Stallion Spotlight

Feinrich-Nr_1-12-18-10-074 Beelitz

Real Estate Spotlight

IMG_0200
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Musical Freestyle Requirements upped--let's try to rescind them

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Musical Freestyle Requirements upped--let's try to rescind them

    Cynthia Collins wrote this up. I think if everyone contacted the members multiple ways, maybe they might listen to the people paying the majority of fees. Either copy and paste, or add you own personal story.

    I tried posting this once with the emails I pulled off of the USDF site, but it wouldn't post, so I'll do this and then try posting the emails. I'm not doing anything nefarious. They are all on the ESEF site under the committee.


    Alright members, it's time for the BIG PUSH to the USEF Dressage Sport Committee asking them to respect the wishes of the USDF BOG vote to rescind USEF Rule 129.9
    Email, Facebook message, etc. the following members. Do it daily if you can as the USEF meeting starts next week.
    Start emailing them with your stories. January is the first possibility of meeting at the USEF Convention.


    Here's our letter, you can copy and paste or write your own.
    To the Dressage Sport Committee,

    We're writing to let you know that many, many members of USDF and USEF, do not agree with the changing of Rule DR129.9 requiring a minimum score of 63% rather than the 60% at the highest test of the level, in order to ride a freestyle at a regular show, nor do we agree with the way it was changed.
    We freestyle riders have have 2 reasons that we do not agree with this Rule change.
    1.) According to USDF, a score of 60% is required in order to earn USDF Medals, Regional qualifying at most levels for Amateurs, and to qualify for Year end freestyle awards. That is the score USDF has set as "Satisfactory". Since USDF has established 60% as a score to reward riders, then it would imply that this same score of 60% would be sufficient to ride a freestyle. Changing the score to 63%, at the highest test, seems unreasonable and unnecessary.
    Also, for Amateur and Juniors, the scores required to qualify at regular tests for Regional Championships are lower than this new score required to ride a freestyle. That really seems unfair to the largest dressage population, the amateurs. If these scores show enough proficiency to qualify for Championships, then why would a higher score be required just to ride a freestyle at a regular show?
    USDF stated, "a rider is expected to be more technically proficient to ride a freestyle" But by USDF standards, the old score of 60% at the highest level, IS sufficient.
    We understand a freestyle is a technical test ridden to music. However, the only way a freestyle rider is going to learn to adjust and ride a good freestyle, is by riding in the arena and getting the judge's feedback. By not allowing riders to prove their proficiency by achieving a 60%, a satisfactory score according to USDF, at the highest test of the level, you are excluding many of your base riders from having an opportunity and reward of riding a freestyle.

    2.) This rule change was put in as an "Extraordinary" Rule Change thus bypassing the usual path that a rule change would follow. If it had been put in through the usual process, riders could have had a chance to let you, their representatives, know how they felt about the rule change. They are the members. You represent them.
    By putting this Rule in as an "extraordinary" rule change, it appears that you did not want riders to know about this change. It appears that you are not interested in the riders opinion. If the normal route for a rule change had been followed, and USDF had asked their membership, and the membership agreed, then we would be fine with that. But the way this was done, it appears that the riders opinions were left out of a change that affects them.
    Currently USDF has voted to ask you to rescind this Rule. By doing so, you are now the ones responsible for this Rule either becoming void, making the members happy, or staying in place, making your Committee the ones responsible for many unhappy members. This is really quite unfair to you.
    Make USDF take the responsibility, as they should, for the passing of this rule in a expedited way. Make USDF discuss a new Rule at their next convention with their members in a manner that they should have done in the first place.

    PLEASE rescind Rule DR 129.9 back to a 60% so that these riders can show their freestyles.
    The USDF BOG voted overwhelmingly to rescind the Rule. PLEASE respect the vote. Please rescind the Rule so it can be discussed and decided on with the entire dressage community with the normal procedures for passing rules.

