• 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

RF Amber Eyes/Commentary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Perhaps what's needed is for the USEF to publish "authoritative" guidance memos on what counts as "competition" when a horse is imported. The rule on one lifetime number per horse is so clear that it really doesn't need interpretation.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RugBug View Post
      I don't get this line of thought at all. Why would you feel bad about being beaten by someone who is cheating if the results are corrected? in the end you won, right?

      Is it just because you got beaten in the first place? Well, that happens all the time. Just turns out this time, it wasn't correct and you actually didn't get beaten. Hurrah! You probably didn't know at the time that they were cheating, so it wouldn't make a lick of difference in how you felt about the placings until after the fact...when you became aware of the ineligibility either through your own sources or the show contacting you to redistribute prizes/points.

      Is it because you didn't get the applause from any spectators that were watching when you won but didn't win? That's kind of shallow.

      Really, if you (royal you) are fragile enough that not getting the placing you (royal you) deserve is going to spin you for a loop, I would suggest not showing at all. As anyone who has shown long enough knows, sometimes you deserve to win and don't. Sometimes you don't deserve to win and do. It's the nature of the sport. In this case, someone else did deserve to win...and unlike those other times, the results will be corrected and that person wins! Yea!

      Those that are taking the position that it isn't a big deal, that everyone does it or that it can be fixed by taking away some ribbons when someone is actually caught out may be missing part of the bigger picture.

      While according to some on this thread, my thoughts don't matter as I don't compete in the hunters, I'm inclined to add my two cents anyway. From my perspective, the RF Amber Eyes/Commentary debacle* isn't so much about this particular horse, but about the sport as a whole.

      I self-identify as an eventer, even though I haven't competed in years. As I contemplate a return to horse ownership and competing, I've come to realize that I may not ever really event again. I've become a bit of a chicken in my "old" age and I'm just not sure I have the desire to go as quickly from jump to jump as a return to eventing or the jumpers would require. In many ways, the hunters would be the logical avenue to pursue - I sure do like fancy jumping horses.

      And yet....I have a real gut aversion to going down that path. I don't deny that every discipline has its issues, but the open secret of how experienced jumping horses suddenly become green has long sat wrong with me and has been a very real deterrent. Perhaps some would view it as inconsequential since most of the "green" horses are not so green, and thus there is an essentially even playing field. But as someone who would be inclined to buy an actual green baby horse, and would probably then enjoy watching it compete as a green horse....issues like these are an actual deterrent.

      Why not admit its a problem and address it? It could be as "simple" as a rule change. If the green division officially becomes a venue for horses with only a certain amount hunter experience, then at least everyone is playing by the same written rules.



      *tongue firmly in-cheek

      Comment


      • But Backstage, the "industry" is not at all interested in you. They're interested in people with lots of $$, who never had to take a hiatus from horse ownership, and possibly don't ride anyway, and who are either ignorant enough to just do whatever the trainer says, or knowledgable enough of the "real world" to step on whoever in pursuit of the goals specifiec by their trainer. In that kind of rarified and very insular world, there are rules, and then there are rules ... And it don't really matter what the USEF says, and the USEF darned well knows it because they know on which side their bread is buttered.

        "Fair" is the back-country show where the hoi-polloy show their backyard horses. Fair is not an element of how they do the horseshow business, no matter in what part of speech the word is used.
        "One person's cowboy is another person's blooming idiot" -- katarine

        Spay and neuter. Please.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by monstrpony View Post
          But Backstage, the "industry" is not at all interested in you. They're interested in people with lots of $$, who never had to take a hiatus from horse ownership, and possibly don't ride anyway, and who are either ignorant enough to just do whatever the trainer says, or knowledgable enough of the "real world" to step on whoever in pursuit of the goals specifiec by their trainer. In that kind of rarified and very insular world, there are rules, and then there are rules ... And it don't really matter what the USEF says, and the USEF darned well knows it because they know on which side their bread is buttered.

          "Fair" is the back-country show where the hoi-polloy show their backyard horses. Fair is not an element of how they do the horseshow business, no matter in what part of speech the word is used.
          Obviously, there are trainers who would not be interested in my money - not enough zeros. But I don't think it can be said that "the industry" as a whole is not interested in my money. There are lots of pros who would like the ride on a nice quality AA green hunter, even if it wouldn't involve showing 40 weeks of the year.

