• 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

3rd level double/ qualifications info from Janet Brown-Foy

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

  • 3rd level double/ qualifications info from Janet Brown-Foy

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (I posted this on the eventing forum first as they were worried about ULR being able to do 3rd/4th without sacrificing great time/money away from their events schedules (harder is some areas than others ).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRry1KLvJ2U

    What this link for a good idea of what Brown thinks the proposal will look like. Its very informative (includes double bridle at 3rd level and qualifications info) She stated "10 points" to move up (means you can move up with two weekends if you score in the upper sixties).

    This set of videos is also a very interesting to watch! Thanks so much to the poster! Look at their other videos, its training (A) through FEI (S).

  • #2
    Two thoughts on the video:

    1. When I was in college, I was preparing for a career in science. That is different than preparing for my hobby. But more importantly, lets not forget that a "C" is a passing grade, Janet, and no one was held back a grade for getting a C. They advanced to the next level. Why does she think that the system of standards for dressage should be higher than for college? Or higher than the previous USDF medal system? Or the previous GAIG/USDF Qualifying system?

    2. Only two weekends of showing if you score in the high 60's at third level? Piece of cake, right?
    Last edited by J-Lu; Dec. 16, 2007, 11:37 AM. Reason: kant spel rite
    Proud member of the Colbert Dressage Nation

    Comment


    • #3
      I wholeheartedly agree with J-Lu. In addition, I'm completely unconvinced that there is sufficient "problem" to be solved by imposing qualifying points. A review of published scores from recognized shows indicates that almost NO one is scoring at below "satisfactory" levels currently. USDF/USEF (e.g., TDs, Judges, show managers) should dismiss problem riders from shows, not burden the rest of us unnecessarily. The national organizations can't keep up with their recordkeeping requirements now and won't be able to handle the extra burden. Rules like this will drive AAs and Juniors out of the national organizations by imposing time/cost/other bureaucratic requirements, will hurt trainers and breeders who sell trained horses that AA buyers and Juniors won't be able to show, will encourage over-showing, long-hauling and stressed horses, will hold back talented riders and horses, and is "un-American" in that it would create a dressage "class system" that is totally contrary to the ethic of open opportunity that this country stands for. And for those of us AAs or Juniors with busy professional lives or school obligations who only manage to show 2 or 3 times per year, Janet's idea of 10 points would likely take us between 3 and 5 years to accumulate, because even the professional riders rarely score 69%+. Does this woman realize how ridiculous it sounds when she says she intends to impose a requirement that would apply to every rider that is tougher than for championship classes and medals? When a 5 is "sufficient" and a 6 is "satisfactory," scores in that range ought to indicate that one is not harming the horse when riding or executing the movements. If they don't, the organization has a judging problem, not a competitor problem.

      Comment


      • #4
        I really don't have much to say about the rule changes, but THANK YOU for the links to these videos!

        WOW! Very informative and I love to watch the rides!

        Mountain View Farm
        Diva 5-7-07, Dolce 5-19-08, Devo 6-10-09

        When handling yourself....use your head. When handling your horse....use your heart!<3

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DennisM View Post
          I wholeheartedly agree with J-Lu. In addition, I'm completely unconvinced that there is sufficient "problem" to be solved by imposing qualifying points. A review of published scores from recognized shows indicates that almost NO one is scoring at below "satisfactory" levels currently. USDF/USEF (e.g., TDs, Judges, show managers) should dismiss problem riders from shows, not burden the rest of us unnecessarily. The national organizations can't keep up with their recordkeeping requirements now and won't be able to handle the extra burden. Rules like this will drive AAs and Juniors out of the national organizations by imposing time/cost/other bureaucratic requirements, will hurt trainers and breeders who sell trained horses that AA buyers and Juniors won't be able to show, will encourage over-showing, long-hauling and stressed horses, will hold back talented riders and horses, and is "un-American" in that it would create a dressage "class system" that is totally contrary to the ethic of open opportunity that this country stands for. And for those of us AAs or Juniors with busy professional lives or school obligations who only manage to show 2 or 3 times per year, Janet's idea of 10 points would likely take us between 3 and 5 years to accumulate, because even the professional riders rarely score 69%+. Does this woman realize how ridiculous it sounds when she says she intends to impose a requirement that would apply to every rider that is tougher than for championship classes and medals? When a 5 is "sufficient" and a 6 is "satisfactory," scores in that range ought to indicate that one is not harming the horse when riding or executing the movements. If they don't, the organization has a judging problem, not a competitor problem.
          GREAT post.
          Roseknoll Sporthorses
          www.roseknoll.net

          Comment


          • #6
            I think they are failing to take a lot into consideration. Just a few are that not everyone has unlimited time and funds to campaign a horse and that the grading system is weighted towards people with higher quality horses and can reward that more than just good riding. It defeats the purpose of what they are trying to do.

