Amateur Bill of Rights? -- COTH Article by Penelope Ayers

[theresak]

@JenEM

While I don’t know that I necessarily like the idea of “graduating” up a tiered system for a number of reasons–not the least of which is that is not always financially possible, or something one possesses the skill or horse to do

I don’t think it would be graduation up in fence height but a graduation into a different “category.”

So you are a rider just starting to show and you show in Novice classes at whatever height. When you get so many points at Novice at a specific height, you have to start showing in the Advanced classes at that height. When you move up in height, you are in the Novice classes again. If you move down in height, you stay in the Advanced…

Then you get a second horse and start at the lowest height, but you are still in the Advanced classes because you’ve “pointed out” at that height already.

Say you don’t show for 5+ years, then you can go back into the Novice category at any height.

[trubandloki]

@theresak

I don’t think it would be graduation up in fence height but a graduation into a different “category.”

So you are a rider just starting to show and you show in Novice classes at whatever height. When you get so many points at Novice at a specific height, you have to start showing in the Advanced classes at that height. When you move up in height, you are in the Novice classes again. If you move down in height, you stay in the Advanced…

Then you get a second horse and start at the lowest height, but you are still in the Advanced classes because you’ve “pointed out” at that height already.

Say you don’t show for 5+ years, then you can go back into the Novice category at any height.

So each class needs to have a novice and an advanced associated with it? And are two levels good enough? Shouldn’t there be a level where you may have pointed out of novice but you certainly are not ready for advanced level?

[theresak]

@trubandloki

So each class needs to have a novice and an advanced associated with it? And are two levels good enough? Shouldn’t there be a level where you may have pointed out of novice but you certainly are not ready for advanced level?

It was just rough ideas and please don’t get stuck on what I called things, names/titles can be changed.

I think doing it similar to the Eventing structure would work or something like Jr/YR, Novice, Intermediate, and Open. I think Eventing also has a “Novice Horse” category so you can put a horse green to the level in that category no matter what your ranking is.

[j_feil]

@M0nty - Thank you for taking this on. Like others above, I was surprised and disappointed when you did not get the amateur seat. Glenn runs nice horse shows, but I do not see how the Nominating Committee can justify putting him forward as a good choice for the seat (and then him being elected over you!). It just obviously does not meet the spirit of the designation, even if it meets the letter.

Many of the suggested viewpoints above are good ones. In fact, I think many of these are not even amateur specific, but ideas that improve the sport for everyone in some way! To me, so much of this boils down to doing away with the mileage rule.

A few more ideas from me:

• Database of officials, including judges, stewards, and course designers - I’d like USEF and its affiliate to keep an easily searchable and readily updated database of who is judging, designing, and stewarding our events. This goes to many calls around transparency and helps us to better understand who is officiating our events.

• When we talk about the competition calendar, there is often a push to move amateur divisions to weekends. If we do away with the mileage rule, shows could use their scheduling to compete for amateurs. I’m personally OK with picking a handful of big shows that are fun/special and burn vacation days for those, but generally I agree, I want to show on the weekend.

• Further to that point, I noticed that a rule change was approved to prohibit more than three classes per division, per day (see the 9th bullet point HERE). This seems bad for our 3’ and below hunter divisions in particular, especially if they are at one day B/C shows, no?

• It seems to me the current structure of USEF as a governing body and the affiliates as more of the member-oriented affiliates isn’t working. I keep seeing these issues as conflicts between what a governing body’s role is (making and enforcing rules) versus a membership association’s role (supporting and advocating for members). These are roles that are necessarily in conflict. I’ve started to wonder if we’d be better off with membership-oriented groups (either in addition to or instead of the current affiliate structure) that can work with membership to advance their priorities to the governing bodies. I assume this is what the panoply of committees are supposed to be, but the same conflicts remain. USHJA seems like it’s trying to do both - and it can’t.

[TrophyHusband]

@TheMoo

…your argument boils down to a complaint about people having more money.

