• 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

Event Riders Petition to FEI to change the new MERs

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

  • Event Riders Petition to FEI to change the new MERs

    From ERA, the British equivalent of PRO:
    URGENT – We need you to support our petition to the FEI

    The FEI Eventing Committee meets early next week (w/c 4th March 2013). ERA (amongst others) has put forward proposals to try to alleviate some of the issues being caused by the new “Requirements to Participate”. Now we need your backing as riders, so please read and, if you can, support our online petition by clicking here.
    https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...share_petition
    Here's the petition:

    The new requirements to participate in Eventing introduced in 2013 are having considerable negative impact on riders and horses.

    1. Advanced horses and riders are having to go all the way back to 1-star competition, putting additional mileage on horses and extra costs on riders and owners. ERA propose that any horse and rider who have both achieved a 3-star or 4-star MER, should not be required to do 1-star level competitions regardless of Category.

    2. The requirement to achieve all FEI MERs as a combination is again impacting the welfare of horses and creating considerable additional cost for riders and owners and impacting the value of schoolmaster horses. ERA support the GBR NF proposal that where multiple MERs are required by the FEI, one of those MERs can be achieved separately by horse and rider.

    3. The MERs required for a Category are too high, even with the mitigations in place for 2013. ERA propose that the mitigations introduced as a temporary measure in 2013 are made permanent.

    4. 15 MERs at 3-Star level to gain a B Category is too hard, given the number of runs that are available and practical at that level. ERA propose that the number of 3-star MERs required to gain a Category B or A are immediately reduced to 10 and that the number of MERs is further reviewed before 2014.

    5. Defining an uncategorised International Athlete as a "National Rider" is derogatory and causing upset. ERA propose that the term "National Rider" rider is changed to "Uncategorised International Rider"
    Just thought that some US participation would be welcome.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire

  • #2
    Thanks vineyridge. Yes, US signatures very very welcome. Many riders are being very unfairly impacted by this rule, for instance Tiana Coudray is just ONE MER at 3* short of being Category B, which really affects her with new ride. The number the FEI has picked to set for gaining a Category is very high and it has been a real shock to a lot of people... if there had been a warning, other choices could have been made last season.
    For an explanation of how the rules impact on Amateurs in particular, it's worth having a look at the article I wrote at
    http://e-venting.co.uk/?p=200
    or at the extensive Q&A document on the www.eventridersassociation.org.uk site.
    Please get as many people as possible to sign the petition! Thanks.

    Comment


    • #3
      So basically there are only six US riders (with qualifications at the four star level) that could buy a four star horse and compete without requalifying? It seems that if both horse and rider are qualified for a level independently of each other they should be able to compete at that level together without having to requalify together. I understand if one or the other isn't qualified, but the three star rider at my barn could buy an experienced four star horse and still have to begin at the one star level if I'm understanding correctly.

      Comment


      • #4
        signed the petition and shared it on my network of horse friends/riders/equestrian businesses...
        “Always saddle your own horse. Always know what you’re doing. And go in the direction you are heading.” Connie Reeves
        Jump Start Solutions LLC

        Comment


        • #5
          eqsui, the 'going back to 1* level' is particularly badly thought out, I think. 2* maybe but 1* is too small for most Adv horses imho, and of course it impacts on the genuine 1* competitors...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by barnworkbeatshousework View Post
            signed the petition and shared it on my network of horse friends/riders/equestrian businesses...
            Great, thanks. We have about 350 signatures, need a lot more really! Please spread the word everyone.

            Comment


            • #7
              Can someone break this down into English?

              What is an MER?

              What is Category B or A?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ajierene View Post
                Can someone break this down into English?

                What is an MER?

                What is Category B or A?
                Minimum Eligibility Requirement

                http://www.fei.org/sites/default/fil...0%28USA%29.pdf

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wow that has to be one of the most non thought through rules they have come up with.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Signed. These qualification requirements will destroy the sport. It definitely destroys the ability of any amateur who may want/can get to the *** level and even puts at risk the ** amateur given what is need to maintain qualifications.