    Thank you.
  • Original Poster

    #2
    Let's see if I can post the emails.

    Here are the ones with emails:
    MS KATHLEEN CONNELLY
    kathyconnellyavf@aol.com
    MS LISA GORRETTA
    reg2rd@aol.com
    MS GARDY BLOEMERS
    gardy@gardybloemers.com
    MS LISELOTTE FORE
    lilo4ore@gmail.com
    MRS JANET FOY
    Dressagejanet@yahoo.com
    MISS ELIZABETH JULIANO
    Havensafefarm@aol.com
    MRS HEATHER PETERSEN
    slush@drgw.net
    MR GARY ROCKWELL
    rckwllg@aol.com
    MRS ELISABETH WILLIAMS
    lizyh@aol.com
    MR CHRISTOPHER HICKEY
    chickey321@aol.com
    MRS CHARLOTTE BREDAHL
    cbredahl@silcom.com
    MR ROBERT DOVER
    rdover2@aol.com
    MRS DEBBIE MC DONALD
    DRESSAGEMC@gmail.COM
    MS CHRISTINE TRAURIG
    CTetienne@aol.com
    MR GEORGE WILLIAMS
    GEOROWMS@aol.com

    Comment

    • Original Poster

      #3
      It still won't post the emails. The USEF has made it hard to get them all in one spot. You have to click on each name individually and get them. I have them all copied and pasted if these don't show up, so message me and I can message them to you.

      https://www.usef.org/about-us/councils-committees/713

      Comment


      • #4
        MS KATHLEEN CONNELLY
        kathyconnellyavf@aol.com
        MS LISA GORRETTA
        reg2rd@aol.com
        MS GARDY BLOEMERS
        gardy@gardybloemers.com
        MS LISELOTTE FORE
        lilo4ore@gmail.com
        MRS JANET FOY
        Dressagejanet@yahoo.com
        MISS ELIZABETH JULIANO
        Havensafefarm@aol.com
        MRS HEATHER PETERSEN
        slush@drgw.net
        MR GARY ROCKWELL
        rckwllg@aol.com
        MRS ELISABETH WILLIAMS
        lizyh@aol.com
        MR CHRISTOPHER HICKEY
        chickey321@aol.com
        MRS CHARLOTTE BREDAHL
        cbredahl@silcom.com
        MR ROBERT DOVER
        rdover2@aol.com
        MRS DEBBIE MC DONALD
        DRESSAGEMC@gmail.COM
        MS CHRISTINE TRAURIG
        CTetienne@aol.com
        MR GEORGE WILLIAMS
        GEOROWMS@aol.com
        Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress.
        Alfred A. Montapert

        Comment


        • #5
          Done. I sent your letter to the Co-chairs and each member. I did it as separate emails, so it wouldn't get stuck in anyone's spam folder. What a PITA but totally worth it.

          Comment


          • #6
            This is why it's so important to write letters. The USDF does NOT know what the membership wants.

            I received this from Lisa Goretta:

            "Thank you for your email.

            The overwhelming message from all correspondence so far received is a universal reference that the scores recognizing achievement in USDF's awards programs (in total) are apparently too low and that is the topic that seriously should be first addressed.

            While not the direct purview of this Committee, this has been recognized as a serious concern of the membership for the sport.

            As an adult amateur (outside competition eligibility) and volunteer myself, I appreciate your time and commitment invested in the sport.

            With best regards and wishes for the new year.

            Lisa Gorretta"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by xQHDQ View Post
              This is why it's so important to write letters. The USDF does NOT know what the membership wants.

              I received this from Lisa Goretta:

              "Thank you for your email.

              The overwhelming message from all correspondence so far received is a universal reference that the scores recognizing achievement in USDF's awards programs (in total) are apparently too low and that is the topic that seriously should be first addressed.

              While not the direct purview of this Committee, this has been recognized as a serious concern of the membership for the sport.

