The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 258
  1. #201
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2003
    Location
    Happily in Canada
    Posts
    4,606

    Default

    I wrote to Equine Canada in formal protest of this rule, asking for its position and response. I borrowed liberally from JP60's posts earlier on this thread. I will let you all know if/when I hear back.
    Blugal

    You never know what kind of obsessive compulsive crazy person you are until another person imitates your behaviour at a three-day. --Gry2Yng



  2. #202
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2003
    Location
    Happily in Canada
    Posts
    4,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JER View Post
    Just think of the hijinks which will ensue:

    Do you all realize how much fun is in store for the run-ups to WEG/Olympic qualifying?

    It's the National Federation, presumably of the location of the 'unsanctioned' competition, that can call the shots on sanctioning/non-sanctioning and thus alert the FEI of transgressions. But it's the riders who suffer the consequences and earn the suspension. Those riders can be from nations other than the NGB that alerted the FEI.

    Don't want that Dutch guy competing against you at the Olympics? No problem, he's coming to FL for a charity event.
    Don't want Suzie Q on your own team? Has she rocked the boat in the past, or doesn't get along with the Chef D'Equipe? Would the Chef prefer John Doe, who bought a 6-figure horse from their connections last year?

    I can see this going VERY downhill, very quickly.
    Blugal

    You never know what kind of obsessive compulsive crazy person you are until another person imitates your behaviour at a three-day. --Gry2Yng



  3. #203
    Join Date
    Aug. 6, 2011
    Posts
    11

    Default Effective 1 January 2013 Article 113 -Registration and Eligibility of Athletes

    FEI GENERAL REGULATIONS
    23rd edition, 1 January 2009, updates effective 1 January 2013
    Article 113 -Registration and Eligibility of Athletes and Horses
    1. All Athletes and Horses must be registered with the FEI, and their own NF, or where appropriate with their host NF, before they can be entered and permitted to take part in an International Event, unless otherwise specifiedby the Sport Rules
    2. NFs are responsible for registering all Athletes and Horses and shallensure that such Athletes have the appropriate corresponding sport nationality pursuant to Article 119. NFs are also responsible for unregisteringany Athlete and/or Horse that are not competing anymore for any reason.
    3. Any Athlete and/or any Horse not registered with the FEI shall be automatically disqualified.
    4. An Athlete and/or Horse, even if registered with the FEI, is not eligible to participate in an International Event or National Event (and so may not be invited by an OC to such Event or entered by an NF in such Event) if that Athlete and/or Horse has participated, in the six (6) months prior to the first day of the International Event or National Event in question, in an Unsanctioned Event.
    5. For purposes of Article 113.4, an ‘Unsanctioned Event’ is an event and/or a competition that is neither published in the official Calendar nor authorised by an NF.http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/im...milies/mad.gif



  4. #204
    Join Date
    Apr. 13, 2005
    Posts
    3,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by connerrl View Post
    nor authorised by an NF.
    This the revision? So, all events must be authoised by a NF?!

    This is different than:
    "The same may be true at the national level if a national event is conducted outside national rules and with the express objection of the National Federation."

    So, what if you annoy USEF due to mileage? Some local venues must be guilty of this...



  5. #205
    Join Date
    Sep. 9, 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    144

    Default

    I no longer belong to the USEF due to all their fees and attempts to control competitions. Now that I'm eventing I have to wonder if I will EVER be joining the USEA. If they allow competition in their events to be ruled by this FEI control-freak rule then I'm not sure I even care about joining or supporting the USEA. I hope this isn't the case.

    For some reason, the assurance that this rule won't affect our local unsanctioned events (unless, of course, someone feels threatened and decides to bring it to the attention of the Nazi-in-Charge) just does NOT alleviate my worries.



  6. #206
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2001
    Posts
    6,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afox2332 View Post
    I no longer belong to the USEF due to all their fees and attempts to control competitions. Now that I'm eventing I have to wonder if I will EVER be joining the USEA. If they allow competition in their events to be ruled by this FEI control-freak rule then I'm not sure I even care about joining or supporting the USEA. I hope this isn't the case.

    For some reason, the assurance that this rule won't affect our local unsanctioned events (unless, of course, someone feels threatened and decides to bring it to the attention of the Nazi-in-Charge) just does NOT alleviate my worries.

    Dude, USEA is not the USEF. The USEA is subordinate to USEF in terms of drug rules, etc. If I were you, I would be more concerned with the USEF.



  7. #207
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afox2332 View Post
    I no longer belong to the USEF due to all their fees and attempts to control competitions. Now that I'm eventing I have to wonder if I will EVER be joining the USEA. If they allow competition in their events to be ruled by this FEI control-freak rule then I'm not sure I even care about joining or supporting the USEA. I hope this isn't the case.