            Why not just give the judge the authority to blow the whistle on someone who is "abusing" the double bridle or riding so badly that it is abusive to the horse or a horse that is acting up so bad that they could injure themselves or someone else? God knows I've watched riders with such poor control of their bodies that they spurred the horses in the sides every step during sitting trot. We've all watched people at all levels who had no business being out there and we've all seen horses that were so bad as to be dangerous.

            In eventing, a technical delegate has the ability to stop any rider and eliminate them on the spot for dangerous or "abusive" riding. Give the dressage judges that authority as well.

            I'd much rather see a system in place on judging the riders than just using the total scores of a test. Make it so that you have to score at least a 6 in collective marks as a rider to move up in several tests or something much simpler than this scoring system.

            Comment


            • #7
              The video is the same one that was first linked to the other post and whether it is 10 points or 20 points, I agree with Dennis-it is "un American". Most of the AA riders are doing this for fun, it is their hobby and an outlet for their otherwise stressed and busy lives so the point of inflicting this PENALTY is for what reason?!! I agree that if a judge sees someone abusing the double, they have the right to either eliminate that person or give them low scores, for the rest of us to suffer is ridiculous for what we pay the USDF/USEF to be members!

              By every thread and every posting I have seen to date, it is obvious to me that this is not a popular decision for many reasons:

              1)USEF and USDF cannot even get/keep our scores correct now (see other thread).
              2)THIS RULE IS STILL NOT THE RESOLUTION FOR DOUBLE BRIDLE ABUSE!!!!!!!!!!
              3)It will unfairly hold riders back due to not enough shows in their area or they will over extend themselves and their horses by attending too many shows to chase their points.
              4)Many individuals that used to volunteer their time have said they will cut that, hmm, who will be helping out at these shows if that happens?
              5)Schooling shows will be overwhelmed!

              Frankly, I am now at a time/age that if they put this rule through, I will speak with my feet and not pay them another dime. As a rider, I pay to compete in dressage classes, as a breeder, I am generally showing my young horses(not only do we have to pay entry fees, but these youngsters must have a lifetime number for qualifying for year end awards-add these costs up), might not add up to enough impact just myself, but if everyone were to do this, they would eventually be broke! How many times have we paid to have a new logo, new stationary, etc. for USEF to change their name?!

              Again, since I am a "Participating Member" (which I am told I HAVE to be) why am I not participating in a vote on this rule? Somehow I feel like I am not participating here.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daydream Believer View Post

                Why not just give the judge the authority to blow the whistle on someone who is "abusing" the double bridle or riding so badly that it is abusive to the horse or a horse that is acting up so bad that they could injure themselves or someone else? ....

                In eventing, a technical delegate has the ability to stop any rider and eliminate them on the spot for dangerous or "abusive" riding. Give the dressage judges that authority as well.
                Judges have it. They are loathe to use the authority because it really makes a mess of schedules. So, if they think the ride isn't downright dangerous or absolutely abusive, they often choose not to stop the ride, but alert the TD of the competitor's number to watch for the rest of the show (especially in eventing, they want the TD to know about potential problems before the pair get on the X-C) and make very sure the competitor understands the problem through not just scores, but direct comments on the test sheet.

                Judges are absolutely required to stop a test if there is any sight of blood. At all.

                If there is any doubt, the judge holds the rider and calls for a TD to make final determination. The TD may allow the rider to return to the arena and re-ride or decide to eliminate.

                This rule seems to me about "clearing out the top" not truly the safety of competitors and good treatment of horses. More bad stuff happens in the warmup, anyway, at any level.

                I agree with DennisM's post.
                *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

                Comment


                • #9
                  DayDream Believer brought up a good point. How many times do we see riders abusing spurs with their floppy legs?
                  I wasn't always a Smurf
                  Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
                  "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
                  The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I had already posted this link on another thread at least a week ago.

                    This clinic where the films were made took place in New Jersey in October. Therefore the proposed "standards" that were passed out at the USDF convention in Florida at the end of November/first of December post-date this film.

                    Since this film was made and since the convention, much has transpired re people talking about the proposed rule change and standards. Things are not the same as they were when the film was made.

                    The film was interesting in that it showed that this proposal and "standards" were being discussed with a small group way back in October. My point was that we never heard about it right before the USDF convention where lots more people had a chance to talk about it. If we had been kept more informed we could have sent our delegates to the convention with MUCH more feedback for the members of the USEF Dressage Committee, most or all of whom were at the USDF convention.

                    So while the film was interesting, it's old news. It does provide, to me, further evidence that this is about the double bridle and abusive riding, at least to Janet.

                    Again, I say--empower judges and protect them when they call it as they see it. They are afraid to use the rule re abusive riding, or to give riders below a 5 or 6, for fear of retribution, complaints to USEF, and not getting promoted or asked back to judge. I have that in writing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      PS

                      God help me if I have to ride in front of some of the people I've bugged by my stance and actions regarding this proposal!! I'm not implying that they would judge me unfairly but I am sure they won't cut me any slack, either. Not that I, or anyone, deserves it...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by J-Lu View Post
                        Two thoughts on the video:

                        1. When I was in college, I was preparing for a career in science. That is different than preparing for my hobby. But more importantly, lets not forget that a "C" is a passing grade, Janet, and no one was held back a grade for getting a C. They advanced to the next level. Why does she think that the system of standards for dressage should be higher than for college? Or higher than the previous USDF medal system? Or the previous GAIG/USDF Qualifying system?