I think you either did not comprehend my post or are deliberately attempting to “straw-man” my argument.

[TheMoo]

I miss interpreted your post because juniors have zero to do with the amateur rule and you brought them up.

[elizabethhund]

In addition to the great suggestions about how to improve the show experience , I would just add that I would like to be treated as a customer/client. At shows, at clinics and in lessons.

Wouldn’t it be nice if I was thanked for my business when I was writing yet another big check? Wouldn’t it be great to be asked for feedback about the quality of the show/clinic/lesson?

Please treat me like you appreciate my business.

[mvp]

On the Mileage Rule:

Having it or not benefits X kind of show manager and facility or Y kind. So when people allude to some general tenet of 19th century Capitalism about competition being all good, I don’t think they appreciate just what that can mean. It could mean lots and lots of unregulated shows run cheek-by-jowl every weekend. In other industries, it has (slowly) lead to the aggregation of the largest firms. Does that mean they are the best at pleasing the consumer and winning his dollars, fair and square? Not necessarily: Those with the deepest pockets can crush competitors because their pockets were deeper, not because they are better or will stay better.

Walmart-in-small-towns, I’m looking at you.

The Mileage Rule, then, just made the investment in those big “destination horse shows” and big, specialized real estate developments of show grounds economically rational. If you wanted to manage horse shows and had very deep pockets in the 1990s, a big business opportunity was opened for you by the USEF/AHSA, that’s all.

Personally, I think people hate being dictated to by a large, mature monopoly, be that a rail road, a cable company or a horse show. That experience sucks no matter what the cause. But what the USEF needs to realize (and can’t act upon because it works for these mega-show managers at this point) is that it’s offensive that the membership-paying exhibitor should pay for an organization to set up an industry that works against his own interest.

I’ll suffer the indignities of a mature, natural monopolies that screw consumers. But I won’t subsidize an organization that hurries those along.

[ladyj79]

But we have a mileage rule and degraded frequently unsafe and run down show grounds

[IPEsq]

Eliminating the mileage rule would not create any kind of unregulated shows. That is what can happen now since only unlicensed shows can compete with rated ones. There are requirements that must be met to earn a B or C rating. And that can be done with fewer days and less expense than the A ratings. This could potentially open up some alternate venues that cannot accommodate the # of ring requirements and whatnot of an A rating. But that doesn’t mean that the quality of the footing, stalls, etc has to be any less. What you see with the big monopoly shows is a lot of lack of upkeep and maintenance and people go anyway and complain about the footing or holes in the stalls or flooding or whatever because that’s their one relatively local option under the mileage rule.

Yes the points scale is less for lower rated shows, but at some point even that doesn’t matter. You win a division with 30 in it at a B show versus having 5 fill it at an AA show? You might come out ahead. And you won’t get as much prize money potential, but would that actually negatively impact your show bill?

I think this plays into the right for amateurs, not just their trainers/barns to be given consideration as a customer (and a big one) of USEF/USHJA.

Although this could allow for some perfectly capable trainers to have a market for their programs without having to compete with the programs that go to WEF etc.

[Peggy]

@mvp

Walmart-in-small-towns, I’m looking at you.

My grandmother, whose family owned a small hardware store in Cincinnati for years, hated Sears for this reason. They apparently did the same thing. She would not shop in one.

[mvp]

Ah, yes: a monopoly in its decadent stage. Why maintain a facility with which there is no competition?

[Momateur]

This whole old argument is starting to make me laugh. The amateurs (of which I am one) complain, complain, complain, complain…and then go renew their USEF membership.

USEF has no incentive to change until we amateurs vote with our wallets. This means NOT renewing membership and NOT showing at USEF sanctioned shows. GASP! If we always do what we’ve always done, we’ll always get what we’ve always gotten.

