The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 42 of 44 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 LastLast
Results 821 to 840 of 869
  1. #821
    Join Date
    Jan. 13, 2008
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

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



  2. #822
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2000
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    12,807

    Default

    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....
    "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

    ...just settin' on the Group W bench.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  3. #823
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2012
    Location
    AIKEN SC
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeeHoney View Post
    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.
    Fan of Sea Accounts



  4. #824
    Join Date
    Jan. 13, 2008
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    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.



  5. #825
    Join Date
    Feb. 10, 2012
    Posts
    170

    Lightbulb

    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.


    11 members found this post helpful.

  6. #826
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    19,067

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Purepony View Post
    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'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #827
    Join Date
    Oct. 29, 2000
    Location
    Southern Pines, N.C.
    Posts
    11,667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Purepony View Post
    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...)
    "I used to have money, now I have horses."


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #828
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2012
    Location
    AIKEN SC
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vineyridge View Post
    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.
    Fan of Sea Accounts


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #829
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,305

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by findeight View Post
    ...
    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.
    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).


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #830
    Join Date
    Sep. 14, 2000
    Location
    Goochland, VA
    Posts
    8,572

    Default

    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."
    Laurie
    Finding, preparing, showing and training young hunters, in hand and performance.
    www.juniorjohnsontrainingandsales.com


    5 members found this post helpful.

  11. #831
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2012
    Location
    AIKEN SC
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lauriep View Post
    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).
    Fan of Sea Accounts



  12. #832
    Join Date
    Sep. 27, 2000
    Location
    Southern California - on a freeway someplace
    Posts
    9,885

    Default

    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.
    The Evil Chem Prof


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #833
    Join Date
    Feb. 18, 2003
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    5,441

    Default

    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!!!
    Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!


    4 members found this post helpful.

  14. #834
    Join Date
    Feb. 18, 2003
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    5,441

    Default

    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).
    Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!


    2 members found this post helpful.

  15. #835
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    19,067

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PINE TREE FARM SC View Post
    You do know why 'Eligible Athletes' need to hold committee positions? Or maybe you don't...
    Not something that USEF can change...
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire


    3 members found this post helpful.

  16. #836
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2000
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    2,377

    Default

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


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #837
    Join Date
    Sep. 27, 2000
    Location
    Southern California - on a freeway someplace
    Posts
    9,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pds View Post
    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!
    The Evil Chem Prof


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #838
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vineyridge View Post
    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.
    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



  19. #839
    Join Date
    Sep. 27, 2000
    Location
    Southern California - on a freeway someplace
    Posts
    9,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poltroon View Post
    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.
    There is a kind of history here, but there is a gap from 1960-1999. I have a nifty little book called, are you ready for this, "Our Highest Purpose, A History of the American Horse Shows Association 1917-1960." Presidents are listed in the back as follows: Reginald Vanderbilt 1917-1925; Alfred B Maclay 1925-1936; Pierre Lorillard, Jr. 1936-1937; Adrian Van Sinderen 1937-1960 (!); Albert E Hart Jr 1960. I have no idea how or when I acquired this book.
    The Evil Chem Prof


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #840
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    19,067

    Default

    IIRC, Chrystine Tauber was an international showjumper at one point. I can't find any information on her higher education, but she's been a horse pro since she was very young. I'm not saying she doesn't have exceptional experience.

    From USEF Bylaw 331
    (b) To be eligible to serve as President an individual must have international experience. For purposes of these bylaws, “international experience” shall mean an individual who has sustained, verifiable experience with one or more of the FEI recognized disciplines at FEI competitions as: competitor,
    trainer, owner, competition organizer, licensed official, selector, Chef d’ Equipe, team leader or veterinarian.
    This means that almost none of the breed people are eligible, no matter how good they are. People who never set foot out of hunters aren't eligible either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peggy View Post
    There is a kind of history here, but there is a gap from 1960-1999. I have a nifty little book called, are you ready for this, "Our Highest Purpose, A History of the American Horse Shows Association 1917-1960." Presidents are listed in the back as follows: Reginald Vanderbilt 1917-1925; Alfred B Maclay 1925-1936; Pierre Lorillard, Jr. 1936-1937; Adrian Van Sinderen 1937-1960 (!); Albert E Hart Jr 1960. I have no idea how or when I acquired this book.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



Similar Threads

  1. New york times
    By Airfern in forum Racing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May. 18, 2012, 01:20 AM
  2. New York Times Front Page article 4/30/12
    By Lizzie in forum Racing
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May. 2, 2012, 02:58 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Sep. 28, 2010, 10:39 PM
  4. New York Times article on air vests
    By JAGold in forum Eventing
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: Sep. 13, 2010, 11:24 PM
  5. Replies: 75
    Last Post: Apr. 9, 2008, 09:46 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