Yeah, honestly if we had Modified I might have just stopped there. We did 4 Prelims and were clear XC at all, so it was fine, but that level was pushing the limit of my horse’s ability which is ultimately why I stopped running him. And it’s really hard to get excited about spending money, driving all over the place, and using up his legs just running more Trainings, all of which look the same at this point. Thus, horse hasn’t evented in almost 2 years. I’d rather just not, to be honest. If we had Modified though… THAT is his level.
4 Likes
I highly doubt they want to kill the sport.
Especially with FEI offering it now. I feel it’s really Penny and Is level too. I really don’t want to do more Trainings ( probably done at least 20 and 80% clear rate) but Prelim is still not quite within reach.
3 Likes
From a different perspective, the volunteer fence judges in the UK are remarkably professional since so many, possibly even the majority, do several events over the season from March to October. Everyone has a briefing before the start of the xc, even if they have heard it the previous day and last week and every weekend in the past n months. The BE preference is for two FJ at each fence which is helpful in deciding something like abuse of the whip or did the combination actually present to a fence, when there is some uncertainty. All fences have a radio to report progress and problems. It is not unusual to hear a report such as “This rider is going too fast” or “Think we can see blood”, or “This rider looks overfaced, maybe the TD can chat after the finish…” and subsequent judges will offer their opinions too, over the net, as the horse runs past. Because the officials and FJ respect each other, the views of the FJ are taken into consideration. As one TD put it “We can always get competitors but finding volunteers is far harder - and we will back you up.” Another feature of UK courses is good visability and thus Course Control can be expected to see a majority of fences. Often the TD, CD or the Safety person can see for themselves what is happening and will acknowledge a report over the radio with something like “Thank you, we are keeping an eye on them”. Bad behaviour or poor riding is followed up: there is a graduated system in place that starts with an informal chat after the run, then putting people on the ‘watch list’ and onwards. Poor performance has consequences as there is now a requirement to downgrade if a fall occurs. As to having the backbone to stand up to BNR, no problem. I’ve stopped, held, eliminated and given faults to Olympians, international superstars and royalty. As all the FJ understand the rules and trust that they will be backed up, then sticking to the rules is easy for everyone. The riders also trust the FJ as we meet so often. The only time it fails is with FEI Ground Juries at internationals who will overule FJ decisions - which tends to really P-off the very experienced people sitting at the fence. Presumably the GJ is watching on screen (but one wonders on occasion). The CD doesn’t have much say as that is not their role unless they are also Steward or TD on that day. They just watch horses running and chew their nails. Oh, yes, each fence is measured and a report goes into BE to ensure consistency and safety, useful in building up data about fence design.
8 Likes
Is there a way to do M without having to build a whole new course? If organizers could make a M course by mixing T & P fences (so teams can test their readiness for P without going entirely off the deep end, metaphorically speaking), that could reduce the costs of offering it and make it more available across the country. I worry that simply requiring it without giving organizers an incentive/low cost option would lead to events folding.
Here in Area IV, there is one (1) event that offers M as a level. Most events prefer to have T/P or P/I since that doesn’t really cost much more to the organizers. Maybe another couple of sets of ribbons/prizes, but those can probably be bought for a fraction of the cost of a single new xc jump. We have so few events that I worry about losing any one of them, especially over something that has a potentially easy solution.
4 Likes
They can reuse some but not all. They’d probably have to build at least 10 or so fences, all the way up to 20, depending on what they already have that isn’t being used and could be modified to fit the specs. There are rules about how many fences can be shared and what % have to meet what specs.
The onus for getting this done def should not be entirely on the organizers, most of them are barely making it as it is, so we the eventing community and USEA need to figure out how to help more of them get this done, whether it’s as a nationwide effort or more locally. And then when it IS offered, make sure it’s well attended. These have gotten to be really big divisions on the east coast where they’re offered, and I know we can’t pull the same numbers in other areas, but if we can get people excited about M and wanting to divert to that for some extra miles it could go a long way toward the organizers feeling like it’s actually worth their time and effort.
