The USEF Pony Finals National Championships, held Aug. 13-16 at the Kentucky Horse Park in Lexington (Aug. 29, p. 46), is one of the highlights of the year for many pony riders. To win there is a major accomplishment, but the experience is about far more than winning. Pony Finals is a learning experience for the riders—it often shows them a different part of the country, and it gives them the opportunity to meet a lot of new faces, both people and ponies.

I believe that the predecessor of the USEF Pony Finals competition was first held around 1960. It was a competition between the United States and England. There were tryouts, and a four-rider team was chosen and sent to compete in England, where we were beaten.

The following year another team was chosen, and the British came to the United States to compete in New York City’s Madison Square Garden. We were much more organized and enlisted the help of Gordon Wright, and this time we won.

This was the beginning of our Pony Finals. The purpose of the Finals has never changed: To encourage the breeding of quality hunter ponies and the proper basic training of them. That’s why we have a different format than that of showing—model and under saddle, each 25 percent of the total score, and the over fences being 50 perfect. This format has served us well for many years.

For a while the competition remained in the Northeast. Then the sport’s leaders saw the wisdom of moving the competition from one location to another. Not every pony rider or parent is able to travel 1,000 miles or more to compete, and regularly moving the competition gave different riders the opportunity to compete.
As the competition grew, not every facility had the ability to handle the competition. (Was there adequate stabling, were there enough motel rooms close by, was there an indoor facility in case of bad weather, was the footing suitable? The list goes on.)

In more recent years the Pony Finals was put out to bids from various facilities and managements. The U.S. Equestrian Federation gets a large fee from the winning venue, and the sponsorships are obtained for various aspects of the competition. In other words, it’s very much become an economic asset, and the organization makes a lot of money from it. The focus of the competition for the USEF shouldn’t be the income that it produces, however, and that factor shouldn’t be a part of the decision-making process.

This year there were five bids to host the USEF Pony Finals for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011, with an option for the winning bidder to have two additional years. In other words, five years at the same location.

Since the Kentucky Horse Park has already hosted the competition for the past four years, when the Kentucky Horse Park once again successfully bid for the Finals, this means that the competition will be held up to nine years in this one location. Nine years is longer than an entire career for many pony riders.

The pros and cons that were presented as a part of the basis for the Pony Hunter Task Force’s decision to award the dates again to the Kentucky facility were not statements of fact. They were opinions from some members of the committee who, in all likelihood, hadn’t been to most of the other facilities. On what
factual information would a statement be made that a particular facility could not handle the expanding size of the Finals? Who decides that the footing at the facilities is acceptable or not acceptable? It is interesting that some of the complaints made about the other facilities were things that were apparent this year.

I have a problem with the Pony Hunter Task Force voting on the selection of the facility because most of these people show at the Kentucky facility a majority of the time. To me, this is a major conflict of interest and should be noted. The USEF policy is for Board and Committee members to sign a statement regarding such conflict of interest issues, and to me this is an important issue.

The National Hunter Committee, the USEF’s oversight committee, wisely rejected the decision of the Pony Hunter Task Force to award the bid to the Kentucky Horse Park. When this happens, the matter is turned over to the USEF Executive Committee. The Executive Committee, however, saw fit to disregard their own committee’s recommendation. I say again, is this not a conflict of interest when the USEF is housed at the Kentucky Horse Park?

I think it’s important at this point to state that there has been a rule in the USEF Rulebook that was passed by a large majority at the convention just two years ago requiring that the Pony Finals be moved every two years if there’s a suitable location. (HP 116.2) I have been told that the USEF has done a Presidential Modification allowing them to ignore that rule for the past two years. They did not even take applications for the event for one of those two years.

The word in the rule that is important to note is “suitable.” The question is, “Was there another suitable facility that applied for the Pony Finals?”

Various people could argue as to which of the five facilities was the “best,” with each of them having different priorities. The point here is that two of the facilities have demonstrated that they can handle large national championships. One cannot say that all of them were not “suitable.”

There are other considerations here as well. The Pony Finals attracts a large number of exhibitors each year, and the competition isn’t subject to the mileage rule. This kills the pony divisions at many shows probably within 500 or 600 miles, let alone within the 250 miles per the mileage rule. Is this something that should be overlooked in the selection process? The Federation is quite concerned with their income from the Finals, but they have little concern for the economic impact that the finals has on other shows.

I think that we’ve lost sight of some of the things that are important here. Are we being fair to the pony exhibitors all across the country to keep the Finals in the same location? Are we setting a good example for our members to say that we can ignore rules for our own self-interest? It is right to hold all shows to
the mileage rule with the exception of the Pony Finals? These are serious questions that deserve answers.

I would like to know how the Finals qualify for a Presidential Modification. I do not see any reason for one except that the Pony Hunter Task Force and USEF officials want to keep the competition in Kentucky. To me, this is pure and simple—it’s a matter of politics.

I don’t want anyone to think that I have something against the Kentucky Horse Park. I think that it’s one of the finest facilities in the country—possibly the best. It was my favorite place to steward for many years. There are, however, other places that can do the job and do it well. They should be given the opportunity to do just that.

I think that this subject needs to be thoroughly discussed. I think that the membership has a right to know how the process is being handled.

If most members think that what’s being done is fine, then I will stop my complaining. Let the various committees put in black and white why they made their decision and tell the losing facility managers why their facilities were not suitable. At this point, it’s the least that can be done. 

W. Gary Baker, Middleburg, Va., is the current and incoming USHJA Zone 3 chairman and is a member of several state association boards as well as USEF committees. He manages several shows in Zone 3 and breeds and shows horses, ponies and Norwich terriers. His horses and ponies have won many national and zone year-end awards, and Baker won the USEF Pegasus Medal of Honor in 2006.