I’ve always believed that the reason for maintaining correct equitation is to foster the best possible performance from the horse. Simply put, if a rider is applying the aids correctly and staying in the correct position, then the horse will be able to respond to them by giving his best performance.

Of course, you must expect minor variations in every rider’s style, as not everyone is created the same. Different body types require that slight adaptations occur in a rider’s basic style, provided they don’t compromise the basics of good equitation.

Last month I had the honor and privilege to judge the Pessoa/USEF Medal Finals at the Pennsylvania National and the New England Equitation Championships in Massachusetts. These back-to-back competitions provided me with an opportunity to observe our equitation division in a concentrated manner. Several of the same issues identified themselves at both compe-titions, including the vast number of participants, the range of competence among them, the horses’ range and scope, the courses’ degree of difficulty, and the difference in the riders’ preparation and experience.

Each of these competitions hosts a very large number of competitors because of the way their qualifying systems work. The facility in Harrisburg is horse- friendly and able to welcome the 271 riders. The participants can warm up in an indoor arena with the same footing as the show ring, and it could be snowing outside and you’d never know it.

The NEEC hosted 241 junior finalists. The management goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the horses, riders, officials and exhibitors are treated well, and the event’s popularity proves that everyone appreciates the extra effort.

Conrad Homfeld assisted Jimmy Torano and me with designing the courses for the USEF Medal Finals. Jimmy and I appreciated the opportunity to work with someone who has such extensive design experience and knowledge of the Farm Show Arena.

We’d been working on the course since late June, but we didn’t finalize our plans until the week prior to the show. You never know exactly how a course will ride until you see it done, but relying on Conrad relieved us of a lot of anxiety. We walked the course multiple times prior to the class, discussed the track and made some last-minute changes that we all thought would result in a better course.

While the judges don’t usually design the course at the NEEC, this year Ken Krome, one of the judges, did serve as course designer. Ken did a great job of building courses throughout the week and provided each level of rider with a positive experience.

I believe that the courses at both competitions were appropriate for the level of riders and horses there. But it’s important for everyone to remember that the USEF Medal Finals is a national championship and, therefore, must be of the highest standard. For years we have struggled with pressures to water down the height and width of jumps in the jumper and hunter arenas. We cannot let this occur in the national equitation championships.

This brings me to the subjects of riders’ competence and horses’ range and scope–subjects that go hand in hand. At both competitions, many partnerships were one-sided–either the horse or the rider was the more educated part of the equation. We saw horses that tried their hearts out but lacked the range and scope needed to navigate the course without struggling.

This is disturbing to me as a horseman and trainer, because I cannot understand the reasoning behind sending a horse into the ring to attempt a course that’s beyond its ability.

On the other hand, we also saw horses that were more than capable of completing the course in a correct manner, but were being piloted by riders who weren’t at all prepared for the questions they were facing.

This is equally disturbing. Why would you send a rider into the ring without having prepared them for the types of questions asked at a national championship? For the past several years, the Chronicle has published the course diagram for the Medal Finals either in the magazine or on the website, www.chronofhorse.com. With this resource available, why aren’t trainers educating their riders by re-creating all or parts of previous courses at home and practicing over them?

I suspect there were a number of competitors who’d qualified at smaller competitions where the class standards haven’t been strictly followed, especially with regards to the jump construction and course. This makes designing and building the course for the Medal Final very difficult. You need to build a national championship course that doesn’t overface the first-time finals competitors.

One of the great things about the Harrisburg and New England events is that all the qualifiers get to compete in the main event. There are no regional events or qualifying rounds prior to the class. While many see this as one of the most important parts of the Medal Finals, I’d like to suggest some changes that might provide a better experience for everyone involved.

Riders and horses have long been allowed to participate in a warm-up round held the day prior to the finals class. I think that consideration should be given to changing the format to a two-phase event. Instead of holding the warm-up class, all riders would compete in a first phase on Saturday over a moderately technical course, and those scoring 70 or higher would come back to compete in the second phase.

We kept some statistics at Harrisburg, and during the first round, approximately 30 percent of the riders had at least one refusal, and many were eliminated by having three refusals. This isn’t generally a case of improper preparation at the show; rather it’s a sign that riders and horses are not being properly prepared prior to the event.

If the class were developed into a two-phase event, these less experienced riders and horses would be faced with a course that they could, perhaps, complete and would leave the finals with a more positive experience. It cannot be in our sport’s best interest to have unprepared horses and riders attempting to navigate a national championship course that’s beyond their capabilities.

Changing to a two-phase event would also allow us to keep the current qualifying system that allows so many riders to compete. The same panel would judge both phases, and the scores from the first round wouldn’t carry over to the second round.

Observers often wonder how we judges survive the long hours of judging the medal finals. I know we were both so alert and inspired by the class that we could have judged several more hours. But I know that’s not always the case, and dividing the class into two phases will provide for a fresher panel of judges and a better class for spectators and participants.

Yes, it’s nice from an exhibitor’s perspective to get in the ring for a warm-up the day before, but this is a national championship, and if the pony riders can do their national equitation finals without a warm-up in the competition ring, so can the junior riders.

I believe that the single most important lesson for everyone to learn from each year’s equitation finals is that you need to be prepared to answer the questions of a national championship before you get there. Just because you qualified, it doesn’t mean you’re ready to compete there.

For those who encountered significant problems navigating the courses, it’s time to realistically assess your level of competence, and your horse’s range and scope, and do something about it. If you’re qualifying at competitions that don’t have equitation courses that ask questions of the rider, you better really do your homework (or show somewhere else) before you arrive at the finals.

And, trainers, take your junior riders to the national equitation championships to watch and learn about these classes and get exposure to what’s expected at this level of competition. We must all remember that a national championship must maintain a higher standard than the everyday competition. And we must remember that those who excel in these classes are prepared to answer the questions because they’ve thoroughly done their homework.


What To Do About Rails?
Over the past couple of years, the U.S. Hunter Jumper Association’s Equitation Task Force, led by chairman Karen Healey, has diligently worked to make the judging system more consistent by partnering with the U.S. Equestrian Federation in creating the Equitation Handbook. This publication contains the rules and specifications for the equitation division and discusses one of the most controversial aspects of judging equitation–how to score riders who knock down rails.

Basically, whether a numerical score is announced or not, the USHJA Equitation Task Force believes that the round should be judged as if there has been no rail down because rider errors, whether major or minor, will already have been considered in determining the competitor’s initial score. Then, after determining the initial score, the judge subtracts 4 points for each rail down to determine the final score for the round. This way, if a rider has done everything in her power to make a horse perform well and the horse still knocks down the jumps, the rider won’t be completely eliminated for the horse’s lack of skill.

In discussions with my fellow judges at the Pessoa/USEF Medal Finals at the Pennsylvania National and the New England Equitation Championships, everyone agreed that the judging of rails down is one of the most important issues for our judges and must be addressed in all our licensed official clinics.

Even with a consensus on the basic scoring of a rider who lowers rails, there will still be slight variations in opinion as to the severity of the fault. But at least we will have established a baseline that exhibitors and spectators can understand.

Bill Moroney