                    Perhaps this is a royal idiotness plan to decimate the sport as she originally wanted to do years ago?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RAyers View Post
                      These qualification requirements will destroy the sport. It definitely destroys the ability of any amateur who may want/can get to the *** level and even puts at risk the ** amateur given what is need to maintain qualifications.
                      How do you reckon that? I don't really think the categorization have a ton of impact on the typical amateur who might only have one or two horses. Basically, the amateurs will simply need to sticking to bringing horses up through the levels as a horse/rider pair. I don't necessarily think that's a terrible thing for amateurs.

                      For pros, I see many issues. For the average ammie, not so much. Particularly since the qualifications as a pair no longer expire. You don't need to maintain qualifications, you need to maintain categorization.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Divine Comedy View Post
                        Basically, the amateurs will simply need to sticking to bringing horses up through the levels as a horse/rider pair. I don't necessarily think that's a terrible thing for amateurs.
                        This is fine it it's your choice. I don't think the FEI should be foisting this on riders who don't choose to make eventing their career.

                        I'd like to see the data and statistical evidence that supports this FEI rule change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Signed and passed on.
                          I am on my phone 90% of the time. Please ignore typos, misplaced lower case letters, and the random word butchered by autocowreck.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JER View Post
                            This is fine it it's your choice. I don't think the FEI should be foisting this on riders who don't choose to make eventing their career.
                            Fair enough. I just think saying that it will "destroy the ability of any amateur who may want/can get to *** level" is a bit of an exaggeration. Destroy the ability of the young pro very possibly. But amateurs can still make it up through the level without too much difficulty if they make the choice to qualify as a pair. The amateur has fewer options (as in, can't buy more than a going 1* horse), but their ability isn't 'destroyed', in my opinion.

                            The young pro? Definitely could destroy their ability to build a business.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              And when it destroys the ability of the young pro to make a business the amateurs who found nothing wrong with the rule and did not speak up since hey this doesn't affect me can not complain when there are fewer and fewer schoolmasters in their price range as the only pros left are riders like Boyd, Karen etc to buy from.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Couture TB View Post
                                And when it destroys the ability of the young pro to make a business the amateurs who found nothing wrong with the rule and did not speak up since hey this doesn't affect me can not complain when there are fewer and fewer schoolmasters in their price range as the only pros left are riders like Boyd, Karen etc to buy from.
                                Excuse me, I didn't say I liked the rule. I did, in fact, sign the petition on behalf of all those young pros, many of whom are my friends. And also, not all amateurs buy schoolmasters. Please don't think that I am arguing in favor of the rule.

                                I am simply stating that, in my opinion, the rule change does not affect upper level amateurs all that much. Primarily they would simply have to choose to make their way up the levels through one avenue, but they DO have the ability to do it. To say their ability to move up the levels is 'destroyed' is, in my opinion, exaggerated.

                                I strongly disagree with the rule on behalf of all young pros (many of whom are NOT cheap to buy schoolmasters from, nor should they be if they produce quality horses!).

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by Divine Comedy View Post
                                  How do you reckon that? I don't really think the categorization have a ton of impact on the typical amateur who might only have one or two horses. Basically, the amateurs will simply need to sticking to bringing horses up through the levels as a horse/rider pair. I don't necessarily think that's a terrible thing for amateurs.

                                  For pros, I see many issues. For the average ammie, not so much. Particularly since the qualifications as a pair no longer expire. You don't need to maintain qualifications, you need to maintain categorization.
                                  There are plenty of amateurs who are older and who have the capabilities to run *** and ***** but who don't have the time to go back and start a new horse every time. They may have run that high in the past and now they have now "establishment" to allow them to go again. You speak because you are young and have plenty of time to start over, if YOU wish. Others don't have that option.

                                  You are right, the "average ammie" is not the concern, but the upper level ammie will be drummed out of the opportunity, e.g. destroyed.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by RAyers View Post
                                    There are plenty of amateurs who are older and who have the capabilities to run *** and ***** but who don't have the time to go back and start a new horse every time. They may have run that high in the past and now they have now "establishment" to allow them to go again. You speak because you are young and have plenty of time to start over, if YOU wish. Others don't have that option.
                                    That's a valid concern that I hadn't considered. I suppose it also makes difficulties for the Nina Ligons, Ronald Zabalas, and Carl Bouckarts (Not sure if I spelled that correctly) of the sport as well. Even the Japanese, who did so well on the first phase this time around. And since those all made it to the Olympics by getting enough points on qualified upper level horses, that would certainly change the landscape of the Olympics in a direction that I wouldn't necessarily agree with. Regardless of the state of the amateur at the upper levels, this rule certainly would destroy the ability of the amateur to ride in the Olympics.