          In any event, people with the funds to show on the level you contemplate have actually made similar comments in my presence. Not about this issue in particular, but other issues with the hunter ring. I can safely say that the industry is interested in their money.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by KellyS View Post
            There are a couple of people bound and determined to make excuses why it's okay NOT to follow the rules the USEF has set forth. Or why it's okay for rule breakers to do so and perhaps get caught later. Too bad if you followed the rules, maybe you'll get your points and prizes later on, maybe not.

            What a lousy attitude to have toward fellow competitors! I guess it's okay for Kelley Farmer to show in the amateur division as well while we are at it.
            Originally posted by Backstage View Post
            Those that are taking the position that it isn't a big deal, that everyone does it or that it can be fixed by taking away some ribbons when someone is actually caught out may be missing part of the bigger picture.

            So I'm posting this again because I feel like I'm being pointed out as one who is making excuses as why it is okay to not follow the rules. This is NOT what is happening at all, but some are having a hard time realizing that you can feel one way about something without villifying people you don't know at all. At times on this board, you have to be either this or that: you cannot be some of this and a little of that without people's heads exploding and them losing their ability to see nuance.

            Originally posted by RugBug View Post
            Let me clearly state my stance on this whole thing:

            I DO NOT condone that the horse was re-registered.
            I DO NOT condone that the breeding information was not included.
            I DO NOT condone that the age was changed.
            I DO NOT condone that the horse was shown in classes which is was not eligible for.
            I DO believe all points/pizes for the ineligible divisions should be stripped and redistributed.
            I DO believe the USEF should enforce its own rules, across the board

            Where I am willing to cut some slack:

            Because I cannot determine someone's intent in this matter, I AM NOT willing to decide why something was done. Maybe the intent was to lie and cheat. Maybe it wasn't.
            I have a hard time faulting someone for following an accepted practice. I believe this is the USEF's issue, not the person doing it as it's always been done.
            I Do NOT think that changing from German Sporthorse to Warmblood is a problem.
            Originally posted by KellyS View Post
            My question is: What about the competitor in the first or second year greens that realizes another horse is ineligible for the division per USEF rules
            and ponies up the $200 to file an official protest?

            Is the answer going to be, "Well sorry, but we don't make everyone follow that rule?" Or, "If you didn't receive the special email that says the division doesn't actually follow its own rules, it sucks to be you?"
            Please tell me where anyone suggested the infraction be ignored?

            Originally posted by Backstage
            Why not admit its a problem and address it? It could be as "simple" as a rule change. If the green division officially becomes a venue for horses with only a certain amount hunter experience, then at least everyone is playing by the same written rules.


            I actually agree with you. There is a problem that needs to be fixed, whether that be with better enforcement (hard to do) or a new rule.
            Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
            Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

            Comment


            • RugBug, now you know how I feel?!
              ~Veronica
              "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
              http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

              Comment


              • Originally posted by monstrpony View Post
                "Fair" is the back-country show where the hoi-polloy show their backyard horses.
                Really? Is this tongue in cheek? Because I see just as many rule infractions at the backyard country shows. It's a lot easier to cheat, if that's your thing, at the unregulated shows than at the big ones. And there are little to no repercussions...even in CA where we have state paid drug testing. People compete in wrong divisions ALL.THE.TIME at backyard shows. It's an honor system without a lot of honor, if you ask me.

                Originally posted by vxf111 View Post
                RugBug, now you know how I feel?!
                I do.
                Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
                Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

                Comment


                • Because I cannot determine someone's intent in this matter, I AM NOT willing to decide why something was done. Maybe the intent was to lie and cheat. Maybe it wasn't.
                  I have a hard time faulting someone for following an accepted practice. I believe this is the USEF's issue, not the person doing it as it's always been done.
                  I Do NOT think that changing from German Sporthorse to Warmblood is a problem.
                  Its not just an "accepted practice", its an accepted practice that directly contravenes a pretty clear rule. I don't really see the point in vilifying someone on the internet but a person's actions, or inaction in the case of willful blindness, do say something about a person. I think you can "fault" them for that, even if its just on the internet.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Backstage View Post
                    Its not just an "accepted practice", its an accepted practice that directly contravenes a pretty clear rule. I don't really see the point in vilifying someone on the internet but a person's actions, or inaction in the case of willful blindness, do say something about a person. I think you can "fault" them for that, even if its just on the internet.
                    But its the rulemakers or rather enforcers that have said it is accepted, so I don't get faulting someone for that. If it wasn't the USEF saying it was an accepted practice, I'd be faulting the perps along with everyone else.

