• 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

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

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.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our 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:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – 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.

Services – 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.

Products – 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.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

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

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

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.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Memo from the Dressage Committee

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

  • #21
    Roberta

    Many thanks for the post. Please carry the following message to the Dressage Committee

    Many thanks for the time they have taken to reply. I have sent e-mails and received replies from a number of the DC....however....the following points seem not have been considered:

    1- The reply states "when the proposal is adopted...." not "if...." A lot of people are upset that this subject was not raised for discussion at the GMO level or publicized in any public way...eg., USDF Connection and GMO or Regional Director's Newsletters. The lack of publicity raises a lot of questions as to why there has been little opportunity for dialog except thru these internet BB's.

    2- The technology for score-keeping requirements seems to NOT be available to USDF. Based on prior problems with scores, the USDF does not have the systems to have timely (like real-time) scores to allow riders to maximize their show time....eg., if I get scores one weekend, can they be used the next?

    3- The current dressage scoring system is highly biased towards horses with certain movement, yet the intent of this rule is to qualify riders. From a "testing methodology" perspective, perhaps the dressage scores are not the correct tool to assess riders' capabilities.

    4- The rule will affect many AA's. Perhaps we're getting apples and oranges confused. In this thread a post states that this in an "Olympic sport"....yet AA's typically do not compete at FEI levels, so why put in place a qualification rules for national levels. And for the Olympic levels, the USEF already has its High Performance Division where selection criteria are already in place.

    5- Although the rule is an USEF rule, the origin of this proposed rule is the USDF, an organization whose mission is education and promotion of dressage. How will a rule that will exclude a large constituency promote or educate people about dressage?

    6- Making entry into a sport more difficult will drive potential members away, which may impact USDF membership. Most "special interest" organizations try to be "member friendly"....as in "what can we do for you?" This does not seem to be the case for the USEF/USDF rule proposers.

    7- If poor riding is truly the concern, then the question should be asked as to why the scoring system currently in place is not getting the message across to riders. Instead of implementing another "rule," the DC should to back and revisit fundamentals of scoring. The same ways that correct dressage training is based on proper fundamentals, then the DC should scratch its collective head to question and challenge itself with why is the use of the double creating problems and why are riders riding above level? The scoring system currently in place has 4 descriptions of "bad" (bad, fairly bad, and very bad). The questions that the committee SHOULD be pondering is why the scoring system has failed before imposing new rules.

    Comment


    • #22
      [QUOTE=Jasper'sMom;2916046]
      Originally posted by Serrano16 View Post
      Many horses do not understand that they should be able to go to third level and do extended trot when they were really bred to chase cows.


      Umm, yeah, I'd say I get a little whiff of elitism here.
      That comment was quite stunning. I am sorry, but the arrogance of these people is just astounding to me.
      Roseknoll Sporthorses
      www.roseknoll.net

      Comment


      • #23
        Let's look at where we are now.

        The rule change proposal (#275-07) was submitted by the USEF Dressage Committee (listed as proponent). The contact person listed on the rule change proposal is Janine Malone (on behalf of the Dressage Committee). Here's the Rule Change Brochure from the USEF website:

        How to Submit Proposed Rule changes GR342

        As the National Governing Body for equestrian sport, the fundamental mission of the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) is to inspire, encourage interest in, and regulate equestrian competition. Maintaining the integrity of the rules that govern the sport is central to this mission. A well-researched and carefully prepared proposal will have a better chance of being approved by the USEF Board of Directors or Executive Committee and will have a more meaningful impact on the fairness of competition and on the welfare of the horse.

