[PINE TREE FARM SC]

Pine Tree Farm, you're being knee jerk negative. The rest of the world uses passports that have to go with the animal. The rest of the world (EU anyway) has moved to chips, as has most of racing worldwide. The FEI now requires all new FEI registrants to be chipped.

When you go to any horse competition, you have to show a current Coggins. They are SUPPOSED to ID the horse, but as we all know the descriptions are very generic. If you can provide a Coggins to show management, you can certainly provide a passport. Same thing, just different paper.

Require passports to reflect medications; send a fax or copy of the passport with your registration at the show or turn in copies at the show office. Then have someone at the in-gate with a chip reader and a laptop to note the results. Go back to the secretary's office and match the chip with the passport-- or even just send the numbers to a USEF database that will do the matching. Sure, it's after the fact; but discrepancies would/SHOULD result in discipline from USEF. And if testing shows medications that are not listed in the passport, that would be grounds for discipline as well.

After a couple of years, everyone would be just as used to this as they are to the Coggins requirement.

I honestly fail to see how you can prove horse age in age related competition if you don't have papers or a passport and proof that the horse is the one in the documentation.

I'm sure that show managements and the USEF would find it very easy to learn how the Europeans and FEI use passports without bringing their horse shows to grinding halts. I might also add that European competitions are already much, much cheaper than American ones.

Edited to add on the misrepresentation business--my time sense is seriously warped. I just remember after one or another big mistake , the USEF put out a press release/public notice that they were going to slap hands on this. I honestly thought there was a rule change involved.

As an active exhibitor and show official I understand how much expense and time you will be adding to show expenses for the exhibitor and for the show.

USEF does issue passports but they are quite expensive. If you really mean registry papers they are not required to compete in H/J, Dressage, Eventing etc.
Not every horse has papers. A coggins test can not be compared to a passport and the requirement for one is a show requirement not USEF.
Breed restricted divisions such as ASB are not what is being discussed.

There are very few divisions that require proof of age and IHF and IJF are run outside of USEF rules. Those programs DO require proof and you need to record the horse with THEM, not USEF.
USEF age restricted jumper divisions do require 'papers' for proof of age but papers is not defined. PHR (usef ) papers are accepted.

Hunters are not an FEI recognized discipline and we are not in the EU.
The percent of FEI competing horses is very low, maybe less than 1% of all USEF recordings.

Entries at shows in many areas of the US are down. Adding more expense to already pressed exhibitors makes no sense.

[BeeHoney]

The microchip discussion is getting a little off topic, but I disagree that the expense would be too high. If I'm not mistaken, the scanners cost a couple of hundred dollars and obviously are reusable. I am sure that there is a cost-effective way to implement microchip scanning as part of ensuring proof of identity for show horses, whether it is spot checking random horses or random classes or even just threatening to. Placing a microchip is a quick, one time procedure and provides lifetime proof of identity for that animal.

You are right that there are very few divisions that require proof of age, but what about divisions that have eligibility requirements? Right now it is just too easy to reregister an experienced horse and start their show career over.

If the USEF supported microchipping this would be a great step towards making our sport more transparent. It would be a very "pro-owner" move though, and perhaps the USEF is more interested in protecting trainers and show managers, not the owners who are funding the sport.

Microchips also protect horses. They would help identify stolen animals and potentially help older or down and out animals to be reunited with previous owners.

[BaroquePony]

Many states require a card just to haul a horse. Livestock Inspectors, just trying to keep things healthy.

[Ghazzu]

Hell, given all the time people spend standing around an empty ring waiting for some BNT or other to get back from elsewhere to school or watch a client, there'd be plenty of time to scan horses at the ingate....

[PINE TREE FARM SC]

You are right that there are very few divisions that require proof of age, but what about divisions that have eligibility requirements? Right now it is just too easy to reregister an experienced horse and start their show career over.

.

