At one of this winter’s Florida dressage shows, I was discussing the dressage scene with a woman who follows the circuit as part of our “service team” of vendors, video companies, photographers, farriers and so on. In the course of our conversation, she told me that she believed that, as a group, we need to take a moment to examine ourselves and our dressage community from her angle.

Her point of view is of interest because she’s in constant communication with dressage riders, judges and officials without actually engaging in any of their activities.

She said that often the “talk” surrounding her is of an unpleasant nature, including nasty gossip, untrue statements, or just negative input about another rider, a judge or manager. One of her rider friends was so upset with the talk that she vowed to “give up gossip for Lent” in an effort to start cleaning up her own act.

Especially discouraging was the judge’s box comments about competitors overheard by the video cameraman or the scribe.

It is inapropriate for a judge to comment on anything other than the performance of a horse and rider. Any other subject matter, such as looks, brains or personality of the equipage, is forbidden territory. Any judge arrogant enough to assume that the people around them are deaf and dumb and won’t repeat the comments needs to watch out.

Scribes, especially the efficient and experienced ones who are a judge’s delight, see and hear a lot they may choose not to pass on, but there is a limit even to their tolerance if the rider is a friend or family member.

One of the most popular topics is the attitude of riders who have been sponsored and loses his or her horse. This could be due to the owner’s decision to withdraw the horse from competition, change riders, or sell the horse. Several of my riding colleagues have contacted me in regard to the comments allegedly made by Christine Traurig in conjunction with the sale of Etienne. One of them was Lendon Gray, who e-mailed me from Germany, where she was coaching a student on a sponsored horse, and Lendon was quite concerned.

As I pointed out in an earlier article, being sponsored has its hardships, and we all mourn the loss of a successful Olympic combination. However, we riders need to protect the owners from sentimental reactions that may be grossly unfair to them. When you are the one taking all the financial responsibility for a venture as high-risk as a shot at a team position, you deserve the right to make all the budgetary decisions.

Sponsors can promise a lot of things, and truly mean it when they say them, but life changes and the stock market is unreliable. And in this case, there was allegedly a clear understanding that Etienne was to be sold after the Olympics, never mind the outcome.

Because the success was perhaps even beyond the expectations of the rider, the emotions ran high (which I can well understand!), and, unfortunately, the owners were made to look like culprits.

The reality is that if a rider wants total protection against the possibility of losing a horse in training, he or she needs to own part of the horse and have a contract that clearly states the rules. In other words, the rider has to take a risk along with the owner by offering money or time in the deal. You got it, no free lunch.

To continue with attitudes we seem to harbor, there is a strange syndrome going on, in which people seem to be looking to enrich their lives by adding an equine to the fold. For 30 years or more, I’ve been involved with finding, training and selling horses, and although the market has been positive for several years in the good economy, the modus operandi of the prospective horse owners is changing.

One reason is videotapes, which certainly are a mixed blessing. They cut down on travel, but watching videos often does not give a good horse a fair chance because the poor quality of the tapes misrepresents the animal. Besides, never-ending movie watching leads to confusion and eventually apathy in the amateur who doesn’t have endless stamina.

Once a likely prospect has been sighted and selected, often months later, the travel starts, and with a good portion of luck, trainer and hopeful owner hit the jackpot.

Now the real fun begins: the vet check. In the remote possibility that the veterinarian finds the horse in good order and has the guts to say so in clear language, that should seal the deal. Hardly. This horse has to be perfect, not a flaw allowed. Even things unrelated to the performance and unimportant to the job description have to be researched and questioned and fussed about ad infinitum. Reliable advice from an instructor of long standing does little to calm the seas.

Why is all this happening? Since when are there any guarantees on health, life or even on the sun also rising tomorrow? Besides, I would like to know the kind of inspection a horse would have performed on a new owner, had he that option. The perfect owner is even more of a utopia than the perfect horse. Ask any horse.