        Methodology of Writing Proposed Rule changes
        �� Define the problem. Is it specific to one breed or discipline?
        �� Determine the scope of the problem. Is it a local problem? Does it extend to state, regional, or zone levels? Is it nationwide?
        �� Develop as may possible solutions as you can. Ask others for their input.
        �� Choose one possible solution that appears to be the most appropriate and that fits the stated mission and goals of USEF. The solution to the problem may be something that can be accomplished without a rule
        change. A rule change is not always the best solution.
        �� If the solution requires the addition of rules or proposes changes to existing rules specific to a breed or discipline division, the Recognized Affiliated Organization that represents the breed or discipline should be
        involved in the process. Each organization has a different process in place to consider proposed rule changes, some of which are more structured in their organizational requirements than others. Members of
        staff are happy to direct you to the appropriate contacts within those organizations.
        �� Determine if any other rules would be affected if your proposal were to be adopted by the USEF Board of Directors or Executive Committee and be prepared to submit proposed rule changes for these as well.
        �� Deadlines for submitting Standard rule change proposals in 2007 are as follows:
        �� Individual Federation Members and Federation Staff June 1st
        �� Federation Committees, Affiliated Entities (Bylaw 221) and Affiliated Associations (Bylaw 222) September 1st
        �� Exception: for 2007, Arabian Horse Association September 15th.
        �� Pursuant to GR342, USEF staff may contact you regarding your proposal. As a result of feedback from various committees, you may be asked to consider certain amendments to your proposal prior to circulating it for review by committees or USEF Directors. You are not obligated to accept any such recommendations. The Board does have the authority to amend any proposed rule change.

        Proposed Rule Change Form
        �� The official Proposed Rule Change form is available online or can be obtained by contacting our office.
        �� Determine the correct placement of the proposed rule change and locate the Chapter and Rule number in the current website version of the Rule Book, which contains all rule changes approved to date.
        �� Proposed rule changes that comply with the conditions and timelines stated in GR342 are considered Standard rule changes and should be submitted with a proposed effective date of 12/1/08. Please clearly
        state any request for an earlier proposed effective date; 4/1/08 is the earliest a change should go into effect to ensure proper notification is given to competitions, officials, and members.
        �� If you feel circumstances require that your proposal be considered outside the standard annual rule change process, you may request that the USEF Officers consider it as an extraordinary change. You must clearly
        state reasons for the extraordinary nature of the proposed rule change on the official form. The proponent will be notified if the proposed rule change does not meet the stated requirements to be considered
        extraordinary by the Officers: an extraordinary rule change is defined “as one that, unless expedited, would create or continue a severe hardship or a gross unfairness to the Federation, its members or their horses, its
        Licensed Competitions, or its Affiliated Associations.”

        �� Proposed rule change: choose "add" if this is a new rule; choose "delete" if an existing rule is being deleted; choose "change to read" if a content change is being proposed for an existing rule. The latter may include both deleting and adding text.
        �� Type or print neatly, stating the exact wording being proposed. To indicate deletions, strike through the words you propose to delete. Type in bold and italics the wording you propose to add.
        �� If a substantial amount of existing wording is needed, the chance of error is less if you copy and paste from the on-line rule book at the www.usef.org website directly into the rule change proposal form and then make revisions. Use the Text copy tool to copy text; use the Graphics copy tool to copy any necessary graphics.
        �� Intent: include a concise statement to state what you intend to accomplish with the proposed rule change.
        �� Include proponent and contact information, including name of member, affiliated member organization, or a USEF committee submitting the proposed rule change. If the proponent is a committee, affiliate member
        organization, a contact person and accompanying information should be provided. A USEF committee submitting a proposed rule change needs to attach a copy of portion of the minutes authorizing submission of the proposed rule changes. If the entire committee or council does not endorse the proposal, this information should also be noted.
        �� While members submit proposed rule changes, the chances of the proposal being approved will be improved if there is support of at least one USEF committee. Members are encouraged to work through the
        appropriate committee by contacting the relevant staff liaison.
        �� Sign and date the form. The proposed rule change form can be completed on line or can be mailed or faxed to the USEF address or fax number listed below.

