• 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

USHJA CONVENTION - ANY UPDATES ???

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

  • USHJA CONVENTION - ANY UPDATES ???

    It would be wonderful if anyone that is there could gives us a rundown as to what is happening at any or all the meetings. Just some of us couldn't attend, and it would be great if one of you let us in on the news.

  • #2
    Here's the short synopsis of today. I'll probably forget a million things, but hopefully someone with a better memory will jump in here...

    Started the morning with a presentation by Billy on competitions. The competitions committee has been working really hard and they have looked at pretty much every aspect of competitions and are trying to produce a reasonable way of upholding standards including the mileage issue. The proposal sets up standards necessary for each level of show.

    At this point, Billy mentioned that written feedback is extremely important for the committee. Send your thoughts and they will be read!!!

    This afternoon were the hunter and jumper rule change forums. We started off with the Eq rule changes - EQ112.1 has been withdrawn. That's the one about the local shows holding medal classes. There was a lot of discussion about the USEF Medal qualifying criteria. There have been some new drafts to some of the proposed rule changes. It is proposed that there will be a limited number of riders of which "100 will be taken from the top point earners in the country and the riders who have earned 80 points in their first 10 classes. The remaining 125 will be accepted from the Regional Finals Qualifiers." There's more to it - find it on the USEF site under EQ 112.9 tracking #123-09.

    EQ 112.14 - Again requirements for specific classes, in this case the WIHS finals. The intent is to allow more west coast riders a shot at qualifying since there aren't as many competing in classes out there and therefore can't get enough points since it's based on the top 30 qualifying. There would be a certain number taken from the East Coast League and the West Coast League.

    Hunters - Some discussion on the new Green division eligibility - a horse can compete in the green division for one year or until it wins $4000. It's 1st year status starts on whatever day it first shows at 3'6" no matter when during the show year and continues for one calendar year. If it reaches $4K before that year is up it can continue in the green division until it's calendar year is up.

    Discussion about the proposed "Open" division which will have 3 fence heights and horses can show at any height even if they've shown over higher fences. Kind of a schooling division for Pro's to tune up their horses as needed with bigger jumps.

    Discussion of prize money being weighted toward the higher jump divisions - awarding the Regular Working horses more money than the 3'6" classes. Trying to encourage participation in the higher fence divisions.

    I'm sure there are about 20 other things that were discussed that I'm forgetting.

    Jumpers - discussion about the schooling area supervisors and money distribution. JP103 and JP108. And last up was the discussion on removing the word "Owner" from the Amateur Owner jumper divisions. The overwhelming consensus was it is a bad proposal and should not go forward. It will be discussed further throughout the week as will most of this in different committee meetings.

    Comment


    • #3
      Tackpud, thanks for the update. Could you elaborate on the reasons for the A/O jumper proposal being so negatively received?
      "I'm not always sarcastic. Sometimes I'm asleep." - Harry Dresden

      Amy's Stuff - Rustic chic and country linens and decor
      Support my mom! She's gotta finance her retirement horse somehow.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Renn/aissance View Post
        Tackpud, thanks for the update. Could you elaborate on the reasons for the A/O jumper proposal being so negatively received?
        Same here!!

        Also what's the latest scoop on the whole "no more B and C shows" thing?

        Your taking the time to write all this up is MUCH appreciated! Thank you!
        "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you so much for taking the time to provide updates to those of us who cannot participate! Interested to hear more (especially re: the B / C shows).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tackpud View Post

            Started the morning with a presentation by Billy on competitions. The competitions committee has been working really hard and they have looked at pretty much every aspect of competitions and are trying to produce a reasonable way of upholding standards including the mileage issue. The proposal sets up standards necessary for each level of show.

            .
            Was there any discussion about what will happen to the C and B shows? Are they expected to drop down to local shows or perhaps go unrated?
            Was the cost to comply with the standards discussed. Someone will be paying for the changes and they means entry costs will increase.
            Was there any discussion about why USHJA wants to do away with one day shows?
            And how did they arrive at the standards proposed? Who suggested them or did they simply pick a mega show and copy what they had available?

            Comment


            • #7
              I'll see if I can get the jist of the competitions committee proposal (disclaimer here - I am not on this committee and none of this is an actual rule at this time - they are proposals for discussion):

              My understanding is they were tasked with the following - define the ratings, figure out how the recognition/awards structure tied to ratings, and create access to competitions for all members at all levels.

              They came up with:

              The current "AA" rated shows will become "AAA"

              The current "A" rated shows will become "AA"

              The current "B" and "C" rated shows will become "A"

              The current "Local" rated shows will still be called "Local Endorsed" competitions - possibly with lower membership level requirements.

              There will be a specific set of competition standards for all shows starting at the local level and increasing as the rating goes up. The proposed start date is 12/1/11 - so this is not something that's going to change overnight. They want input.

              I am a little confused with another aspect of this dealing with options shows can choose, so I am not going to speak about it. If you need to understand it more in depth, please contact someone on the committee. They want to talk with you!

              They are not trying to do away with the one day, "B", "C", or "Local" shows. They just want a set of standards so the shows will be well run and consistent. The costs to get shows recognized was not discussed, but I know from other meetings I have attended that members are concerned about the federation fees related to holding a show and that is being looked at.

