions, how are they not restricting trade, and causing a large barrier to entry? Think about how difficult it is for venues to get show dates with USEF/USEA. FWIW, you don't just have to be bad to be considered a monopoly, bigness - which is something the EU is fond of attacking - is enough for antitrust suits.

    I highly doubt any of the above situations will fly with the FEI, and they will apply the rule as they see fit. When they apply the rule (if they are allowed to keep this rule in place), they will eventually have to explain their real intent. I hope that when they do that, it's somewhere in the US.

    My issues have widespread roots, largely based on the implications that this type of behavior has on our overall economy, and 'big business.' Many are quick to attack big business, but are also quick to wonder why they didn't get the job offer after the interview at that BB. So when a big & bad business operates as such in front of our noses, we can look the other way because it doesn't affect us, because some backless press-releases make it all OK. Why does an eventer care about AQHA? The FEI counts on this. It's sad how hypocritical & self-absorbed our country is becoming. When we finally all agree that somethings amiss, it's usually too late - think about all those mortgages. As JER has alluded to, the crux of the matter w.FEI revolves around the fact that the governing body, is also the promotional body. Now they've evolved into the body that wants regulates income in their disciplines. That's not where their noses belong. With all that said, I like to see some righteous furor amongst the smurfs I wish I had more time to look into this GB that is FEI, and those that influence the rule proposals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Comedy View Post
    This thread exasperates me (mostly because of the extreme reactions BEFORE receiving clarification on the rule, it was too absurd a rule to not need clarification)
    DC - do you really think there would have been clarification & a press-release if people didn't raise hoop-lah? Passive inaction, waiting for someone to clarify a rule that should have been detailed before publishing, is naive. As naive as thinking that 'reason' can apply to the FEI & their decisions.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Oct. 29, 2000
    Location
    Southern Pines, N.C.
    Posts
    11,667

    Default

    Seems to me that this is a blatant case of "restraint of trade", since athletes who want to ride in the Olympics or WEG, have to be members of the FEI, and now the FEI is telling them where they can and cannot show, thereby limiting the amount of prize money they can compete for.

    And the FEI is restricting these top riders from competing on their sponsors horses at competitions where $$$$ is offered. This is a horrible rule.

    It will end upin court very quickly. Power v. money. Dangerous adversaries.

    That said, I sure am glad that Bobby Costello can ride my horse in a Charity Mini Prix and a Jumper Derby in the next 2 months. And that Charlie Plumb, Will Faudree, Mark Weissbecker, et al, can show in the starter horse trials and "pipe openers" that are held at CHP in the winter.
    "I used to have money, now I have horses."


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    May. 20, 1999
    Posts
    545

    Default

    USEF and FEI officials have assured us they are busy reviewing the rule and composing clarification about it. I think this furor caught them a bit unaware, and from what I gather, there are some legitimate reasons behind the rule change. They just didn't realize some unexpected ramifications.

    Stay tuned--we're just waiting for the legal departments of both organizations to put out official releases.

    Thanks, Molly


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jun. 16, 2009
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Molly Sorge View Post
    USEF and FEI officials have assured us they are busy reviewing the rule and composing clarification about it.
    Why does that line not really give me warm fuzzies.

    Maybe I missed something, but so far, the public has gotten two "releases" from the FEI, nothing official from any other NF and the rule as stated still reads as it started. I think the commentary in EN was pretty spot on. A clarification is not a "What we meant to say was", in a rule book, it is being clear in the rule its self so it is not open to interpretation either by lawyers or the general public. This is not a tempest in a teapot, I feel it is a valid set of concerns relating to an organizing body that placed a rule across many disciplines that has some broad consequences.

    The original rule was pretty clear for it clearly raised the concerns amongst many people. So far the "releases" have only clouded the rule, not cleared it up. A rule should not be a potential tool to be used against someone, but a way to improve a structure or stop an abuse. Currently it is more the former then the latter.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    May. 20, 1999
    Posts
    545

    Default

    What was published on EN was not an official release. I don't know where it came from, but I have been assured by the FEI's manager of press relations that they have issued no 'official' clarification yet.

    I have spoken to officials about the rule who have asked me to hold their comments until USEF and FEI officials have put out more information. I'm not minimizing the concern over the rule change, but there's not much to report on until the parties involved come up with statements.



  7. #147
    Join Date
    Sep. 16, 1999
    Location
    Ohio: Charter Member - COTH Hockey Clique & COTH Buffy Clique
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    some legitimate reasons behind the rule change.
    I'd love to know the reasons, because honestly right now the only one is to limit the competition and/or buffer the ego of those in the FEI... neither of which I consider "legitimate". Sorry.. I have VERY little faith in the FEI to do what is really in the best interest of the sport if it means diminishing their power grab on the horse world.
    ************
    "Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be hard. It's the Hard that makes it great."