    For some reason, the assurance that this rule won't affect our local unsanctioned events (unless, of course, someone feels threatened and decides to bring it to the attention of the Nazi-in-Charge) just does NOT alleviate my worries.
    USEA is subordinate to USEF in this matter, and has no direct standing with the FEI.
    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



  8. #208
    Join Date
    Sep. 9, 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    144

    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.


    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.
    The FEI has concerns? What, that they're getting competition? Maybe they should be considering WHY they're losing business. It seems to me that they're using their "Clean Sport/welfare (drugging?) of the horse" stance to justify taking complete control of the sport and intimidate people. I hope people fight back. How dare they tell exhibitors what shows they may enter? Someone should be able to enter any competition where he qualifies for the division rules at that competetion, without penalization.



  9. #209
    Join Date
    Apr. 15, 2003
    Location
    Northeast MA
    Posts
    3,982

    Default

    One other change, by my reading: Officials have been dropped from the wording for this reg. IIRC, they were in the previous version.
    They don't call me frugal for nothing.
    Proud and achy member of the Eventing Grannies clique.



  10. #210
    Join Date
    Apr. 13, 2005
    Posts
    3,767

    Default

    Well, does anyone keep up with rulings? I don't, but I am aware of this:

    http://www.soccerpark.com/TedStevens.pdf
    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...006&SizeDisp=7

    So, the USEF was granted immunity by a FEDERAL organization - USOC - as they are the Nation Governing Body (NGB)...

    FEI keeps our Federal people happy by keeping USEF happy (note my comment about those that can not regulate themselves will be regulated).

    However, I think this rule is above & beyond the scope a NGB should have. And, the implications this ruling has on the professional equestrian is far greater than the amateur. The government doesn't generally like implied immunity, and the FEI rule will affect more pros than ammys, negating the immunity that USEF was granted per previous rulings, or one could argue...anyways, this could all be useless conjecture (if it isn't already), if things have changed since the above rulings...



  11. #211
    Join Date
    Jun. 16, 2009
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    581

    Default Are the Nobles bothered...at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by frugalannie View Post
    One other change, by my reading: Officials have been dropped from the wording for this reg. IIRC, they were in the previous version.
    Yes, those officials can thank the serfs for making such a stink that one of three got knocked from the list.

    For all the energy exerted in the past week, EN doing a good job of trying to get "clarification" and USEF officials "reviewing" we basically are back to square one. You ride in a non-sanctioned event (as designated by the NF) within 6 months of an FEI show and you are toast.

    Wow!! Just ...Wow. it is so rare to see such brazen acts of abuse of power...Wow.

    I'd love to see a defense of this rule. Can anyone, in any discipline find a valid argument for this rule?

    I am also curious, are any BNRs bothered by this (horse owners), or do they feel it is okay? This is their bread and butter and FEI just slapped cuffs on their livelihood...Not mine, don't give a crap about this rule as it pertains to me, but man o man, would really piss me off if I could not compete for some bling just because the FEI said we're not sponsoring it.

    Wow!


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #212
    Join Date
    Feb. 22, 2000
    Location
    passepartout
    Posts
    9,793

    Default

    5. For purposes of Article 113.4, an ‘Unsanctioned Event’ is an event and/or a competition that is neither published in the official Calendar nor authorised by an NF.
    While I think we all know what a 'competition' is, WTF is an 'event' that is not a competition?

    Is it a breeding demo? A keynote speech? A booth at a tradeshow? A fundraiser for the SPCA? A live chat online sponsored by a non-FEI product?


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #213
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    17,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JP60 View Post
    Yes, those officials can thank the serfs for making such a stink that one of three got knocked from the list.

    For all the energy exerted in the past week, EN doing a good job of trying to get "clarification" and USEF officials "reviewing" we basically are back to square one. You ride in a non-sanctioned event (as designated by the NF) within 6 months of an FEI show and you are toast.

    Wow!! Just ...Wow. it is so rare to see such brazen acts of abuse of power...Wow.

    I'd love to see a defense of this rule. Can anyone, in any discipline find a valid argument for this rule?

    I am also curious, are any BNRs bothered by this (horse owners), or do they feel it is okay? This is their bread and butter and FEI just slapped cuffs on their livelihood...Not mine, don't give a crap about this rule as it pertains to me, but man o man, would really piss me off if I could not compete for some bling just because the FEI said we're not sponsoring it.

    Wow!
    Are you sure about officials? Take a look at the last paragraph of the Chronicle story.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  14. #214
    Join Date
    Oct. 20, 2008
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JP60 View Post
    I am also curious, are any BNRs bothered by this (horse owners), or do they feel it is okay? This is their bread and butter and FEI just slapped cuffs on their livelihood...Not mine, don't give a crap about this rule as it pertains to me, but man o man, would really piss me off if I could not compete for some bling just because the FEI said we're not sponsoring it.