              The list of standards was created from data gathered from a large number of shows of ALL levels. Major concerns that the committee mentioned exhibitors had mentioned to them include:

              Lowering the B/C level standards
              Provisions for indoor competition standards (schooling areas, etc.)
              North/South weather related issues
              How long a porta-pottie can last without cleaning (apparently this was brought up a number of times)
              Priority date holders
              Size and number of schooling areas - includes footing and supervision
              Many others - those were just the ones they pointed out to us

              This is just the start of what they are doing - nothing is set in stone and nothing will begin without more work.

              The Amateur Owner issue was a hot topic! One of the biggest issues was compliance with the hunter rules - if you are showing in the A/O hunters you can not show someone else's horse at the same show. Therefore the jumper side needs to be the same. There was also concern (pointed out by an AMATEUR) that this might be a hardship to professionals if their amateur customers stop buying horses and just ride other people's horses. We all know there are some good riding amateurs out there! Sorry I didn't write down more about this topic - I only do juniors so I wasn't really affected by this.

              General Rule change forum this morning had some hot topics. Extraordinary rule changes were discussed with the mood being that people want the membership to have more opportunity to have input before a rule is changed immediately. Many of these rule changes come from the "effective date" proposed by the proponent so that is going to be explored.

              Drugs and Medications - this one took up a good hour. The proposal from the Drugs and Medications Committee is to only allow one (1) NSAID in a horse at a show. The proposal by the USHJA allows for 2 with one being reported on a medication form.

              Major issues with the D & M proposal was the issue of an injury or illness at a show when the horse had already been given one NSAID. Ie: horse has been given Bute for days 1 and 2 of a 5 day show - colics on the second day and the vet gives it Banamine. It may have been a mild colic and the horse is ready to show on day 4 of the show but now it can't because it has both Bute and Banamine in its system.

              Or the older school horse that you put on Bute for the longer lasting effect and then give Ketofen the morning of the show for a quicker effect for that day. You'd either have to put the horse on Bute earlier in the week or not get the lasting effects of that med in favor of the quicker effect of the Ketofen. Which is better for the welfare of the horse?

              The members felt they would like to see studies done to identify the guidelines that the USEF should implement. They want to know what are the acceptable amounts of specific meds and what are the withdrawl times. This will be an ongoing issue...

              Chin straps - what happens when a chin strap comes undone during a round? The judges feel they often are not in a physical position to see if/when the chin strap came undone and therefore can't make the decision to stop the person on course. But then what happens if the chin strap comes undone, someone falls and is hurt because their helmet came off? The current rules state the helmet must be properly secured but there have been instances of them coming undone in the ring and the judges didn't know how to proceed - do you eliminate someone for stopping to fix it? Or do you just continue judging after they fix it and go back to the rest of the course? That's going to need a lot more attention. There are so many issues that are a part of this discussion.

              Last thing that came up for debate was the issue of "longing area supervisors." There is a proposal to have someone supervise the longing area at shows. Of course this brought up many issues - cost, who is to say what too much longing or dangerous longing is, would the supervisor have to be bi-lingual? We all know that the majority of longing is done by the grooms and what is needed most is education of those doing the longing - not a supervisor.

              Headed back for the zone meetings.

              Comment

              • Original Poster

                #8
                Thanks

                Tackpud

                You are wonderful !! Thank you for such good updates from down there. It is really appreciated. Is there a good atendence at most of the meting you have gone to ?? Thanks again

                Comment


                • #9
                  Someone told me they planned to limit comments from the floor to 45 seconds. Did they?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thank you Tackpud!
                    The Evil Chem Prof

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      From the perspective of he USEA rules meeting, there was a strong opinion that both the lunging rule and the chin strap rule need to be hunter-specific and/or jumper-specific rules rather than general rules. Both would be problematic for Eventing.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Tackpud, thanks for the reports!

                        I don't know how they could ever, ever make it feasible to have someone "supervise" a lunging area. The person would have to be out there all day from 4-5 AM, and even earlier at Indoors. Who would want that job, and who would absorb the cost? (Hint- rhymes with texhibitors!)

                        A schooling ring supervisor can enforce the rules that govern schooling. What rules govern lunging?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          No rules seem to govern longeing.

                          There are no rules as to how many can occupy a certain area, no rule that it has to be a designated area, no rule about time limits, no rule about footing, no rule about horses having to have their numbers so you can at least tell who it is that is careening around at a gazillion miles an hour sideways on a cross canter with it's nose being yanked off.