        USEF Office /Legislative Committee/Board & Executive Committee
        The proponent will receive a response from our office acknowledging receipt of the proposed rule change. The response will include a request for the proponent to proofread a copy of the proposal as it has been entered into the USEF’s database system.
        �� Staff will review each proposed rule change. If there are any questions or concerns, the proponent will be asked to clarify the proposed rule change intent, adjust the effective date, etc. The Legislative Committee does have the right and responsibility to reject proposals for cause (see GR342).
        �� The USEF Legislative Committee will designate review of the proposed rule change by any and all standing committees of the Federation and other assigned entities deemed appropriate. When available, committee
        actions, staff, and legal comments will be listed as part of the proposed rule change report available on the website or which can be obtained from the Federation office.
        �� Proposed rule changes, with committee and assigned entity comments/actions, will be listed on the Federation website, with an invitation for members to submit their comments. These comments will be
        forwarded to designated review committees. We would appreciate receiving comments prior to December 15, 2007.
        �� The USEF Board of Directors and/or Executive Committee may add to, alter, or amend the rules at any meeting, by a majority vote of those present in accordance with GR342. The proponent may speak at any
        committee meeting and at the Board meeting.


        SO:

        The BOD of USEF has the authority to amend a proposed rule change.


        If the proponent is a committee, affiliate member organization, a contact person and accompanying information should be provided. A USEF committee submitting a proposed rule change needs to attach a copy of portion of the minutes authorizing submission of the proposed rule changes. If the entire committee or council does not endorse the proposal, this information should also be noted.

        From GR 300:

        It is appropriate for each assigned entity to propose an amendment to a proposed rule change and an amended proposal may move forward in the process providing the proponent agrees to the amendment. In accordance with .j.(5) below at the third Board meeting at the Annual meeting, the Directors may amend any proposal at its discretion.

        The Federation Annual Meeting.
        (1) Each Federation Committee, Task Force or assigned entity (committee or Affiliate) that has been assigned one or more rule change proposals to discuss and comment upon should meet prior to the Annual Meeting to do so, and if necessary, have a representative present the Committee’s or Task Force’s comments at the respective General Forum at the Annual Meeting.
        (2) All standard rule change proposals will be discussed before relevant sessions of the Federation Annual Meeting if they have been considered at a meeting of the designated assigned entity (committee or Affiliate). If a proposal has NOT been considered, it will automatically be moved for consideration in the next rule change year.
        (3) During the various debates regarding a given rule change proposal, different drafts of a proposal may be made. However, these later drafts should be signed off by the designated Committee or assigned entity in order to go forward to the Board for action at the Third Directors’ meeting.
        (4) The proponent of a proposed rule change, if present, may address the Board regarding his/her proposal at the Third Director’s Meeting, regardless of designated Committee or assigned entity action.
        (5) At the Third Meeting the Board of Directors is empowered to adopt any such rule change proposal, to not adopt the same, or to revise or amend the same at the Board’s discretion.

        THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH THIS RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL CAN BE AMENDED OR WITHDRAWN.

        IS ANYONE HERE GOING TO THE USEF CONVENTION IN LOUISVILLE AND COULD THAT PERSON BE ACTIVE (REMAINING CORDIAL AND NON-HYSTERICAL) RE THIS ISSUE?
        Last edited by rebecca yount; Jan. 6, 2008, 11:15 AM.

        Comment


        • #24
          reinventing the wheel

          my first post in eons,

          why can't we implement the bronze, silver, gold medal program that is already there. the wheel is not broken, yet, but if this new program is passed, it will throw the whole train off the track.

          what is it going to cost all of AA for the implementation of this new program. they could extend us a credit for clinics with our own AA money that it is sure to cost to start this new wheel.

          i have my bronze and was ready for my silver when my horse decided to be retired. so i'm penalized because i can't go out and buy a 4th level horse so i can continue on.

          i bought two young horses, a diamond hit and a royal hit, and it seems i can ride them in the young horse test, but when they get to 3rd or 4th, i have to go point crazy, i'm sorry but that is beyond my understanding. not everyone can ride young horses but it would seem to be equal to 4th level or above riding ability. what do you do with the rider/horse combo after they do great at the young horse test, they can't compete at 4th or psg? wow, how confusing. i'm confused typing this because this rule will have so many implications throughout the USA, it's mind boggling.

          i'm am married, have thee sons all college bound, do this as my professional hobby, train with Arthur Kottas (5 years), a local professional trainer, listen to the judges, what else am i supposed to do????? what more hoops are there for me to jump thru so that this sport that i got into for it's correct and classical way of training can keep it's Olympic hopes alive. how desperate the dc sounds.