[Beacon6]

Thanks Penelope for summarizing. A few suggestions… I would expand on the B/C show comment. It’s not just about promotion, but modification of the mileage rule to allow B/C shows no matter how close to an A show. They attract different audiences based on affordability, scheduling, and classes offered. Also, I like the idea for ride times. Yes it is difficult for the professionals that ride many horses, but somehow the eventer and dressage folks can accommodate the professionals with multiple rides.

[LakeEffect]

I generally try to avoid these discussions because it just feels like a rant fest from a thousand different viewpoints. I don’t think there is a 99% of amateurs. We all have different desires and expectations of this sport.

I don’t think it’s an organization’s job to make showing “affordable.” Nothing about horses is affordable, so I think it’s almost insensitive to pretend show fees are the ones crossing the line of making this sport inaccessible.

Personally, I registered as a competing member for 2020 because I bought a new horse. Ended up showing unrated only and realized I am very content with that. Will not be renewing for 2021.

I do like the two following ideas:

1. The concept of “graduating” not up, but within a division. This could reset after a time period away from competing. I would like to think this would eliminate the need for the pro vs ammie specific divisions - it’s just beginner, intermediate, advanced at the same height (or something, like the poster above, I’m not good with labels).

2. More B/C shows that are shorter (weekends) and exempt of the mileage rule. Also, would be great if divisions were smaller (2-3 classes) and ran on a single day, so I could go home when I’m done!

I would like to think that in general, safety of competitors and animals should persist as a priority regardless of any other decisions made.

In regards to representation, again, all amateurs are not the same. You’re going to get some (many) who really prefer the trainer model that requires their horse ship in days ahead of their arrival so the pro can prep it. You’re going to get the ones who can’t find enough heart-eyes emojis for the ride-thru Starbucks. This all drives up costs, hence my comment about affordability. That’s not how I want to enjoy my horse(s), but so be it. Those people vote with their wallet in spite of what an organization might dictate, which is their right.

[ladyj79]

I think the #1 most important thing that benefits everyone but the people with run down show grounds is to do away with the mileage rule.

All else flows from there.

[Tackpud]

@Beacon6

Also, I like the idea for ride times. Yes it is difficult for the professionals that ride many horses, but somehow the eventer and dressage folks can accommodate the professionals with multiple rides.

Ride times work for dressage because the ring is exactly the same for the different levels once the test is in the big arena. Doesn’t quite work the same for hunters and jumpers as different levels can’t mix in throughout the day with the judge just being given the different test sheet. Jump heights change, courses change - all those little things that make it hard for show managers to stick to a tight schedule. Can they do something based on the ring will be available for the 3’ division round from X time to X time? Probably. But set ride times won’t work.

[endlessclimb]

Baloney. They can give ride times for a class. That might twist the trainer’s arms to actually schedule their days more appropriately, and not bite off more than they can chew, but tough nuts. Get to the ring, ready to show, at X time. If you have a conflict, you need to let show management know the day before, when the ride times are posted. Else you’re SOL.

[Darkwave]

I’ve never been to a dressage show, so I’m asking my question out of ignorance…do dressage shows have 3- 6 rings going at once the same way hunter jumper shows do?

My point is: ride times seem feasible when you have one ring going on. If something major happens to disrupt the schedule, then you just push the other ride times back. But that gets much more complex when you have multiple rings. If you have ride times scheduled for all rings, and then a crash in one ring pauses that ring for 20 minutes, you may now have conflicts in ride times that you didn’t before.

Also, how do you handle jumper classes like table ii.2b (stay in for jump off) or table ii.2c (power and speed)? For classes like that, you don’t know how long the horse will be in the ring - it depends on how the round goes. If you’re setting ride times, then you have to assume that every horse goes clear and heads to the jump off. Which means that you end up with a lot of wasted time.

[ladyj79]

@Darkwave

I’ve never been to a dressage show, so I’m asking my question out of ignorance…do dressage shows have 3- 6 rings going at once the same way hunter jumper shows do?

Yes