                    I'm also not okay with your comment about "willful" blindness. It implies that you know intent. You do not. It might be willful. It might not be. It might not make the outcome any different (rules were still broken) but it does change perceptions about a person's character.
                    Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
                    Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RugBug View Post
                      But its the rulemakers or rather enforcers that have said it is accepted, so I don't get faulting someone for that. If it wasn't the USEF saying it was an accepted practice, I'd be faulting the perps along with everyone else.

                      I'm also not okay with your comment about "willful" blindness. It implies that you know intent. You do not. It might be willful. It might not be. It might not make the outcome any different (rules were still broken) but it does change perceptions about a person's character.
                      Fortunately, we don't have to agree, and you don't have to be "ok" with my comment.

                      I can definitely understand you point of view regarding the fact that the USEF appears to endorsing the common practice. I can understand it, but I don't share it.

                      As for willful blindness, I don't think debating the finer points is a super use of our time especially as I'm not a criminal lawyer, but in these circumstances (i.e. an FEI horse purchased in the US as opposed to a random import off a plane), I view it as willful blindness. You don't have to agree.

                      Comment


                      • How do we know the USEF endorses looking the other way? Someone somewhere said the USEF gave email permission for something... but how do we know that's true or that the USEF was given complete information when it made that determination. And what I the effect of USEF emails on rule enforcement?
                        ~Veronica
                        "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
                        http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RugBug View Post
                          Really? Is this tongue in cheek? Because I see just as many rule infractions at the backyard country shows. It's a lot easier to cheat, if that's your thing, at the unregulated shows than at the big ones. And there are little to no repercussions...even in CA where we have state paid drug testing. People compete in wrong divisions ALL.THE.TIME at backyard shows. It's an honor system without a lot of honor, if you ask me.
                          You misunderstood my use of "fair". I meant that the only use of the word that they recognized was in the "county fair" sense. Fairness is a foreign concept. Yes, I was being harsh
                          "One person's cowboy is another person's blooming idiot" -- katarine

                          Spay and neuter. Please.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by vxf111 View Post
                            How do we know the USEF endorses looking the other way? Someone somewhere said the USEF gave email permission for something... but how do we know that's true or that the USEF was given complete information when it made that determination. And what I the effect of USEF emails on rule enforcement?
                            I would imagine it goes something like this:

                            Horse A's experience is called into question. USEF looks into the matter and determines that Horse A is not eligible for XX classes due to European history (if they can find it through name changes, etc).

                            Owner of Horse A produces email from USEF saying European experience does not count when calculating green status.

                            USEF says the email is immaterial as official rule interpretations can only come from XX source within USEF.

                            Owner A is fined and/or all invalid results are stricken.


                            USEF will cover its backside no matter what...that I am sure of.

                            Originally posted by monstrpony View Post
                            You misunderstood my use of "fair". I meant that the only use of the word that they recognized was in the "county fair" sense. Fairness is a foreign concept. Yes, I was being harsh
                            OMG. I read that so many times and never got there. D'oh. *hangs head in shame for missing it.*
                            Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
                            Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

                            Comment


                            • The USEFs decision of what rules to enforce, when and to whom is interesting. I'm no big rider or trainer, but I'm a longtime member and go to a few big shows every year. One year, there was a clerical error on my paperwork..either my horse wasn't registered or something of that sort. It was done at the show (Devon). I had moved and next thing I know, by Warrenton I'm suspended. It all got sorted out and was fine, but I was sweating it. I have been meticulous ever since...and I DON'T do it for a living.... They were justified but I certainly was not getting any slack or sympathy.