          i thought we were doing better, we have some of our Olympic riders competing on a regular basis in europe, our young rider program makes me want to clone myself.

          what more does the dc want us AA to pay for so we can keep Dressage= to Olympics

          i feel we should expect our judges to give at the moment scores and we as aa should accept these scores with humility and grace since our horses we ride accept us with the same.

          judges should not be shagrined for the scores they give, it is what it is. i for one say if you can't accept the facts as presented then don't present the facts.

          i will end that the medal program is there, use it, have judges get involved, they are out there in the "trenches", it is their score that will make the rider go forward or stay longer at a certain level.

          oh and by the way (dc), why not let us know next time about how you feel a little sooner and more in the open; this feels like you are inventing the wheel, laying new track, and filling passenger cars with different riders.
          Racheal

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Tiligsmom View Post
            The largest leap is from 2nd to 3rd. This requires the largest number of points. However, those points are cumulative (training - 2nd), and are generally earned over a longer period of time.
            NOT TRUE - ALL the points (20 in the current proposal) have to be earned at SECOND LEVEL. You get NO POINTS for training and first level scores.

            This means either showing a LOT in one year to get the necessary 20 points or staying at 2nd level for multiple years. Most amateurs are not going to get over a 65 at 2nd level so will be accumulating points by earning 1 or 2 points per test shown.

            Comment


            • #26
              There is sort of circular reasoning going on here with the qualifications thing.....WHO is going to take responsilblity with scoring? Case in point: rider showing (forum was at show, rider 3rd 3) hanging on horizontal curb/boucing/lacks collection/engagement/etc. Should NOT have been doing level/needed basics. Given 65% (satisfactory/fairly good), she did stay on went through the exercises (is that enough?). So, by that logic, the rider WOULD qualify to move up, and has been given greenlights. Is there a hope that less responsibility is to be taken individually for the scores by one judge, that it is spread more? Will keeping a rider longer at a lower level improve anything UNLESS the scores are more absolute (there also) in the first place? I am confused about the intention(s) of the new rule.
              I.D.E.A. yoda

              Comment


              • #27
                How will they solve this problem ?

                What puzzles me is how USDF/USEF is going to permit non-US resident riders/horses in shows above 3rd Level where there is going to be a minimum point requirement.

                Comment


                • #28
                  I'm confused. Is the purpose of these rules to get people to show more often in order to qualify? In other words, to get more $$$ for themselves? Or are they trying to engineer which horses (or breeds?) are allowed the "honor" of competing in the upper levels? Either way, it doesn't seem very well thought out.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Maybe you can find the answer(reason) in this pole !

                    http://www.ultimatedressage.com/foru...21334&start=50

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Having watched some painfully bad rides at 3rd and 4th at major shows, I can understand the rationale of the DC. However, it would be easier on the rest of the world, if they just penalized the the offenders so strongly, that they got the point, and stopped competing at levels at which they had no business. Maybe they could make it a fineable offence under the cruelty section.

                      Certainly in eventing if some one crashes and burns at the first fence, they have to leave the course. Same with the jumpers.
                      Some riders change their horse, they change their saddle, they change their teacher; they never change themselves.

                      Remember the horse does all the work, we just sit there and look pretty.

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        Originally posted by rebecca yount View Post
                        Now that we have their attention, can everyone PLEASE be sure to keep your correspondence and comments cordial and professional?
                        Too bad that some of them are not taking your advice. Most of the DC members are great. Some are utterly disgusting in their mean-spirited, bitchy and condescending emails that they have sent back to the people who have bothered to write. Thank God for the forward option on emails, so that these were shared with many, many others so that we could see how absolutely beastly some of them - and you three especially know who you are.

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          Originally posted by Serrano16 View Post
                          This is from an "S" judge friend of mine who is responding to the rule change. The person fears recriminations and prefers to remain anonymous.

                          I do think that there should be higher standards for the FEI classes, as that is the International Classes, but for 4th level and below, I not so sure. I think that we have issues that other countries do not have.

