Any news from the USEF Convention?

[rebecca_yount]

It is now about 3:20 pm Sunday 1/13/08 Eastern Standard Time. I do not know if the proposed rule change has been voted on by the USEF Board of Directors. I have seen the changes to the proposed rule change that have ensued since 1/10/08. As of right now, the changes include that the “qualifying criteria” would be effective a year later than they would have been per how the thing looked on 1/1/08. Also, the proposal has been changed to say that the criteria would be “recommended” by the USEF Dressage Committee and that the criteria would have to be “approved” by the USEF Board of Directors.

It is my opinion that those changes were made because people like us spoke up.

I STILL don’t like the whole thing, but I feel it is incorrect to say that NO changes were made and that our comments (and letters and emails) didn’t make any difference.

THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVISED. How can you say that “opposition/constructive criticism is not being taken into account”? Making statements like that is as incorrect as was the Dressage Committee in its initial ill-advised actions. There have been significant changes as you can see by looking at the USEF rule change proposal portion of the website. It has been put off by a year and the criteria would have to be approved by the USEF Board of Directors. I think that is quite a bit of progress. Not enough, maybe, but quite a bit.

I don’t think anyone who is posting here knows at this point whether the REVISED rule change proposal (see link above to 275-07) was approved by the USEF Board of Directors. I hope it is not approved.

However, if it IS approved, it represents an improvement over the initial proposal, AND there is a lot of work to be done. I suggest we think about that and how we will approach that task, rather than stomping off in a huff.

[atr]

I had dinner with a high-ranking judge last night. I asked what he thought of the whole qualification furore. His view was it should have been put in place 15 years ago. He did acknowledge the problems faced by those of us in regions with tiny numbers of recognized shows with the concept as it is currently being expressed, however.

I asked him if he saw THAT many bad rides that he felt this was necessary, and he said that he did indeed see many what he considers to be training level horses attempting to compete at 4th level and that it was in his view abusive and needed fixing.

From what I’ve been reading as contributions to this debate on the Internet, and actually what I would personally say I’ve observed, this means his view of what constitutes bad/abusive riding is vastly differerent from that of most lower-level adult amateurs in this country. Which is kinda scary, and which has got me wondering whether my own personal standards need raising, quite honestly.

His other point, which I thought was very interesting, is that in his travels to mainland Europe, he goes to regular stables and boarding barns, and sees regular riders, folks with full time jobs who get to ride maybe one evening during the week and on weekends, and their goal is to be able to eventually ride a really lovely third level test (which, as he pointed out, isn’t so easy), rather than constantly feeling they must move up the levels, and are failures if we don’t get to Grand Prix, even with mediocre scores, as we do rather have a tendency to do in this country.

It was interesting food for thought.

[canyonoak]

If some of the other infrastructure were in place: ie, shows easily available (within an hour’s drive);
shows nearly as cheap as in Holland /Germany ($20-40 class);
real prizes with real sponsors (been covered umpteen times);
judges who are not paid for judging (see above);
competent certified instruction based on a process that is central to the teaching;
shows over-subscribed;

If these and other realities were in place, then the proposal would at least make more sense.

And IF the proposal somehow does get in place, it would be oh-so-nice if the responsibility and execution of the PURPOSE was left to the rider, as is done aparently in Holland and Germany.

[claire]

Rebecca,

Once again, Thank you for all your efforts and support.

You utilized the various BB’s as a means of quickly and accurately getting the facts out to the base and organizing the the information, resources and contacts to initiate letter writing campaigns!

Whether the USEF BoD votes to approve the Rule Proposal or not, I doubt there would have been this result had the base not spoken up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janet
Every committee gets a chance to vote on every rule change proposal.

Then the BOD votes on the rule change proposal.

The BoD is not bound by any of the committee votes, but takes them into consideration.

In particular, (as I understand it) any rule change proposal which has a “disapproved” vote gets reviewed individually by BoD, while proposals which only have “approved” votes may get lumped together and voted on as a group.

http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/275-07.pdf
that with 5 disapprovals Rule Change #275-07 will be reviewed individually by the BoD.

[Dressage_Art]

I support the idea of the qualification system that will set a clear standard that we can strive for, system that will raise expectations and quality of dressage in the show ring. However, I’m disappointed how new qualification system was presented and I’m opposed to such difficult qualification standards.

Current proposed qualifying scores are not based on any of the existent USEF or USDF standards. Current proposed points to qualify to move up to the 3rd level belittle the scores needed to earn USDF Bronze Medal, they also belittle the scores needed to qualify for the USDF Championships, and belittle the scores needed to earn USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards. Scores that are needed for USDF championships, scores that are needed towards USDF Bronze Medal, and scores that are needed for USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards are all lower in % and lesser in the amount than the new proposed 3rd Level Qualification Rule calls for.