    "Get up... Get out... Get Drunk. Repeat as needed." -- Spike


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Jul. 11, 2000
    Location
    Brookline, NH, USA
    Posts
    2,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tle View Post
    I'd love to know the reasons, because honestly right now the only one is to limit the competition and/or buffer the ego of those in the FEI... neither of which I consider "legitimate".
    $20.5 million reasons might be related to the Saudi bail out of the Nations Cup series, announced here on Nov 7th...can't help but wonder if the bailout came with a few conditions attached....

    http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/fei_formalises_us20.5m_saudi_sponsorship/




  9. #149
    Join Date
    Apr. 15, 2003
    Location
    Northeast MA
    Posts
    4,074

    Default

    Molly, I think the only way this will be resolved is through the efforts you, EN and I'm sure others are making, and I appreciate those efforts.

    In the meantime, what JP60 said.
    They don't call me frugal for nothing.
    Proud and achy member of the Eventing Grannies clique.



  10. #150
    Join Date
    Feb. 22, 2000
    Location
    passepartout
    Posts
    10,163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lisa Cook View Post
    $20.5 million reasons might be related to the Saudi bail out of the Nations Cup series, announced here on Nov 7th...can't help but wonder if the bailout came with a few conditions attached....
    Well, there were those pre-Olympic doping positives of Sharbatly and al-Eid. The Saudis jumped in with a huge offer to fund the Nations Cup, then the CAS reduced their riders' suspensions so they could compete in the Olympics.

    Again, this comes back to the problem of the regulatory body -- the organization that purports to prioritize 'horse welfare' -- also functioning as the promotional body.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Molly Sorge View Post
    USEF and FEI officials have assured us they are busy reviewing the rule and composing clarification about it. I think this furor caught them a bit unaware, and from what I gather, there are some legitimate reasons behind the rule change. They just didn't realize some unexpected ramifications.
    Molly, I really appreciate your time and efforts on this, and your responses back on this thread.

    What I would like to respectfully convey to them is that - reading the rule text from the FEI - the objections listed here... were obvious, at least to me, in 5 minutes. It distresses me that their existing processes did not flag the same concerns.

    Crowdsourcing ... which is something we can do here so easily... is a great way to explore the issues of unintended consequences for rules and other changes. It's also free.


    It is very important to me that the letter of the rule correctly describe the intent and that the rule itself is all that is needed to fully understand how to apply it and how the FEI will apply it. Press releases are not legal documents.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket



  12. #152
    Join Date
    Jun. 20, 2008
    Posts
    5,043

    Default

    Well the problem is too that even at recogonized events some levels aren't recognized or rated...



  13. #153
    Join Date
    Apr. 30, 2002
    Location
    Looking up
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    I would like to know what exactly it was meant to do....is it the competition for sponsorship that they are trying to address?
    "Passion, though a bad regulator, is a powerful spring." -- Emerson
    www.eventhorse.wordpress.com



  14. #154
    Join Date
    Jun. 16, 2009
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    874

    Default

    Normally not a rabble-rouser, but as I've followed along this thread I've gotten disturbed by the complacency demonstrated. Listen, this rule has no direct impact on me...EVER...but it bothers me enough that I feel strongly enough to keep pushing till there is a clear answer.

    Lets review (after 8 pages)..
    If an athlete, horse or an FEI official participates in a
    non-sanctioned event, such person or horse will be prohibited from
    participating in any sanctioned events, both international and national, for a
    period of six months thereafter. An unsanctioned event is an event that is not
    on the FEI calendar and is not authorised by a National Federation."
    That is the exact wording, From The Ruling. It has not changed since this "rulegate" started. Molly's own words stated there is nothing "official" so if we just roll over, that wording stands, because that is what the FEI officially states. This is not something for lawyers, this is for friggin Presidents of all NF FEI regulated disciplines to present to their memberships, not for clarification, its pretty clear, but to decide if this type of rule is viable for the sport.

    Right now, as that rule stands, schooling shows are not sanctioned for horses or rider. Y'all can talk about the obfuscation presented by FEI, but when you look at an FEI calendar for 2012, please post which schooling show is on the FEI calendar and also authorised by the NF (USEF). That! is their criteria right now.

    Retread, I can appreciate the thought "why do this", but in truth, the why does not matter now...They Did It! The focus is better served to say "This really sucks and you better change it".

    I could take the view that I really don't give a hoot, because how much will this effect me, Mr. LLR that may never get past Training, but I find this rule to be wrong at its most base level and has nothing...nothing related to either the welfare of a horse or the promotion of equine sports.

    So I would ask those who really have some power or some access to power to really push, not to clarify, but to kill this this rule.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  15. #155
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    19,067

    Default

    The FEI has legitimate concerns. The Global Champions Show Jumping Tour draws the top riders on their top horses. It competes with FEI Sanctioned shows and generally offers huge purses with a bonus at the end. It has managed to create shows in places that the FEI has been spending money for years to get competitions going. The "lesser" FEI shows have to do something to draw top riders on top horses.

