• 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

Proposed USHJA rule change STINKS

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

  • Proposed USHJA rule change STINKS

    Last weekend was the Vermont Hunter Jumper Association (VHJA) annual meeting. One interesting outcome of the meeting was a call to oppose a new USHJA proposed rule change that would effectively end equitation qualifying classes at our local VHJA "C" rated shows.

    Here's what the proposal says: "Qualifying classes for the Finals of the USEF Hunter Seat Medal, USEF Pony Medal, USEF Adult Medal, ASPCA Maclay, USEF Talent Search and WIHS Equitation may not be held at USEF Local rated competitions."

    The stated intent of the proposed rule change?
    "To insure that classes qualifying for the major Hunter Seat Equitation finals are held at rated competitions. This will assist developing grass roots equitation classes that can be held at the local level." Here's a link to the complete proposed rule change.

    http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/289-09.pdf

    Gee, that's nice. So you want us to host and plan our own equitation classes and finals, pay dues to you, and travel hundreds of miles so our kids can qualify for the Maclay, USEF and other national medal finals? Thanks so much! And oh, by the way, we already have outstanding local equitation classes and finals, see: New England Medal Finals. So, if I read you correctly, USHJA, you're saying: thanks, but why don't you just stay home and let the big kids play at the national finals?

    Fran Dotoli, USEF judge, and committee member of the USEF and USHJA Licensed Officials Education, Zone 1, is proposing a tea party of protest.

    Fran Dotoli has penned a letter to Bill Moroney, of USHJA, and proposer (is that a word?) of the rule change. She states what she assumes to be the objectives of the proposed rule change: (1) Continue to upgrade and standardize show classifications, and (2) Decrease the number of equitation exhibitors, especially at the USEF Medal at Harrisburg.

    According to VHJA, the proposed rule change is seen as beneficial in the wider national perspective, but there are other proposals on the table that would accomplish these goals without having an adverse effect on Local Member shows. I'm not clear on the "wider national perspective," but I'm all ears if anyone would like to enlighten me.

    Fran Dotoli recommends emailing Bill Moroney of USHJA (send a copy Pam Hunt, Chairwoman of the USHJA for Zone 1) before the USHJA Dec. 8 meeting on the proposed rule change. Also, mail a hard copy.

    Mr. Bill Moroney: Bill2760@aol.com
    Ms. Pam Hunt: huntpm@aol.com

    Mr. Bill Moroney
    USHJA
    3870 Cigar Lane
    Lexington, KY 40511

    Here are some ideas about what to write:

    PARENTS OF A RIDER: We will bear the brunt of cost and time burdens if our kids can't qualify for medal finals at Local Member shows. Send an email letting USHJA know that this is unacceptable.

    RIDERS: Send an email stating your objection to these proposed rule changes. Tell Bill and Pam how you got to the Maclays, or were able to compete in the USEF Medal and/or the USEF Talent Search and why it would have been difficult for you to do so if you had not been able to qualify at Local Member shows. (Driving distance? Cost?) As you know, it is difficult to achieve the high number of qualifying points during our short show season, when compared to Florida or California. Local Member shows have allowed many of you to pick up those last needed points.

    TRAINERS: How would this affect you? Obviously, fewer of your riders would qualify and it would unfairly discriminate against riders short of the necessary funds for multiple out of town shows.

    SHOW MANAGERS: Without qualifying equitation classes, all but a very few current Local Member shows would become unrated resulting in a considerable loss in revenue from both show management and exhibitor fees to the association. Many out-of-state riders come to Vermont to pick up those last needed points to qualify; the winner of the ASPCA Maclay Finals at Syracuse on 11/7/09, ZaZou Hoffman, used the Local Member show system to get those last few needed points.

    Vermont can't be the only small state that will be negatively impacted if this passes.......

    Elizabeth
    She Rides, I Pay
    www.sheridesIpay.com

  • #2
    hmm, many may not agree with me, but having been showing at the "local" one day shows, and even some of the rated, I can definately see what they are doing. There are way too many kids qualifying that don't belong at the regionals/finals. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's reality. I can count on one hand the shows we went to over the winters that actually held the Medal/Maclay at a true 3'6", and even the USET with some of the jumps at 3'9". So kids qualify, then get to the real deal, and fall flat. You mention NEHC, same thing, hardly see it at 3'3". I once asked why the jumps were low, and was told it was so the classes would fill?? Which sure you want them to fill, but what is that teaching the kids?