Most of the eligibility requirements are based on rider status ( Jr, Adult Amateur, Amateur Owner). Or even measurement of the horse/pony.
Very little is based on the horse.
The exceptions being Green, PreGreen and Young Jumpers.

Green and PreGreen are based on years showing at a particular height.
Nationwide there are about 650 1st and 2nd year green horses with points.
Zone II is the largest zone but in that zone there are over 1100 Childrens/Adult Hunters. Nationwide probably more than 4000 childrens/Adult Hunters.
And most areas have a large number of horses competing in USEF rated shows in
Show Assoc. specific divisions that never show up on the counts.

Eligibilty impacts a low percent of showing horses.
While I agree that USEF/USHJA could do a much better job of monitoring eligibilty for those few divisions ( instead of another exhibitor complaining) it does not affect that many exhibitors.

chips can be removed and no guarantee the chip in the horse really belongs to it.

[BaroquePony]

Supossedly there will be a scar left if a chip is removed.

And, yes, another chip could be inserted.

But a lot of the lazy cheater sorts will be put off by all the trouble that that takes.

And vets should start getting penalized for things like swapping x-rays on PPEs.

[Purepony]

Everyone is beginning to sound a lot like Congress. We should do this, we should do that. Who cares what it costs the consumer, let them get used to it.
Horse showing at the upper levels is Big Business. You may not like the cheating and drugging. Heck, I don't like special interest groups and lobbyists getting their way with my tax dollars by rewarding their Senators & Representatives for their own ends.
We have a representative body. We have an annual meeting. If you all want change, then man up! Go to the meeting...organize protesters.... write the officials......stop supporting the big shows.....do things to make change happen. Otherwise, good ideas or not, this is all just a lot of bellyaching. You're all preaching to the choir. Keep away from trainers who over medicate. Stay away from vets who turn a blind eye.....and if said trainer is also a judge, let show officials know you won't compete at a show who hires that judge. If you see infractions, let the stewards know. Do something. I'm sorry but 42 pages of complaints and diatribe makes for an interesting read but it gets nothing done. Its just a matter of each of you taking that first step. I will if you will.

[vineyridge]

The USEF governance is far from democratic. An awful lot of positions are limited to people with recent international showing. Just exactly how are the masses to affect the bosses? I guess a boycott of USEF shows and dues might help, but the BNO and BNT/R would just keep on keeping on.

Everyone is beginning to sound a lot like Congress. We should do this, we should do that. Who cares what it costs the consumer, let them get used to it.
Horse showing at the upper levels is Big Business. You may not like the cheating and drugging. Heck, I don't like special interest groups and lobbyists getting their way with my tax dollars by rewarding their Senators & Representatives for their own ends.
We have a representative body. We have an annual meeting. If you all want change, then man up! Go to the meeting...organize protesters.... write the officials......stop supporting the big shows.....do things to make change happen. Otherwise, good ideas or not, this is all just a lot of bellyaching. You're all preaching to the choir. Keep away from trainers who over medicate. Stay away from vets who turn a blind eye.....and if said trainer is also a judge, let show officials know you won't compete at a show who hires that judge. If you see infractions, let the stewards know. Do something. I'm sorry but 42 pages of complaints and diatribe makes for an interesting read but it gets nothing done. Its just a matter of each of you taking that first step. I will if you will.

[Lord Helpus]

Everyone is beginning to sound a lot like Congress. We should do this, we should do that. Who cares what it costs the consumer, let them get used to it.
Horse showing at the upper levels is Big Business. You may not like the cheating and drugging. Heck, I don't like special interest groups and lobbyists getting their way with my tax dollars by rewarding their Senators & Representatives for their own ends.
We have a representative body. We have an annual meeting. If you all want change, then man up! Go to the meeting...organize protesters.... write the officials......stop supporting the big shows.....do things to make change happen. Otherwise, good ideas or not, this is all just a lot of bellyaching. You're all preaching to the choir. Keep away from trainers who over medicate. Stay away from vets who turn a blind eye.....and if said trainer is also a judge, let show officials know you won't compete at a show who hires that judge. If you see infractions, let the stewards know. Do something. I'm sorry but 42 pages of complaints and diatribe makes for an interesting read but it gets nothing done. Its just a matter of each of you taking that first step. I will if you will.