                          1. DISTANCE this is a huge country. Many people have to travel very far for a show. Consequently, there are additional expenses such as stabling, gas, extra help for those left at home. In Europe , there are usually 3 shows within 1 hour from spring through fall.
                          2. Entry Fees the entry fees for lower level in Europe is far less. Because you are there and gone in no time, there are often no stabling fees. My usual bill for having a young horse competed for me is between 30 and 60 dollars...for the whole show. You pay for a class, and then you are gone...in and out of the trailer.

                          These are big factors which make showing much easier at the lower levels (in Europe).
                          3. I believe you will see a lessening of offerings of recognized shows which will mean even further distances to drive in the U.S. and less of a pool of entrants for show management to rely upon.
                          Theo, I think this "S" judge explained some of the issues involved with qualification rules here in the USA. (vs. Europe)

                          In addition, Dressage as a sport is not subsidized by the govt. (and wealthy sponsors) Dressage (horse sports in general) are not part of the grade/highschool programs in the USA.

                          Hence, our shows (especially outside the east/west coast "hot spots") sure aren't turning away entries, especially at the higher levels.

                          Wasn't there just a discussion about why more young people in the USA aren't involved in Dressage?

                          I just wonder WHY, at this point in the development of Dressage in USA, we would try and make an already $$$$ sport even MORE selective and elitist?

                          WHY would a national governing body penalize the largest part of their volunteering/$$ base because of a few who don't understand that 45%-50% DOES NOT mean you are ready to move up to third level.

                          As far as preventing abuse of the horse. Judges have scores for fairly bad and bad riding and yellow cards for abuse. Perhaps re-looking at these already existing tools would be a better solution?

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            Originally posted by claire View Post
                            Theo, I think this "S" judge explained some of the issues involved with qualification rules here in the USA. (vs. Europe)

                            In addition, Dressage as a sport is not subsidized by the govt. (and wealthy sponsors) Dressage (horse sports in general) are not part of the grade/highschool programs in the USA.

                            Hence, our shows (especially outside the east/west coast "hot spots") sure aren't turning away entries, especially at the higher levels.

                            Wasn't there just a discussion about why more young people in the USA aren't involved in Dressage?

                            I just wonder WHY, at this point in the development of Dressage in USA, we would try and make an already $$$$ sport even MORE selective and elitist?

                            WHY would a national governing body penalize the largest part of their volunteering/$$ base because of a few who don't understand that 45%-50% DOES NOT mean you are ready to move up to third level.

                            As far as preventing abuse of the horse. Judges have scores for fairly bad and bad riding and yellow cards for abuse. Perhaps re-looking at these already existing tools would be a better solution?

                            Claire, please read all of my postings about this subject, before pointing your finger at me !

                            And to make something clear: dressage/equestrian sports is/are NOT subsidized in Holland or Germany, nor is it a part of a schoolingsystem.

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              What if the yellow card thing were not the only thing. Those cards I think are for out and out abuse - whipping, not for poor riding, poor sitting, unsteady hands. I don't think that program could be widened out that much. What if judges could issue cautions or remarks about riders they felt are really out of their depth and struggling too much? If a rider got so many remarks on tests, they'd have to drop down? maybe just from big R and up, judges.

                              if the problem is poor riding at specific levels, what about having those riders drop down, instead of keeping them from moving up? and they could take an 'exam' to get to do those levels if they later are ready.

                              Is the problem really that people move up, or that a judge can't make them move down? Doesn't bumping the really bad cases down solve the problem better?

                              I realize such a system could have pitfalls, but at least it wouldn't penalize everyone else so much financially, and gets at the problem specifically.

                              Saying 'dressage is an olympic sport' doesn't make sense to me as justifying a new qualification system. Riding third and fourth level is not an Olympic sport. And I very much doubt most of the Olympic hopefuls are cutting their teeth on third and fourth level in the next couple years. Most of the Olympic hopefuls have been in the FEI system for at least 15-18 yrs before they even qualify.

                              Saying, 'the scores are just that bad at third and fourth level' is justification to some people, but not people who feel anyone should be allowed to ride at any level and the judge will just score them however they deserve. That's a very, very fundamentally different philosophy.
                              We do have another thread where people are saying, 'who does it hurt' if someone shows at a level they're struggling at, if it's their dream to do so. if they are consistent, they should also be against qualification. i'm not against it per se, but the current plan sounds very very expensive.