    Wow!
    As an old rerider-BN/N peon, the odds of me riding at an FEI sanctioned event is about as likely as me becoming running for president of the US. My coach does't currently have any FEI level rides, so it doesn't really affect her at the moment either.

    That said, it scares the crap out of me that some people are okay with this egregious overstep of power. FEI pushed and seems to have gotten away with this power grab. If this is not overturned, what is the next step? Will there be regulations on who riders can train with? Where they can live? What kind of horses they can compete? All in the name of the welfare of the horses & riders I'm sure...
    The rebel in the grey shirt


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #215
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    17,653

    Default

    One would hope that Jan Topps would take the FEI to court or arbitration if court is not possible.
    Some organizer of unsanctioned events really should.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  16. #216
    Join Date
    Jul. 21, 2011
    Location
    Co
    Posts
    3,998

    Default

    Is the FEI aiming this rule at the Global Champions Tour and the Global Dressage Festival?

    Is no drug testing performed at these competitions? Are they really a lawless free-for-all? (after all, it is concern for the horse's welfare that has led to the creation of this rule ).

    What a shameless power grab by the FEI. The lack of clarity and the implications of the rule are mind boggling. Hopefully it will be rewritten or, better yet, scrapped altogether.



  17. #217
    Join Date
    Apr. 13, 2005
    Posts
    3,767

    Default

    But, at these global champions tours or whatever, are the horses competitive @ an FEI event? How soon after/before an FEI event are they competing? Because drug testing, for various substances & with the very strict protocol the FEI has, should probably cover some of these events.



  18. #218
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2003
    Location
    Happily in Canada
    Posts
    4,606

    Default

    Maybe this has been mentioned, but I took the FEI's "welfare" argument to be more about frequency of competitions. The FEI wants a monopoly on top-level competitions, so it does not want there to be a choice to either compete at Global Champions OR the next FEI competition. The FEI is framing this as, "a rider might choose to do both, so that would be bad for the horse. The horse should only be shown every so often" [unspoken: and when it does, it had better be at an FEI-sanctioned event].
    Blugal

    You never know what kind of obsessive compulsive crazy person you are until another person imitates your behaviour at a three-day. --Gry2Yng



  19. #219
    Join Date
    Apr. 15, 2003
    Location
    Northeast MA
    Posts
    3,982

    Default

    I'm a little confused. Near the beginning of this thread, the wording of the rule changes was quoted from an FEI source http://www.fei.org/sites/default/fil...t-8Nov2012.pdf, and it clearly includes officials, as does the FEI lawyer named Lazarus in her clarification quoted in the COTH article Molly cites above.

    However, in post #203, what appears to be a quote from the FEI GR doesn't mention officials. (Unfortunately, I couldn't open the link.) That is what made me think that the officials had been excused from the Group W bench. (and I'm betting that most forum readers are too young to remember that! No significance other than to be funny.)
    They don't call me frugal for nothing.
    Proud and achy member of the Eventing Grannies clique.



  20. #220
    Join Date
    Feb. 22, 2000
    Location
    passepartout
    Posts
    9,793

    Default

    Does anyone remember this news item from last month?

    Is rider licensing on the cards for international events?

    Riders contesting international events may first have to obtain a licence under new rules proposed by the eventing committee of global horse sport’s governing body, the FEI.

    National federations widely support licensing — whereby riders would have to prove “a reliable and consistent competence” at a level by a certain number of qualifying results.

    But British Eventing (BE) said it could not fully back the rules until it had seen the amendments made at an FEI eventing committee meeting held on 25-26 September.

    “The rules were far from clear, so we have gone back to the FEI with various questions,” said BE chief executive Mike Etherington-Smith.
    Does anyone know what became of this rule proposal?

    The reason I bring it up is because licensing riders would be a big first step in the FEI's plans to sanction riders for non-sanctioned events.

    In the H&H report, the FEI is claiming that this new licensing scheme is about qualifications, but maybe 'qualifications' is another rendition of the 'welfare' argument. If riders are licensed by the IGB or NGB, then those bodies can suspend those licences.

    Again, this is about an IGB or NGB functioning as the entity that both promotes and regulates the sport. In boxing, for example, there are various boxing associations that promote the sport, but boxers are licensed and fights are regulated (including doping controls) according to state/national jurisdictional rules. UFC has exclusive contracts with fighters to fight in their events and in only their events, but UFC is subject to regulation like boxing. But you are only subject to UFC exclusivity if you sign a contract with them. Otherwise, you're free to fight where you like.

    The FEI is trying to claim exclusivity if a rider has entered an FEI-sanctioned event. Licenses are one way to make this look more legit.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sep. 17, 2012, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Apr. 2, 2012, 10:20 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Mar. 6, 2012, 11:16 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jul. 20, 2010, 08:41 AM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: May. 14, 2009, 06:55 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