I would be glad to see the new qualification system based on the existing scores that needed for

1. USDF Championships Qualifying scores: aka 2 scores of 61% on 2nd level http://www.usdf.org/docs/competitions/regionals/RCProgramRules.pdf
   Or
2. USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards: aka 4 scores of 60% on 2nd level. http://www.usdf.org/awards/performance/rider-performance.asp
   Or
3. Towards USDF Bronze Medal: aka 2 scores of 60% on 1nd Level and 2 scores of 60% on 2nd Level. http://www.usdf.org/awards/performance/rider-medals.asp

If the USEF creates a new rule based on the existent rule, it will be easier to track the scores and it will be easier to introduce this new rule to the membership as well. I also think it’s important to make sure that riders can earn their scores riding only 2 tests. That will make it affordable and give it a reasonable time table.

Introducing a dressage levels qualification system is a correct direction, but it needs to be introduced for the right reasons and it needs to affect negatively only riders who are not spending enough time on the correct dressage basics, rather than negatively affecting people with a limited income.

[sm1]

[QUOTE=rebecca yount;2932359]
At this point, I personally have called USDF and USEF officials; written to every single member of the USEF Dressage Committee (multiple times); sent emails and snail mail letters individually to every single member of the USEF Board of Directors; publicized the information on this, UDBB, and TheHorseCommunity as well as participating in the Dressage-L list and forwarding relevant information to various dressage officials; spoken personally to the President of the USDF, Sam Barish, as well as to Scott Hassler, George Williams, several judges, and Jeff Moore; contacted Mary Phelps at DressageDaily and been the impetus as well as contributing to writing (and editing several times) an article on DressageDaily; saw to it that a letter from PVDA was written and sent to the USEF convention with Connie Davenport from CDS; corresponded with CDS officials; corresponded with PVDA officials re why we didn’t hear about it, and continued to participate in bulletin board discussions of this issue to encourage people to let their opinions be known and to help them know where to write.

What else do you suggest be done at this point, Miss Dior???[/QUOTE]

Well, not to be snide, but one could see about some sort of publicity/article in [b] Dressage Today [/b] I don’t know what angle to pursure there at this point, that would take some thought.

[claire]

Dressage Art,

Did you read the Potomac Valley Dressage Association’s letter that was presented at USEF meeting.

Very clearly and objectively covers all your points.

http://www.pvda.org/Documents/Letter…e%20Change.pdf

[sm1]

[QUOTE=atr;2934154]
…regular riders, folks with full time jobs who get to ride maybe one evening during the week and on weekends, and their goal is to be able to eventually ride a really lovely third level test (which, as he pointed out, isn’t so easy), rather than constantly feeling they must move up the levels, and are failures if we don’t get to Grand Prix, even with mediocre scores, as we do rather have a tendency to do in this country.

It was interesting food for thought.[/QUOTE]

The AAs here I know would love to complete Second Level with a respectable – not great but respectable – score, and that’s after going to Europe for their WBs. I honestly don’t know any Ammies setting their sights for FEI GP, so I must say I don’t understand and don’t think this is a valid point of view. And I’m involved with sponsoring national breed awards at USDF-recognized shows, so I feel I have a close-up view of AA expectations.

[J-Lu]

Recent Update

Has anyone seen this yet?
http://www.dressagedaily.com/2008/dd_200801/dd_20080113-usef.html

While I appreciate what she is saying, I am disappointed that she’s blaming much of the “public perception” on “misinformation”.

The “misinformation” she refers to appears to be earlier iterations of this proposal from what I can gather. I wish she would have acknowledged that the original guidelines were very restrictive rather and so have been changed rather than basically stating that the membership has been misinformed this whole time. I’m wondering whose eyes she thinks she’s pulling the wool over. sigh Oh well!

So there are a couple of more options on the table now, and they’re considering pushing the start date back to 2011. Apparently, they’ll float the options to the GMOs and solicit feedback from the membership.

Although one BOD member said he was surprised that I was “so caught up in the internet hysteria”*, it appears as though our discussions and Rebecca’s grass roots organizational skills really did have an impact and served to constructively inform the DC members about the points of view from the membership. I think that without this feedback, the original rules wouldn’t have changes as much as they have. I’m happy to see that the DC is actively trying to find a workable solution for everyone (even though I still don’t like the idea-I like it when people compromise to converge on a solution).

*That said, the vast majority of those who emailed me back actually read my rather lengthy email and responded professionally and positively.

Thanks Rebecca, and to everyone who wrote constructive emails.
J.

[Hazelnut]

Yes,
really appreciate the work done by all and am eager to hear the outcome.

RY stayed focused on the concerns. She kept us allfocused. Thank you. Didn’t see much hysteria here, a little frustration, perhaps.

[Whisper]

The news so far sounds good, and hopefully we’ll hear about the USEF BOD’s decision soon.

[yaya]

Anyone know the ultimate result???

[Janet]

They have just updated the rule change proposal, under BoD it now says
“Referred 1/13/2008”

Under “other comments” it says
“1/13/2008: The BOD voted to table this rule until Annual Meeting 2009.”