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                But

                                Originally posted by slc2 View Post
                                What if the yellow card thing were not the only thing. Those cards I think are for out and out abuse - whipping, not for poor riding, poor sitting, unsteady hands. I don't think that program could be widened out that much. What if judges could issue cautions or remarks about riders they felt are really out of their depth and struggling too much? If a rider got so many remarks on tests, they'd have to drop down? maybe just from big R and up, judges.

                                if the problem is poor riding at specific levels, what about having those riders drop down, instead of keeping them from moving up? and they could take an 'exam' to get to do those levels if they later are ready.

                                Is the problem really that people move up, or that a judge can't make them move down? Doesn't bumping the really bad cases down solve the problem better?

                                I realize such a system could have pitfalls, but at least it wouldn't penalize everyone else so much financially, and gets at the problem specifically.

                                Saying 'dressage is an olympic sport' doesn't make sense to me as justifying a new qualification system. Riding third and fourth level is not an Olympic sport. And I very much doubt most of the Olympic hopefuls are cutting their teeth on third and fourth level in the next couple years. Most of the Olympic hopefuls have been in the FEI system for at least 15-18 yrs before they even qualify.

                                Saying, 'the scores are just that bad at third and fourth level' is justification to some people, but not people who feel anyone should be allowed to ride at any level and the judge will just score them however they deserve. That's a very, very fundamentally different philosophy.
                                We do have another thread where people are saying, 'who does it hurt' if someone shows at a level they're struggling at, if it's their dream to do so. if they are consistent, they should also be against qualification. i'm not against it per se, but the current plan sounds very very expensive.
                                OK let me dream a little : I can't imagine that many dressage-riders deliberatly compete above their own or their horses levels ??????????????????????

                                Before I continue is this a wrong assumption ?

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  Originally posted by freestyle2music View Post
                                  Claire, please read all of my postings about this subject, before pointing your finger at me !

                                  And to make something clear: dressage/equestrian sports is/are NOT subsidized in Holland or Germany, nor is it a part of a schoolingsystem.
                                  Theo, Sorry I thought (for once ) you were agreeing with TOB from the link you posted: people moving up the levels before they are ready as the reason to support the rule proposal.

                                  Re: schooling system support/subsidize, I was making the point that here in USA there ARE sports supported by the school system and to an extent subsidized. Basketball/Football/Baseball/Soccer most schools have teams and coaches and the access for children is much greater (not so elitist)

                                  As I said, USEF Dressage Committee giving the reason for the Rule as the need to adopt a European model to advance Dressage in USA...is just so given the huge differences between Europe and USA: culture,distance,equestrian history and resources.

                                  We are getting there! But why put the cart before the horse?

                                  Put the $$$ resources that would be used to track qualifying scores and subsidize training and educational clinics for YR's/Trainers/GMO's.

                                  Finally, I cannot believe that soooo many people would continue to show after receiving 45-50%.

                                  Plus, even if a few silly heads DID persist in showing "above their level"...who are they hurting? The poor judge's eyes? The railbird's highly evolved dressage sensibility?

                                  Comment


                                  • #37
                                    It depends on who you talk to. There are people who say it's very common here, and really a problem. On the bb, they're called 'dq's' and 'snobs'.

                                    And there are people who say that people don't show at too high a level often enough to worry about it.

                                    Then there's the group that says 'so what, let people choose whatever they want to do, it doesn't hurt anyone'.

                                    My pov has evolved and changed thru the course of this thread. I started out sure it wasn't needed at all. Then I looked at scores, I started thinking we still need education, and we need some kind of screening, but can we come up with something less expensive. I don't agree that it needs to be 'easy to be pallatable to the membership', it's the number of shows and mileage, and the fact that people with more money can travel more and scrounge up more points (one gal i knew showed her dog in 80 - eighty - obedience trials to get his cd, that's the kind of thing i mean). But I don't want people who can barely afford showing now to be saddled financially with going to many more shows, either. some people think you can get all these scores in 1, 2 shows...nobody AA does that, though. i looked at existing scores by show. amateur riders don't do that.