I agree with this post.

Last spring(?) there was a long thread with a lot of bitching and moaning about shamatuers and lack of representation within the USEF.

I got excited, thinking that, at last, we may have enough people to actually get something done. I started a BB with different forums for each complaint/ committee and also started a FB page with a link to the BB. Maybe 10 - 15 people even came over to see what it was all about and maybe 5 people actually signed on to work on a committee.

It cost me $$ to start the BB and hours of time to set everything up. I was not expecting other people to pay for the BB, but I was expecting people to "put their money where their mouth was" and be willing to work toward change. But it was all for nothing. I finally realized that posters here are great at getting all upset and whining about how they would like things to change; but when all is said and done, they are all hat and no cattle.

(I posted several times on the "whining thread" with links to the BB and FB page -- so no one who frequented that thread can say they didn't know about it...)

[PINE TREE FARM SC]

The USEF governance is far from democratic. An awful lot of positions are limited to people with recent international showing. Just exactly how are the masses to affect the bosses? I guess a boycott of USEF shows and dues might help, but the BNO and BNT/R would just keep on keeping on.

You do know why 'Eligible Athletes' need to hold committee positions? Or maybe you don't...
Not something that USEF can change...

And a boycott is just silly. While you are correct, it's not democratic, it's not meant to be. The 'masses' as you call us, can participate at the affiliate level via USHJA.
Showing at a USEF rated show ensures that certain standards for the facility are met and standard rules are in place to control competition. One of those standard rules involves drug testing. No way I'm going to support some unrated no rules show circuit with no testing at all.
If you Opt Out of the process you have no say at all.

I've had a good response from USHJA about several situations. Doesn't hurt to try and contact them. Much more productive than whining.

[Janet]

I am having difficulty following this.

If it is a "legal substance (in proper amounts and time frame)" then it would not be a violation.

...
On the other hand, if somebody has a single D&M violation for a legal substance (in proper amounts and time frame) with no further occurances? Probably keep them in consideration. Mistakes do happen and timing can be screwed up.

[lauriep]

But it is a well known fact that PERFORMANCE RECORDS that these horses acquire in Europe, before being sold to America, would make them ineligible for classes over here that the trainers are desirous that they show in. Nothing to do with age, but level of experience. Horses also have to have a passport to leave Europe. Yet they are re-registered here with "no papers." Where do they go? Who "loses" them?

That is where a huge part of the problem lies. Not so much with American breds. So, if Europe is going to microchips, why can't we read the chip here and verify the information as a requirement of the USEF registration? Frankly, if we could convince USEF to only register horses with some sort of proof of identity, I bet the passports would stop getting "lost."

[PINE TREE FARM SC]

But it is a well known fact that PERFORMANCE RECORDS that these horses acquire in Europe, before being sold to America, would make them ineligible for classes over here that the trainers are desirous that they show in. Nothing to do with age, but level of experience. Horses also have to have a passport to leave Europe. Yet they are re-registered here with "no papers." Where do they go? Who "loses" them?

That is where a huge part of the problem lies. Not so much with American breds. So, if Europe is going to microchips, why can't we read the chip here and verify the information as a requirement of the USEF registration? Frankly, if we could convince USEF to only register horses with some sort of proof of identity, I bet the passports would stop getting "lost."

PreGreen Hunters are a National Spec. There is no language in the PreGreen requirements that refers to Canadian or overseas competition.
Green Hunters does have language about competitions outside of the US but it's vague and meaningless.