1 Like
Officials being held accountable or having guts is a joke. Just look at ML and her bloody towels and we know what happened there…crickets.
The events in Ontario that have M added probably 1/3 of a new course? The rest are shared fences.
7 Likes
It sounds good in principle, but the reality is different.
Most of the T fences that are right at 3’3" are very straight forward.
Most of the P fences that are 3’5" or less are usually quite technical (that that is why they were built to a lower height in the first place).
Not exactly what you want for moving up from Training. What you want is straight forward fences at 3’5" and technical fences at 3’3".
7 Likes
The common consensus in this thread (and everywhere else) is that we need more events to offer Modified. The USEA should set up a fund specifically for organizers to grant the money it takes to build a Modifed course. To me, if TPTB are serious about getting unqualified riders off the Prelim courses, then they should take this as an easy opportunity to decrease those numbers who are flipping their horses and getting injured. Not to mention, make this sport more ammy-friendly to those who have the desire to get past Training, but either lack the time or resources to go Prelim. As @MsRidiculous said, people who live in the far-flung Areas could really use this.
They have no problems setting up grants for ULRs to ship their horses across the pond to run events. Some of that money could go a long way in progressing and promoting a level for those who are the backbone of this sport. But my guess is it’s not “sexy” enough to USEA to promote such a boring use of cash. 
22 Likes
Ah, gotcha. That makes sense. So we’re back to the expense issue of having to spend thousands to build fences for a new-ish division. Which may be feasible for some events, way less for others.
I would definitely support grants to events to build M fences, especially if they’re targeted at Areas outside of II or III. The goal has to be improved access for everyone possible, not safety theatre that doesn’t really help the majority of the competitors.
3 Likes
@MNEventer, I agree - there is a huge need for it in areas outside II/III.
Unfortunately, it used to be a slightly more affordable division to both riders and organizers, as it was USEF endorsed, not recognized. After FEI changed the star system (and basically made the 1* an international Modified), USEA had to make Modified a USEF recognized division… which means competitors have to pay for USEF membership, the extra $8 admin fee to USEF on each entry, and I’m sure there are other fees that organizers have to pay to USEF that I can’t remember here. 
3 Likes
Question for an ignorant person -
Could you make a fence able to be modified (please excuse the pun, not intentional) so that it is a “different” fence in height than training, but with the same presentation? For example, brackets on either end that let you slip a 4x4 or a small log in there to increase the height but not the overall presentation? Or an extra piece of brush to make a brush fence higher? They could have the 4x4 or small log ready to go by the fence, and then have the volunteer put it on when announced over the radio.
Would that count as a “different” fence, for the rules?
3 Likes
That is an interesting question. Cross country is not the same as show jumping so height is not necessarily the issue.
For example, three levels of competition at the same water feature. The lowest level has a fence with any easy profile, such as a wide rolltop, set some distance from the water element and flagged as two fences 1 & 2. The horse can see the water, which might cause a problem back at the rolltop but the rider can legitimately manoeuvre between to two fences because they are separate questions. Second level, the wide rolltop (which need not be at maximum height) is placed closer to the water, giving the horse less time to read the combination, and it is flagged A & B, so the rider must get through both elements to go clear. Any manoeuvring after the rolltop, A, before the water, B, is penalized. Third level: the rolltop, which need not be maximum height, is right on the edge of the pond so the horse has to jump straight into water, which is a much harder test. If the rolltop is made narrower, it is even more challenging because there is more room for a run out. Add in a jump element out of the water, even if only 30cm, and difficulty increases. Add in a skinny fence or two, in the water, on a curving line with a jump out to a final skinny on a single stride and we are talking 5*. The maximum height at 5* is 1.2 metres.
Also, recall that the speed increases as the level of competition increases. Trotting in at level one isn’t an issue. It becomes ineffective at level 2.