Both my esteemed co-columnists, George Morris and Denny Emerson, wrote excellent columns (“The Evolution of Teaching,” Jan. 5, and “We Need More Cowboy In Our Riders,” Jan. 12), in which they deplore the lack of basic knowledge, experience and depth of horsemanship in our sport today.

I can easily jump on that bandwagon, and not because I think we ancients know everything better, but because I too can see the effects on the sport and the results of the “modern” point of view.

I took my first riding lessons from my grandfather, who was an officer in the Swedish Cavalry. My horses were 4-year-old remounts, brought up from the pastures, and it was months before I was given a saddle. The involuntary dismounts were frequent, some spectacular.

Later on, I went to a riding school, where I spent years slowly climbing up the levels of proficiency under the guidance of military men with no mercy for pain and no tolerance for wimps. They definitely lacked in sensitivity and were not politically correct, but they loved and lived for horses, and they were passionate about creating new generations of riders.

Having run a riding academy in this country for more than 30 years, I can assure you none of my childhood teachers, although they produced competent riders, would have survived one week as instructors on our staff.

What many of today’s parents want from the sport is instant success in competition, yesterday. Children who cannot post in rhythm and barely can steer a pony around the ring are being encouraged to jump. But, naturally, that pony has to be 100 percent foolproof and is required to keep its back under the seat of that kid in every situation. If the instructor indicates that it would be prudent to extend the sessions on the flat until the progeny has a clue, we find another teacher. When the child hits the dust, we make scenes. And if there is a scratch on the little darling, we stop by the lawyer’s office on the way to the doctor.

On the whole, adult students are no better. School horses are expected to be carousel horses, rocking along in a zero-risk atmosphere. Any challenge has to be avoided, and learning to ride a green or difficult horse (the kind that really teach you something!) is out of the question. The attitude is that the horse ought to do all the work and be a “packer” (a word I detest!), even in dressage.

Ideally for them, the schoolmaster is on remote control, performing all the tricks as the teacher calls for them. No effort is to be required from the rider, who wishes to be fed the information without breaking a sweat and without utilizing legs, seat or mind.

Alternate training methods are quite the rage. Instead of going through the tiresome everyday “do it again” of learning to ride a horse, we snap lead shanks, click clickers, wave wands, squat in pastures, and whisper to horses. In 23 minutes, untouched colts are tacked and backed in front of amazed audiences. I can’t help wondering what the same horse does on the second day. When all else fails, call the horse psychic and solve the problem in the comfort of your home.

This attitude about riding is, to me, completely bizarre. The horse is not a vehicle for our glorification, he is not an exercise bike or a simulator for us to “try out” the Grand Prix movements. Horses are alive, and each is an individual. And that is the charm and fascination of the riding game.

They become a lifestyle, not one of the many things we pack into our day. The time spent living and breathing horses that is required to ever become truly proficient as a competitor, trainer, teacher or groom cannot be replaced by the quick fix, never mind how good the guru, how splendid the surroundings, or opulent the finances.

And then there is the AHSA/USET conflict, about which everybody has an opinion. Again, some of us also have an attitude. I am in the odd situation of being the chairman of both the USET Dressage Active Competitors Committee and the AHSA Active Athletes’ Advisory Committee. Therefore, I feel I am in no position to voice my personal opinion to support either side.

I do believe, however, that this is an administrative fight about power, money and personal discord that is not the athletes’ problem and should not be made our problem. Ever since the start of the hostilities, the athletes have been informed, consulted and romanced like never before. Suddenly, our opinion is the most important of all, truly a change from years gone by.

Although I admire both David O’Connor and Armand Leone for taking strong stands on the issue and fighting for their beliefs, it is sad to see our best riders divided and pitted against each other in this fashion. We have enough pressure staying friends in the heat of competition and remaining cool in tough situations. We don’t need this!

In spite of all this outpouring of attitude, I still think we have a great sport and a captivating lifestyle, compared to people who are not wrapped up in the mystique of the horse. As long as we can stay healthy and stay on, all other things seem to sort out eventually.

And to speed up attitude adjustment, there is always Happy Hour.