              As an adult amateur (outside competition eligibility) and volunteer myself, I appreciate your time and commitment invested in the sport.

              With best regards and wishes for the new year.

              Lisa Gorretta"
              Please translate.

              I have dealt with Lisa in the past and found her willing to listen. Perhaps there is change coming to USDF.
              Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress.
              Alfred A. Montapert

              Comment


              • #8
                She's saying she supports the increase to 63%.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by xQHDQ View Post
                  She's saying she supports the increase to 63%.
                  Thanks.....I never could translate corporate speak.
                  Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress.
                  Alfred A. Montapert

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by xQHDQ View Post
                    She's saying she supports the increase to 63%.
                    She's also saying that the qualifying scores for all the awards are too low and should be raised.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think the letter in the OP misses some very important points.

                      It is not only the USDF that considers 60% satisfactory (which apparently they no longer do). According to the FEI definitions for judging, the FEI considers 60% to be satisfactory, and the USEF follows the FEI rules. So why does the USDF think they need to go against FEI and USEF definitions and redefine the meaning of satisfactory by raising the qualifying score?

                      It also mentions the USDF passing the change as an extraordinary rule change. USDF does not make rule changes, USEF does. USDF may have proposed the rule change, but the USEF passed it. They both need to be held accountable.

                      Comment

                      • Original Poster

                        #12
                        I did not miss the point. Cynthia Collins wrote that, and that's exactly what she said about changing the definition of satisfactory and it being an extraordinary rule change.

                        Please contact them. Again, message me if you want all of the emails instead of having to look the up one by one. COTH will not let me put them here.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          She's not just saying she thinks the scores are too low, but that allthepeople contacting her agree with her.
                          Let me apologize in advance.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            She saying that the "overwhelming majority" of people contacting her not only support the Freestyle qualification score increase, but think that qualifying scores need to be raised across the board for All The Things (championships, medals, etc.) because apparently 60% does not do an adequate job of keeping the riffraff out.

                            I'd personally be interested to see the data behind that claim.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I did reply and say that I respectfully disagreed with her.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Interesting that she equates scores for awards with scores to simply ride a test.
                                Lets see, we have judges who are paid to, you know, judge and score.
                                We have riders who have to go through the time and expense to create a freestyle, then pay the entry fee to enter the class.
                                And we have to protect those poor judges' eyes from the horrors of a poor freestyle!?! We couldn't expect the poor dears to give out deservedly low scores. They shouldn't have to watch such a travesty! Make the paying customers do more and pay more for the privilege of paying for a freestyle test score!

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I call BS that more people have written in support.

                                  Total BS.
                                  LarkspurCO: no horse's training is complete until it can calmly yet expressively perform GP in stadium filled w/chainsaw juggling zombies riding unicycles while flying monkeys w/bottle rockets...

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    and that people are saying the 60% for HOY / all breeds / regional championships are TOO LOW!

                                    man
                                    _\\]
                                    -- * > hoopoe
                                    Procrastinate NOW
                                    Introverted Since 1957

                                    Comment

                                    • Original Poster

                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by right horse at the right time View Post
                                      I call BS that more people have written in support.

                                      Total BS.
                                      Thank you. Yes, I think Lisa Gorreta is lying. There is no way most of the membership agrees with this. Perhaps, exQHDQ, you could write her back and ask for specific numbers about this and ask that she share them with everyone. I believe there are several hundred full names and regions at the bottom of the letter above sent as a group against this.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by GramV View Post
                                        I did not miss the point. Cynthia Collins wrote that, and that's exactly what she said about changing the definition of satisfactory and it being an extraordinary rule change.

                                        Please contact them. Again, message me if you want all of the emails instead of having to look the up one by one. COTH will not let me put them here.
                                        I didn't say YOU missed the point. I said the letter in the original post misses some important points. The letter you quoted, which I know was written by someone else.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X