                              My SO actually remembered it when we were talking about this over dinner. Guess I'm not a big enough fish.
                              Come to the dark side, we have cookies

                              Comment


                              • There are errors and there are mistakes. And then there's wrangling CCI** horses through the green hunter ranks. They change their names out a fear of embarrassment and spam from Pat Parelli.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by RugBug View Post

                                  So, does #1, trump #2? In other words, does the verbiage in number 1 of "Regular Competitions or Eventing Competitions of the Federation or Equine Canada or any national or international competition" overrule the statement that a horse has broken it's green status once it competes over fences higher than 3'6"? Are they "and" statements, "or" statements or "and/or" statements?

                                  Honest question, because I read that rule and see some contradiction.

                                  From the USEF rule book:

                                  HU103 Green Status - Hunter.
                                  1. A Green Hunter is a horse of any age in its first or second year of showing in any classes in which the national specifications require horses to jump 3’6” or higher, regardless of whether or not the fences are actually set at 3’6” or higher at Regular Competitions or Eventing Competitions of the Federation or Equine Canada or any national or international competition.
                                  a.When shown in a Green section a horse in its first year of showing over fences
                                  3’6” or higher must be shown as a First Year Green horse.
                                  b.When shown in a Green section a horse in its second year of showing over
                                  fences 3’6” or higher must be shown as a Second Year Green horse.
                                  2. A horse’s green status is considered to be broken once it competes over fences 3’6” or higher.
                                  3. If a competition starts prior to or on November 30th, Green status at the start of the competition is maintained throughout the competition.

                                  From my understanding, and someone can correct me if I am wrong is that #1 is the definiation of a green horse so only Regular Competitions, Eventing Competitions of the Federation or Equine Canada and national or international competition count for determination of green status. #2 is how you break green status, however if given #1 only Regular competions etc would cause that break. I agree it is very confusing and like most of the rule book not very clearly written.

                                  Everyone I know that has ever questioned this has gotten the same answer, that unrated competitions don't count.

                                  It really doesn't matter to me since I can't remember the last time I saw any 3'6" classes at schooling shows around here
                                  Auventera Two:Some women would eat their own offspring if they had some dipping sauce.
                                  Serious Leigh: it sounds like her drama llama should be an old schoolmaster by now.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by RugBug View Post
                                    So, does #1, trump #2? In other words, does the verbiage in number 1 of "Regular Competitions or Eventing Competitions of the Federation or Equine Canada or any national or international competition" overrule the statement that a horse has broken it's green status once it competes over fences higher than 3'6"? Are they "and" statements, "or" statements or "and/or" statements?

                                    No. They are not inconsistent.

                                    Comment


                                    • With regards to acquiring a USEF registration number:
                                      Perhaps the USEF should add some small boxes to check before a signature is written on the form:
                                      1. Was this horse recently purchased?
                                      2. To the best of my knowledge, trainers, buyers & sellers knowledge - this horse has never been issued a lifetime recording number or usef ID number prior to purchase.
                                      3. I understand I could be subject to suspension and fines if horse if found to have been issued a previous number.
                                      4. Signature

                                      This might make people slow down and research and question buyers, sellers , trainers, etc about the history of a horse.

                                      Comment


                                      • This is a great idea. But it doesn't address foreign imports with numbers that track their competition history, such as FEI numbers, microchips or UELNs that were issued in foreign countries.

                                        Originally posted by 80s rider View Post
                                        With regards to acquiring a USEF registration number:
                                        Perhaps the USEF should add some small boxes to check before a signature is written on the form:
                                        1. Was this horse recently purchased?
                                        2. To the best of my knowledge, trainers, buyers & sellers knowledge - this horse has never been issued a lifetime recording number or usef ID number prior to purchase.
                                        3. I understand I could be subject to suspension and fines if horse if found to have been issued a previous number.
                                        4. Signature

                                        This might make people slow down and research and question buyers, sellers , trainers, etc about the history of a horse.
                                        "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                                        Thread killer Extraordinaire

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Zanny View Post
                                          There are errors and there are mistakes. And then there's wrangling CCI** horses through the green hunter ranks. They change their names out a fear of embarrassment and spam from Pat Parelli.
                                          This made me LOL! Thank you!

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X