    Unless I'm mistaken, some European riders did not take their top horses to the Olympics, but saved them for the Global Champions final 2012 shows.

    There was some discussion this year with the Global Champions about the calendar, and IIRC, some agreement of some kind was reached. But it may have been a one year thing. I believe the same people (Jan Topps (?)) are behind the World Dressage Masters, which has the potential to do exactly the same damage to FEI competitions.

    In addition, as I posted earlier, who knows what these show series do about drugging? It's entirely possible that since they are not FEI sanctioned, they could come with their own drugging protocols or none at all.

    The FEI is VERY serious about their Clean Sport program, and these show series have the potential to make a mockery of what they are trying to do.

    For those who point at the Saudis, the FEI tried its damnest to keep them out of the Olympics, and it was the CAS--which covers all Sports, not just equestrian-- that shortened their suspensions. When the CAS ruled against it, the FEI then bent over backwards to get the Saudis qualified for London, and I would suspect that the Nations Cup sponsorships may have been a factor; but the rule allowing the procedure was already in place and had been for a while.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  16. #156
    Join Date
    Apr. 20, 2009
    Location
    Raeford, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,971

    Default

    Curiouser and curiouser . . .
    "Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing" - Robert Benchley
    Cotton would fight.
    http://buildingthegrove.blogspot.com/



  17. #157
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,844

    Default

    Another example competition:

    Foxfield in California has been running a jumper derby since dinosaurs roamed the earth. I believe it is run unrecognized, and it would pretty much have to be, because it's not a format USEF has ever supported. It draws many GP level jumper riders.

    Interestingly, if the issue is drug testing, California separately under state law has its own horse show drug testing program, so it is covered even though it is not USEF affiliated.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket



  18. #158
    Join Date
    Jan. 25, 2011
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Posts
    2,337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vineyridge View Post
    The FEI has legitimate concerns. The Global Champions Show Jumping Tour draws the top riders on their top horses. It competes with FEI Sanctioned shows and generally offers huge purses with a bonus at the end. It has managed to create shows in places that the FEI has been spending money for years to get competitions going. The "lesser" FEI shows have to do something to draw top riders on top horses.

    Unless I'm mistaken, some European riders did not take their top horses to the Olympics, but saved them for the Global Champions final 2012 shows.

    There was some discussion this year with the Global Champions about the calendar, and IIRC, some agreement of some kind was reached. But it may have been a one year thing. I believe the same people (Jan Topps (?)) are behind the World Dressage Masters, which has the potential to do exactly the same damage to FEI competitions.

    In addition, as I posted earlier, who knows what these show series do about drugging? It's entirely possible that since they are not FEI sanctioned, they could come with their own drugging protocols or none at all.

    The FEI is VERY serious about their Clean Sport program, and these show series have the potential to make a mockery of what they are trying to do.

    For those who point at the Saudis, the FEI tried its damnest to keep them out of the Olympics, and it was the CAS--which covers all Sports, not just equestrian-- that shortened their suspensions. When the CAS ruled against it, the FEI then bent over backwards to get the Saudis qualified for London, and I would suspect that the Nations Cup sponsorships may have been a factor; but the rule allowing the procedure was already in place and had been for a while.
    If they want to compete with the Global Champions Tour, why not find a way to offer that kind of money instead of just banning it? It's not an easy sport to make money in, and pros should have every opportunity to try and win some prize money. It's a stupid rule, just like the mileage rule.
    I've heard there's more to life than an FEI tent and hotel rooms, so I'm trying it.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Oct. 23, 2004
    Location
    Sisters, Oregon
    Posts
    1,927

    Default

    It sounds like folks are okay with the FEI having a monopoly on competitions. Am I reading that right?
    Kanoe Godby
    www.dyrkgodby.com
    See, I was raised by wolves and am really behind the 8-ball on diplomatic issue resolution.



  20. #160
    Join Date
    Apr. 13, 2005
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    It sounds like there is a lot of complacency and passive inaction going on. I'll say it again, sad. Sad far beyond the implications it has in the equine industry, as this type of nonsense is what has contributed to our entire economy. People don't seem to care until it's too late.

    Folks competition is GOOD - it helps keep the market honest - and why MONOPOLIES are illegal! - glad to see someone annoying the FEI. It's good for us. Why on earth is this a bad thing?!

    As far as drug testing, that's almost as laughable as this law. McClain Ward went to Europe and Sapphire/Ward set-down? Say what you want about that man, but that horse didn't have her career thanks to nefarious acts. How about that Canadian jumper during the Olympics?...or Becky Holder being pulled up at Rolex on Can't Fire Me? FEI can not, and should not, rule it all.


    4 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sep. 17, 2012, 12:03 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Apr. 2, 2012, 11:20 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Mar. 6, 2012, 12:16 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jul. 20, 2010, 09:41 AM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: May. 14, 2009, 07:55 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