[canyonoak]

WA-HOO!

Congratulations to everyone who wrote in, whatever your views; I hope we take away from this how important communication can be and definitely in this case proved to be.

YAYYYYYY.

and a special thanks to Rebecca Yount!

[inca]

The e-mail I received today from our USDF Region Director

At the USEF Convention…
The very controversial rule change proposal to develop a dressage
qualification system at third level and above was tabled until the US
Equestrian annual meeting in January 2009. The Board of Directors
supports the concept of developing such a qualification system. The
main reason that the motion was not passed is that Board members did not
believe that we should make a rule for a qualification system without
the details of the system specified. The US Equestrian Dressage
Committee will work on developing these details and will inform the
dressage community about the progress on this project. The planned date
for implementation of the qualification system is December 1, 2010.
This assumes that the US Equestrian Board of Directors will pass the
necessary rule change proposal.

[slc2]

This is not a ‘victory’. This isn’t going away.

[Portia]

I was at the Board meeting yesterday.

I was at the Board meeting yesterday and attended part of the Dressage Committee meeting and a few others meetings where this was discussed. Here is where it comes out.

The version of the rule change proposal that was presented to the Board yesterday read, in its entirety: “Effective December 1, 2010, riders competing in Dressage Competitions at Third Level and above must be eligible according to qualifications criteria recommended by the Federation Dressage Committee and approved by the USEF Board of Directors.”

In a fairly lengthy discussion, a significant majority of the Board indicated that they would not vote to approve this proposal because it was not truly a rule but instead a statement of intent to make a rule. HOWEVER, the Board affirmed in no uncertain terms (through discussion and by a straw vote) that the Dressage people have the right to make these standards and require competitors to meet stated qualifications to compete at different levels, and that it is appropriate for them to do so if that is in the best interests of the discipline. Therefore, the rule proposal was tabled rather than withdrawn or voted down explicitly to prevent any perception that the Board did not approve the concept or that the proposed qualification requirements will not go forward in some form. It is going forward and it will very likely happen.

The Dressage Committee and the Dressage members of the Board have committed to work with the GMOs to develop the standards and obtain comments on the appropriate way for the standards to be implemented. The Dressage Committee will report back to the Board at its mid-year meeting in July regarding the status of development of the standards. When the standards have been finalized by the Dressage Committee, the rule change proposal will be presented to the Board at its Annual Meeting next year.

[SaddleFitterVA]

My 5 year membership in USDF ends in 2010. And, I likely may not renew if they ignore the membership.

For the person who shows infrequently, but takes lessons and likes to ride well, this becomes one less reason to be a member of any of our governing bodies.

And Theo, I am not sure if you are posting on THIS thread, but you’ve posted on this topic frequently…this is not the Netherlands, it will never be the Netherlands. Just because our judges get paid to judge, doesn’t mean they don’t enjoy doing it. Are there really that many independently wealthy people over there? Who don’t need income? Are horses free there? They weren’t when I took a riding vacation there in 2006. I enjoy watching your videos, and can appreciate your nationalism, but sometimes, it does get old.

[sm1]

[QUOTE=Portia;2936075]
In a fairly lengthy discussion, a significant majority of the Board indicated that they would not vote to approve this proposal because it was not truly a rule but instead a statement of intent to make a rule. HOWEVER, the Board affirmed in no uncertain terms (through discussion and by a straw vote) that the Dressage people have the right to make these standards and require competitors to meet stated qualifications to compete at different levels, and that it is appropriate for them to do so if that is in the best interests of the discipline. Therefore, the rule proposal was tabled rather than withdrawn or voted down explicitly to prevent any perception that the Board did not approve the concept or that the proposed qualification requirements will not go forward in some form. It is going forward and it will very likely happen.

The Dressage Committee and the Dressage members of the Board have committed to work with the GMOs to develop the standards and obtain comments on the appropriate way for the standards to be implemented. The Dressage Committee will report back to the Board at its mid-year meeting in July regarding the status of development of the standards. When the standards have been finalized by the Dressage Committee, the rule change proposal will be presented to the Board at its Annual Meeting next year.[/QUOTE]

Appropriate, Board.

If there’s a problem I would look at the points in the test to find a way to stop rewarding extravagent gaits over correct riding. Honor the tests — they were written very well and do quite nicely support the Training Scale. That is, after all, what members are paying for in the first place.

Good job, Rebecca. One may demand a transparant method to review responses from GMOs, I hope the Committee’s intention is to provide adequate and transparant feedback per each GMO . As opposed to one lump concensus.

[SGray]

@Portia;2936075

…and that it is appropriate for them to do so if that is in the best interests of the discipline. ….

Thanks Portia for the report

my comment is that the onus is on those that put forward the change to come to the Committee and the public with the facts and figures that support that premise – something more concrete than “some judges say they’ve seen some bad riding at third and above”