It might be possible for a volunteer to add a piece of wood or brush at a galloping fence but for more technical ones it would affect profile, line of approach, speed, angle of jump, the influence of terraine, light, position on the course and relationship with other fences, etc etc all those things riders are considering as they walk the course before they run.
3 Likes
That’s a good point, about the walking and getting a strategy in place.
Coming out of my hiatus to say this is more palatable for me.
I understand the need to tighten MERs. Rider/horse falls and deaths are unacceptable.
However, I can’t help but feel this is another blow to the grassroots, making the upper levels even more unobtainable for the average person who:
- does not have deep pockets
- does not travel to show year round
- has only one horse
- is not a professional
- does not live in a eventing-rich area (thinking of the midwest, in particular)
I see this proposal (and the revised 8, which is much better to me) as an attempt to fix a real issue, which is rider falls and deaths – but it’s just more of the same from USEA, which is keep padding the pockets of the pros while trampling the grassroots underfoot. It’s interesting to me their “fix” directly involves something that financially benefits them (more entries). It’s also interesting to me that they are trying to enforce “as a combination” – which, to me, makes it clear that this may be a solution that is profit-derived. Just about any non-draft horse that is sound in mind and body can do Training, and I’d argue that the real problem here is the riders, not their horses – I’d sooner see the 8 or 10 apply solely to the rider. Horses have a higher wastage percentage than the riders – they need to retire, they get hurt, they die outside of training – riders will now have to start all over again if they find a new mount for whatever reason. I would rather see the “As a combination” be introduced at Intermediate and above. That seems very logical to me because Intermediate is where partnerships get serious. Any old pro can take a horse Training and Prelim… but you want to know your horse when you’re riding Intermediate.
I’d sooner see a two-pronged approach: more experience at the level, and a serious investigation into the increased technicalities on course. Of those rider/horse falls and deaths, how many were at corners or combinations? What type of fences? Maybe the speed needs to be revised, or the fences changed…
Level creep, increase in costs, and increased technicality on course have already made anything above Training level out of reach for most riders.
The event I ran my first Training is still running all these years later, and their Training course is unrecognizable from the one I ran. Their Prelim is as well. The skill gap from T to P today is a big, big leap. I am a much more competent rider now than I was at 18 when I ran my first Training there, on my barely broke racehorse – but we survived. If I took that same horse today, and ran today’s Training level equivalent, I can’t honestly say we wouldn’t be another statistic… Just another thought.
20 Likes
I wonder if there would be a way to temporarily (or permanently?) waive this for modified. I think there is opportunity for some venues to create a modified course using mostly T/P fences. It may not be possible since it is now USEF and the CCI* qualifier, but it seems like it might make it more of a possibility in less dense areas of the country where there are fewer competitors at all levels.
This is so relatable to me. I did my first prelim in 1995 and I truly feel like my riding has barely kept pace with the increase in difficulty. I’ve made it back to prelim on 5 horses since then, including moving one up this past fall (after 6-8 modifieds, even), and every time I get there I can’t believe how hard it’s gotten . . .
3 Likes
We British are a pragmatic people. British Eventing on MERS which is based on quality not quantity.
“MERs, or minimum eligibility requirements, are the results that rider and horse, either as a combination or individually, must achieve in order to compete at a certain level”…
"At National level (BE80(T) to Advanced) an MER is achieved with the following result:
- Not more than 50 penalties in the dressage
- No more than 16 jumping penalties in the show jumping
- Zero cross country penalties and no more than 30 cross country time penalties"
Above BE100, it is the combination of horse and rider than must meet the MER. International competitions have slightly different rules, also covered in the rule book.
The Us already had this, it wasn’t enough.
From my experience the UK riders are WAY more prepared and more experienced than the US riders who event. The quality of riding is very high.
3 Likes
I hypothesize the reason for this is more access to (and therefore more frequent) quality training. (Quality training may include, for instance, coaching, schooling, unrecognized competitions, Pony Club background, hunting, etc.)
NOT completing tons more competitions?
15 Likes