    So maybe instead of changing the rule, maybe they should change it to ensure that the classes are held at the correct heights. Which would help lower numbers at the regionals/finals if that is what they are trying to do.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm with hjmom. Every year there are tons of kids who get to regionals/finals and fail miserably. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that you can get qualified at shows that set the classes small so that they will fill. I filled the Medal/Maclay at a 1 day on a large pony and the jumps were no bigger than 3'. Same thing with the NEHC, but it was maybe 2'6''.
      Perhaps this is not the best way to weed out who really should be at finals and who isn't ready yet, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Flame suit on.
      http://www.youtube.com/user/supershorty628
      Proudly blogging for The Chronicle of the Horse!

      Comment


      • #4
        To the best of my knowledge, they are only proposing not allowing the big eq at LOCAL shows. B/C shows would not be effected.
        The reason for this proposal, I believe, is one VERY BIG NAME TRAINER. He runs multiple LOCAL rated shows at his farm, with only the big eq, so his LARGE group of junior riders never have a problem qualifying.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 111 View Post
          To the best of my knowledge, they are only proposing not allowing the big eq at LOCAL shows. B/C shows would not be effected.
          The reason for this proposal, I believe, is one VERY BIG NAME TRAINER. He runs multiple LOCAL rated shows at his farm, with only the big eq, so his LARGE group of junior riders never have a problem qualifying.
          That may be, but his kids never have any trouble qualifying anyway, if we are thinking of the same person

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by supershorty628 View Post
            I'm with hjmom. Every year there are tons of kids who get to regionals/finals and fail miserably. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that you can get qualified at shows that set the classes small so that they will fill. I filled the Medal/Maclay at a 1 day on a large pony and the jumps were no bigger than 3'. Same thing with the NEHC, but it was maybe 2'6''.
            Perhaps this is not the best way to weed out who really should be at finals and who isn't ready yet, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Flame suit on.
            I have to agree as well. Our 'local' H/J shows (non-rated) always have a handful of shows where they offer the one day with the Medal, and there are usually several kids that qualify by only competing in those Medal classes without ever going to a rated show. Then they get to Harrisburg and are usually lucky to even get around, because they and their horse have never competed in a true 3'6" equitation class at a rated show over that type of challenging course. Even after the changes in qualifying points there are still too many riders that qualify, and still too many riders that are not ready for that level of competition. JMO but I don't really see the problem with the proposed rule (and there should be an addition to the rule that the fences MUST be set at regulation height as well).

            Comment


            • #7
              The Big Eq classes at our local rateds are HUGE income producers for the show management - I think taking them away will be a big financial burden. Wouldn't it make more sense to just *require* that each show set a true equitation course with the jumps set at regulation height? Perhaps with monetary penalties if they do not comply?

              Comment


              • #8
                I like that proposed rule change! Show against "the big kids" to qualify, or you don't belong at finals anyway.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Perhaps another solution would be to have Eq classes at "Local" rated shows count half as much as Eq classes at "Rated" shows.

                  Also, it is far from clear to me how this fits in with the proposed switch from "A, B, C" (based on classes, divisons and money offered) to "A, AA, and AAA" which appear to be based entirely on facilities, and not on the classes and divisions offered.
                  Janet

                  chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    We are in Zone 4 and NONE of our local shows have big eq classes, so we are already doing what the rule proposes.

                    We only have locals, A, AA shows once or twice a year you'll see several C rated shows. And I haven't been to the C shows to know whether or not they have the eq classes.

                    However, we can show year around Unlike Vermont, so I don't think they should change their rules, FWIW.
                    http://community.webshots.com/user/summitspringsfarm