                                    I think the reason many people feel a qualification is 'unamarican' or 'snobby' is that we've gone so long without a qualification system and many people have been able to ride at any level they choose. most people don't have a trainer insisting they ride a lower level, my experience has been even when trainers do that, they don't always follow that advice.

                                    We have very serious problems with dressage in the USA. A lack of qualified instructors, school horses, and huge distances to shows, and we have amateur riders. Many very committed and serious riders might only show in 1-3 recognized shows a year.

                                    I looked at scores on the usef site, and found that very few people had the numbers to qualify. i'll do that again some day for the second scheme described.

                                    Comment


                                    • #38
                                      Originally posted by claire View Post
                                      Theo, Sorry I thought (for once ) you were agreeing with TOB from the link you posted: people moving up the levels before they are ready as the reason to support the rule proposal.

                                      Re: schooling system support/subsidize, I was making the point that here in USA there ARE sports supported by the school system and to an extent subsidized. Basketball/Football/Baseball/Soccer most schools have teams and coaches and the access for children is much greater (not so elitist)

                                      As I said, USEF Dressage Committee giving the reason for the Rule as the need to adopt a European model to advance Dressage in USA...is just so given the huge differences between Europe and USA: culture,distance,equestrian history and resources.

                                      We are getting there! But why put the cart before the horse?

                                      Put the $$$ resources that would be used to track qualifying scores and subsidize training and educational clinics for YR's/Trainers/GMO's.
                                      Thats why I stated I my earlier post that you can't take a blueprint of the Dutch or German or Belgium or or or system and project this on the USA. But the USA can take a blueprint of the European system by replacing every country for a region or even a sub-region. For example : In Belgium (where dressage is still growing) 2 scores of >60%, In Poland 2 scores > 58%, in Holland 5 scores above 65% etc....

                                      But I keep repeating myself

                                      What I don't like about the pole on TOB is that 50% of the riders don't mind to ride in a class which is to high for them (including the horse).

                                      IMHO, this is the ROOT of the problem and the reason why the USET/USDF want to make these qualification rules.

                                      Comment


                                      • #39
                                        "Most judges do complete the score sheets with great care and try hard to give competitors the scores they deserve. Unfortunately, some riders do not agree or choose to ignore the judges’ comments."

                                        The above statement is quite true. I have scribed over 4,000 tests with about 18 judges (primarily west coast based), including 2 "O" judges and had only slight concern about one. I have seen very little difference in the way they score and all have been cosistant within their scoring. They are focused and work hard to be fair. It's not easy sitting up there watching 70+ rides in a day.

                                        Instead, I find riders and their trainers disagreeing and complaining. If you have never scribed, you should make the effort to do so. The view from the judge's booth is completely different than what you see from the ground. I cannot accurately view a ride from the ground so rarely even try. For example, I remember one adult rider who clearly did not have the talent she though she had nor the ability to ride the horse to its abilities. At a break I walked past her and overheard all her comments about the judge and the scoring. This woman was SO wrong. The judge was right on with every score and comment. It's just easier to blame the judge.

                                        I've also overheard comments about how great XXX movement was, but it was not a part of what speficially was being scored. I can't tell you how many points I have seen being thrown away by sloppy riding.

                                        I write the monthly newsletter at my barn and included some things I'v learned from scribing. I'll post them separately.

                                        Comment


                                        • #40
                                          I would say, Theo, that most riders over here do not compete above levels that they have been led to believe they are capable. On the thread you posted, one of those folk awhile back posted pictures of her riding. For the level that she was supposed to be showing, it was dreadful. Yet, she has a regular instructor who is encouraging her onward! As a rule, I do not see problems in the ring to the degree these pictures showed. However, I do see problems in the upper levels that are the direct results of missing parts in the lower levels. I tend to think that the problem in this country is more about how the judges are awarding scores. There is too much touchy, feely going on. Whether I would see the same things in your country at your lower levels I cannot be sure. But, I can tell you that the upper level videos that you post show signs of missing parts in the training as well.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X