                                    I still think destroy is a bit strong of a word for the upper levels, but I completely concede that it is not as simple as I was perceiving it.

                                    As an aside, I absolutely think it was total bullsh** to introduce this rule without a year's warning to allow people to at least try to get their ducks in order for categorization qualifications. Or qualifications in general, as I'm aware of at least one person who now needs another CIC3* before Rolex when she thought herself qualified.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      We as Americans always seem to be blindsided, or at least behind the curve, on these FEI rule changes. I am not sure WHO at the USET should be watching the store, but I would like to point out that we need to be as up on the rule changes while they are in the committee stages, as the European nations. The way to do THAT, I assume, is to have a couple of folks on these committees or attending the meetings, or simply hobnobbing in Europe with the people who are proposing changes. Does that happen?

                                      We always seem to have a sort of "you stink" attitude toward the FEI and I daresay....that attitude does have a record of biting us in the ass on a regular basis. (Weighted hind boots?)

                                      By the time they put these changes through, they've gone through a process of comment and exchange or at least on paper that is what is done. I am just sayin'...isn't there someone at the USET keeping up on this stuff BEFORE it gets to the point of no return?

                                      They do not want riders like the Japanese (first in dressage, last in XC) in the Olympics and World championships in eventing, and I think personally these regs are designed to stop that carnage. I think it (London) WAS unsafe and unfair most of all to the horses in that example.

                                      The FEI will be effective in achieving that goal if the regs stay the same. I don't think they give a crap about amateurs or professionals with these regs. But if it is hard on the horses that is where you have to go to change it. The most powerful argument, in my opinion. They want to insure that pairs qualify together, and that one does not simply buy the ride by the deadline. Doesn't that try to take money OUT of the equation? To ensure performance qualifies the rider and horse together?
                                      Proud & Permanent Student Of The Long Road
                                      Read me: EN (http://eventingnation.com/author/annemarch/) and HJU (http://horsejunkiesunited.com/author/holly-covey/)

                                      Comment

                                      • Original Poster

                                        #20
                                        Robert Kellerhouse is ON the FEI Eventing Committee. IIRC, there are only six members on that committee. If he isn't communicating and working with the USEF at the preliminary stages, there would be a problem. But, and I'm just guessiing here, he probably does keep the USEF in the loop.

                                        The difference between the US and GB is how very active in all ways BE seems to be compared with USEA. Of course, they probably are much better funded.

                                        Part of the problem seems to be lack of communication with the affected people at early stages of the discussion. Whether that is a USEF flaw or an FEI, who can tell?

                                        Originally posted by retreadeventer View Post
                                        We as Americans always seem to be blindsided, or at least behind the curve, on these FEI rule changes. I am not sure WHO at the USET should be watching the store, but I would like to point out that we need to be as up on the rule changes while they are in the committee stages, as the European nations. The way to do THAT, I assume, is to have a couple of folks on these committees or attending the meetings, or simply hobnobbing in Europe with the people who are proposing changes. Does that happen?

                                        We always seem to have a sort of "you stink" attitude toward the FEI and I daresay....that attitude does have a record of biting us in the ass on a regular basis. (Weighted hind boots?)

                                        By the time they put these changes through, they've gone through a process of comment and exchange or at least on paper that is what is done. I am just sayin'...isn't there someone at the USET keeping up on this stuff BEFORE it gets to the point of no return?

                                        They do not want riders like the Japanese (first in dressage, last in XC) in the Olympics and World championships in eventing, and I think personally these regs are designed to stop that carnage. I think it (London) WAS unsafe and unfair most of all to the horses in that example.

                                        The FEI will be effective in achieving that goal if the regs stay the same. I don't think they give a crap about amateurs or professionals with these regs. But if it is hard on the horses that is where you have to go to change it. The most powerful argument, in my opinion. They want to insure that pairs qualify together, and that one does not simply buy the ride by the deadline. Doesn't that try to take money OUT of the equation? To ensure performance qualifies the rider and horse together?
                                        "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                                        Thread killer Extraordinaire

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X