                        2. Only two weekends of showing if you score in the high 60's at third level? Piece of cake, right?
                        In my college, "C" gpa got you kicked out of most of the good schools - you could scrape by in general ed or communications, but if you wanted to be in Business or Engineering or many of the Science fields, you needed at least a C+ to stay in the school. I don't think we can compare college to dressage.

                        What I hope does happen is the rules committee pays attention to what is going on in the dressage community, and they realize perhaps this proposal won't really work? I also hope they rethink the double at 3rd level and simply get RID OF IT. I personally am not opposed to a system that requires you hit certain score requirements before you move up the ranks - but I realize, reading the posts here, maybe 20 points is WAY TOO MUCH. And USEF is not ready to handle the paperwork! Janet's original estimate of 10 points seems much more reasonable. But USEF needs an infrastructure in place to process and analyze scores before they implement such a requirement.

                        The two big California GMOs are doing a pretty hard campaign w/ their membership - hopefully other regional GMOs are also getting into the fray. Make your voices heard by contacting the Rules Committee. In writing...
                        www.MysticOakRanch.com Friesian/Warmblood Crosses, the Ultimate Sporthorse
                        Director, WTF Registry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          [QUOTE=J-Lu;2870648]Two thoughts on the video:

                          But more importantly, lets not forget that a "C" is a passing grade, Janet, and no one was held back a grade for getting a C. They advanced to the next level. Why does she think that the system of standards for dressage should be higher than for college? :



                          Because the college professors don't have to grade you in the same ole test, weekend after weekend, after you've graduated!
                          dq140

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In another of those videos, I was astounded to hear Janet Foy (and steffen agreeing with her) that if the horse doesn't stretch his frame in the lenghten trot she doesn't care and gives a good score. Where is dressagae headed with these people making these decisions? It is no different than the horse who is trained correctly to keep his balance on a stretchie circle!!! Then in the next breath she says she wants the training correct before the riders move up the levels. If you don't have enough self carriage to let the horse stretch down in the lenthened trot, by God, you shouldn't move up to any kind of level from that!! As well, in my mind, any "GOOD RIDER" as she calls them, should be able to ride a GP test in the snaffle BRIDLE. What a bunch of baloney these two clowns are!!!
                            dq140

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              C is a passing grade. In college, they impose rules on grades to limit the number of people in the program. So saying you must have a C+ to stay in the program isn't because a C means one is incompetent, it's because they only have a certain number of slots available for the program and this culls the herd.

                              So, are they saying they want to limit the number of riders?

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Elegante E View Post
                                C is a passing grade. In college, they impose rules on grades to limit the number of people in the program. So saying you must have a C+ to stay in the program isn't because a C means one is incompetent, it's because they only have a certain number of slots available for the program and this culls the herd.

                                So, are they saying they want to limit the number of riders?
                                That won't happen for long as the USDF, show managers, and the dressage clubs will lose too much money
                                dq140

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Instead of forcing riders to make the scores, before moving up, I suggest they feed the judges some starch. We have all witnessed riders who had absolutely no business riding First, much less Third or Fourth, in the arena attempting to perform. I realize they never got good scores, but how many judges sent them from the arena?

                                  As said before, there are many good ammie riders, living in areas where recognized shows are hard to come by. It costs them a fortune to show each time. Even if they make all their "good" scores in one w/e. That can put them out of a move up for month, or a year.
                                  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


                                  • #18
                                    I'm on a rampage now! And while we're at it, lets make up a class for GP riders, snaffle bridle only, who can't move up to a rated GP test or international shows until they score over 60%. That would settle things right up!!! Maybe it would get rid of some of these people who are now setting the stage for dressage!!
                                    dq140

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      The whole problem of this mess starts with the major error of allowing the double bridle at 3rd level. Take the double of 3rd level and still leave the snaffle as an option for 4th level.

                                      Then go back basics of the rider performance awards, don't move up until you have cmpetitively competed at "x" level with 4 or more scores of 60% or higher (not necessaily winning the class but in the top end of the class) to move onto the next level on that particular horse.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by rebecca yount View Post
                                        Again, I say--empower judges and protect them when they call it as they see it. They are afraid to use the rule re abusive riding, or to give riders below a 5 or 6, for fear of retribution, complaints to USEF, and not getting promoted or asked back to judge. I have that in writing.
                                        Afraid or unwilling ... yes, I agree that complaints are a huge issue, especially since the USEF doesn't have a strong history of supporting its officials from the first-hand accounts I've heard. And of course, not being asked back is very influential.

                                        To TDs as well as to judges.

                                        I don't know how to "fix" that.
                                        *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X