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sadly, those riders with national experience are the riders that will not only qualify but make the cuts. I cannot think of one single rider who qualified locally that has even made a cut. The riders with the most mileage (read $$ if you want) are the ones who float to the top of the eq finals. They have the mileage, the horses, and the training to bring them to the winners circle. That is just the way it is. I feel badly for the kids that squeak in via the "local" route and then get hammered in the ring at the finals. Huge waste of parents $$ and not a positive or building experience. Is it fair? Probably not but then life isn't fair.
                      The thing about smart people, is they look like crazy people, to dumb people.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jumphigh83 View Post
                        Sadly, those riders with national experience are the riders that will not only qualify but make the cuts. I cannot think of one single rider who qualified locally that has even made a cut. The riders with the most mileage (read $$ if you want) are the ones who float to the top of the eq finals. They have the mileage, the horses, and the training to bring them to the winners circle. That is just the way it is. I feel badly for the kids that squeak in via the "local" route and then get hammered in the ring at the finals. Huge waste of parents $$ and not a positive or building experience. Is it fair? Probably not but then life isn't fair.
                        Agreed completely. Where were you when I was saying this is the B/C rated shows thread?!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I was absent that day. I believe this applies to the B and C shows too, since they are so so so close to "local" that there is very little differentiation. Just saying. Sorry I didn't get ALL the terminology correct, the sentiment is still the same....
                          The thing about smart people, is they look like crazy people, to dumb people.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by supershorty628 View Post
                            I'm with hjmom. Every year there are tons of kids who get to regionals/finals and fail miserably. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that you can get qualified at shows that set the classes small so that they will fill. I filled the Medal/Maclay at a 1 day on a large pony and the jumps were no bigger than 3'. Same thing with the NEHC, but it was maybe 2'6''.
                            Perhaps this is not the best way to weed out who really should be at finals and who isn't ready yet, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Flame suit on.
                            Actually, the NEHC rules state that the jr medal can run at 3'. Only time it 'must' be 3'3 is finals.
                            But you're right, I have seen many jrs compete in the medal/maclay at small shows over the SAME course as my adult medals- no height difference! Then they get to finals and say 'it's not fair- they have all the money so they have nice horses'- true, BUT they've also been competing over 3'6 courses all year...not 3'.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think it is an outrageous proposal and particularly poor given the current economic climate. Who is running the USEF, Marie Antoinette?

                              A real benefit of the equitation division is that it offers junior riders who perhaps cannot afford the fanciest horse a chance to compete and receive recognition for their riding skill - ultimately on a national level. It tends to be considerably less costly to compete in that division than in the rated hunter and jumper divisions, in large part because one can compete and even qualify for finals without traveling to a major show and perhaps having to compete over several days. Many, many of our top junior riders - a number of whom are now BNT and Olympic riders - historically showed primarily at these local shows and MAYBE saved one win in order to compete at Devon or another high profile venue to be seen (in the days when you needed 4 medal and 4 maclay wins to qualify for finals in the most competitive regions).

                              If there is a problem with too many riders qualifying for finals, there are ways to handle that without this draconian change. I personally think that given the amount of time, money, and effort that these kids, their trainers, and parents put in all year, people can bloody suck it up and have one day a year where there is a large finals class. God knows they sit through hour after hour of boring classes at shows throughout the year. I don't really see the difference. Overall, the quality of riding at the finals is fairly high. I did not see a number of riders who were overfaced or outclassed.
                              Roseknoll Sporthorses
                              www.roseknoll.net

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by 111 View Post
                                To the best of my knowledge, they are only proposing not allowing the big eq at LOCAL shows. B/C shows would not be effected.
                                The reason for this proposal, I believe, is one VERY BIG NAME TRAINER. He runs multiple LOCAL rated shows at his farm, with only the big eq, so his LARGE group of junior riders never have a problem qualifying.
                                So? Aren't the shows open to other riders also?

                                I rode at Coker Farm as a junior. They had shows all winter during the Florida circuit that offered primarily BigEq classes (they might have had a couple of schooling jumper classes but I think at least some were PHA, Medal, Maclay, and then-USET only). Juniors who did not go to Florida showed in them. You know, people like Andre Dignelli and Francesca Mazella, who ultimately won Finals.

                                If that is the problem, then why not make a rule limiting the number of Medal/Maclay classes a particular venue may offer each year? I don't really think they should do that, either, but at least such a rule more reasonably addresses the supposed "problem."
                                Roseknoll Sporthorses
                                www.roseknoll.net

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by 111 View Post
                                  To the best of my knowledge, they are only proposing not allowing the big eq at LOCAL shows. B/C shows would not be effected.
                                  The reason for this proposal, I believe, is one VERY BIG NAME TRAINER. He runs multiple LOCAL rated shows at his farm, with only the big eq, so his LARGE group of junior riders never have a problem qualifying.
                                  initials of BNT wouldnt be AD?
                                  Dina
                                  www.threewishesfarm.com
                                  www.fairharbourfarm.com
                                  http://www.facebook.com/ThreeWishesFarm Like us on Facebook!!

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    I was at Coker and I don't remember ANY shows being held there. I remember one but Judy had nothing to do with it, just let them use the grounds.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      The local circuit in Albany area NEVER has the jumps set to the correct height and it is carnage when the kids who qualify have to jump 3'6" at the finals. So yea, I guess they do get recognition just don't think it is the kind they were looking for!

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by toomanyponies View Post
                                        initials of BNT wouldnt be AD?
                                        That's the one I was thinking of

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X