                          It would be hard to supervise, especially as so much goes on from an early hour, but requiring numbers with the horses at all times when being schooled or longed would go a long way toward allowing for general enforcement of existing rules against "excess" that could be considered abuse.
                          Inner Bay Equestrian
                          Facebook
                          KERx

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Major issues with the D & M proposal was the issue of an injury or illness at a show when the horse had already been given one NSAID. Ie: horse has been given Bute for days 1 and 2 of a 5 day show - colics on the second day and the vet gives it Banamine. It may have been a mild colic and the horse is ready to show on day 4 of the show but now it can't because it has both Bute and Banamine in its system.
                            I'm confused. I thought the current rules, allowing 2 NSAIDS but not Bute and Banamine together, had a clause that, even with a medication report, bute and banamine could not be present in the same sample.
                            I don't like the proposal, but that doesn't seem like a very effective argument against it if we don't currently have that option. Am I reading the medication rules incorrectly? I'm not the only person I know who has scratched a horse showing on bute because it had a colic episode requiring banamine.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CBoylen View Post
                              I'm confused. I thought the current rules, allowing 2 NSAIDS but not Bute and Banamine together, had a clause that, even with a medication report, bute and banamine could not be present in the same sample.
                              I don't like the proposal, but that doesn't seem like a very effective argument against it if we don't currently have that option. Am I reading the medication rules incorrectly? I'm not the only person I know who has scratched a horse showing on bute because it had a colic episode requiring banamine.
                              From the phamphlet.

                              "* Do not administer phenylbutazone and flunixin at the same time (violation)! Allow seven days withdrawal from one before using the other."

                              USHJA also has a proposal to make stacking 3 NSAIDS legal but with a limit on the amount of the 3rd NSAID.

                              JMHO but if the horse needs 3 NSAIDS why is it showing at all?

                              http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/647-09.pdf

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber View Post
                                Someone told me they planned to limit comments from the floor to 45 seconds. Did they?
                                Believe me they did not do that in any meetings I attended. Everyone was listened to and their opinions were respected. They passed microphones around so everyone could be heard.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  CBoylen, I think the bute+banamine argument is more in favor of the 2NSAIDS w/report 1 requirement proposal - that would (I presume) eliminate the current bute/banamine prohibition (even though there are a plethora of other NSAIDs that are currently legally stackable) and as a side argument offers up a thought on why the D&M Committee's proposal is not as useful.

                                  Color me cynical, but I think that proposal would open the floodgates wide open for a lot of stacked B&B and bury USEF under an avalanche of D&M forms. I think the D&M committee has the right idea.
                                  Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by CBoylen View Post
                                    I'm confused. I thought the current rules, allowing 2 NSAIDS but not Bute and Banamine together, had a clause that, even with a medication report, bute and banamine could not be present in the same sample.
                                    I don't like the proposal, but that doesn't seem like a very effective argument against it if we don't currently have that option. Am I reading the medication rules incorrectly? I'm not the only person I know who has scratched a horse showing on bute because it had a colic episode requiring banamine.
                                    Correct - the current rule is one or the other but never both. (Didn't it used to be trace amounts of one if both were present or an I imagining things...)

                                    As I understood it, the discussion about colic and Banamine was centered around the withdrawl period of the Banamine - if you withdrew the horse for 24 hours and filed the appropriate med form, would you be called up for a rule violation?

                                    Or how about if a horse shows on Bute one week and then the trainer wants to switch it to another NSAID the next week - how would that be handled? The real issue was not having the data to be able to answer these questions about knowing the withdrawl times for the meds to leave the system. And since each horse can metabolize meds at different rates, how would that be handled.

                                    The large majority was against this change. There was agreement that using 2 NSAIDs with one being reported was a better way to go. Follow the forms for a couple of years and see what is being used and how often. Then discuss what might need to be changes.

                                    It was asked if there were any data on what's being found in the test samples and the answer was the overwhelming majority only had 1 NSAID in them - I'm not going to try to quote the numbers in case I get it wrong and somehow that becomes fact... So the thought of making 1 NSAID ok with a 2nd reportable sounds like a good solution to me.

                                    Spent the afternoon in a zone meeting and then briefly went into the Show Standards meeting. Nothing I can report that would be of general interest. These meetings take up hours and they have celebrations scheduled for the evenings. So the other COTH members I know are around are busy and will chime in here when they have a minute.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by DMK View Post
                                      CBoylen, I think the bute+banamine argument is more in favor of the 2NSAIDS w/report 1 requirement proposal - that would (I presume) eliminate the current bute/banamine prohibition (even though there are a plethora of other NSAIDs that are currently legally stackable) and as a side argument offers up a thought on why the D&M Committee's proposal is not as useful.

                                      Color me cynical, but I think that proposal would open the floodgates wide open for a lot of stacked B&B and bury USEF under an avalanche of D&M forms. I think the D&M committee has the right idea.
                                      Thanks! You made a little more sense out of it than I did. But as I mentioned above, currently they are only finding 1 NSAID in the large majority of samples taken, so I doubt it would encourage more medication useage.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by M. O'Connor View Post
                                        No rules seem to govern longeing.
                                        That's my point. Since there are no rules on the books, what could a supervisor do? Make judgment calls about fatigue, soundness, control, and safety on a case-by-case basis? That sounds like a terrible idea. Plus you just know inevitably people would make claims about favoritism and uneven enforcement.

                                        I'm all for something in the rules that requires a show to have ample lunging areas, with good footing that gets dragged regularly, and (ideally) a perimeter fence to prevent loose horses from getting away. Beyond that, I think any attempt to regulate lunging is just going to open a giant can of very squirmy worms.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X