"A Green Hunter is a horse of any age in its first or second year of showing in any classes in which the national specifications require horses to jump 3’6” or higher, regardless of whether or not the fences are actually set at 3’6” or higher at Regular
Competitions or Eventing Competitions of the Federation or Equine Canada or any national or international competition"

Not sure why you don't think this is a problem with American breds. Of course it is.
Hunter Breeding is primarily a US bred division. When I see every Hunter Breeding horse listed on USEF recording as 'verified' I'd agree with you. Verified means the person who recorded the horse bothered to send in the papers and USEF contacted the registry and confirmed the birthdate.
Sadly, many of the HB horses don't have documentation on file with USEF. Who knows how old the 3 yr olds really are?

Very few horses listed as TB's have documentation on file or even pedigree info.

USHJA has a new PreGreen program this year. They have rankings for TB, age related and US bred. In this case I'd agree with you, horses signed up for this program should have papers on file with USEF. USHJA claims it's up to the owners to provide info and they seem uninterested in verification unless they receive a complaint. They even claim they have no way to verify if a horse has shown as a PreGreen horse for more than 2 years.

I'm sure you are aware that many times OTTB's do not have papers available. Your proposal would prevent those horses from showing. Given the amount of publicity and support for re trained TB's it seems incorrect to prevent these horses from being eligible for USEF awards (recording).

[Peggy]

If Green is defined as being in the first year to show 3'6" or higher, does this not imply that pre-green is before the horse shows 3'6" or higher? Thus, a horse who has shown 3'6" or higher is no longer pre-green. Or am I being too logical here and/or incorrectly assuming that pre=before.

I don't see where the above-cited (post 833) definition of green is vague. Meaningless, perhaps, since it's ignored.

[eclipse]

Firstly: EM you make me sick!

I don't understand why USEF couldn't get her, at least, for the stacking of all these drugs? She says they were all under the legal allowed limit BUT when you combine them all together she's waaaaaay above the limit. I.just.don't.get.it!!!

[eclipse]

Not just overseas that uses passports......Canada uses them too, and they MUST be turned in at shows and signed by the steward upon checkout! Our passports also have a photo of the horse on page 2. Passport shows all markings, height etc and is signed by a vet (back page also shows foot angles etc and is signed by a vet). There are also pages (where the show steward signs) where the owner can also track placings if they want to; and I believe you can also track innoculations if you wish (not mandantory though).

[vineyridge]

Of course I know why eligible athletes have to be part of sport governance, thanks to the Ted Stevens Act, the USOC, the FEI and the IOC. But that doesn't mean they are qualified to run an organization. Many of them are comparatively uneducated in things other than their sport. AFAIK, the most recent presidents of the USEF are/have been eligible athletes with little formal education. Not saying formal education is the be all and end all, but when the pool is limited to a group that mostly is without, their views might tend to be parochial, i.e limited to the things that they know and have personally experienced.

The one thing that formal education should teach is critical thinking and a willingness to try the untried and search for new and better ways of doing things.

You do know why 'Eligible Athletes' need to hold committee positions? Or maybe you don't...
Not something that USEF can change...

[pds]

What USEF should have done to EM.
http://youtu.be/uQJ8WrKnLUs

[Peggy]

What USEF should have done to EM.
http://youtu.be/uQJ8WrKnLUs

True, but I have always maintained that she did not actually melt. I THINK it was some sort of chemical transformation in which a vapor was produced. Or, perhaps she sublimed...

Carry on!

[poltroon]

AFAIK, the most recent presidents of the USEF are/have been eligible athletes with little formal education. Not saying formal education is the be all and end all, but when the pool is limited to a group that mostly is without, their views might tend to be parochial, i.e limited to the things that they know and have personally experienced.

Not so at all. In fact, of the recent USEF/AHSA Presidents, only David O'Connor and Jimmy Wofford have been international athletes, and David is the only one who basically walked out of the athlete role into governance.

Before David was:
Alan Balch - adult amateur
Jane Clark - high performance owner

I can't find a list, sorry.