So what this means is that we the membership have one year to try to figure out how to defeat the proposal.
And if we decide that is unrealistic, at least come up with a version that makes more sense.
And yes, I am of the opinion it is a bad proposal, highly misguided, does not help US dressage in the slightest, and has no business even existing…but think that realistically, we need to prepare on two fronts: defeat and/or proposal we can shape and live with.
Thank you, Portia, for your report on the actions of the USEF Board regarding the “competition standards” proposal.
As many of us have commented, what still appears to be missing from the Dressage Committee is a demonstration, consistent with the Board’s charge, that a “standards” proposal “is in the best interests of the discipline” and/or the USEF. That can only be determined in the context of a specific proposal (as, apparently, the Board had the wisdom to recognize).
Although a bullet has be dodged, ALL GMOs must/should make their interests known to the Committee and/or the Board. It also would be an improvement if there were AA (what must be the vast majority of USEF membership) representation on the Dressage Committee itself.
Just tell me
When we introduced these Qualification Rules in Europe, it was done because the judges toke the initiative. It seems to me that this is the same in the USA. And yes I can understand the judges because it’s no fun to go home after a weekend without having raised the 7,8,9 or 10 marks high up in the air.
Theo
[QUOTE=SGray;2936158]
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”[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Some judges may have very well seen some bad riding, but it’s not representative of the whole. What you have is a perfect storm:
Overmounted AA
Judges who think they are at a euro breed inspection instead of grading a mounted dressage test and give high, but unearned, scores at lower levels. Which enables overmounted AA to feel they are doing the right thing and they should keep proceeding.
Most AAs work very hard and are honestly out to earn the respectable score. If there’s a mistake or an error in communication to the riders in question, look at the points in the test, since the tests themselves are beautifully written.
-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.
-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.
I think this was a positive development. The above addresses the major points of concern with the initial rule proposal:
[B]-It was an open-ended proposal.
-There was a lack of transparency. The GMO’s and base were not included in the discussion on the (perceived) problem and possible solutions and ways/means of addressing the problem.[/B]
Maybe the best result will be that we all become more involved with our GMO’s!
Perhaps, persuading the USEF DC to utilize the current scoring system or medal program that is already in place as a more fiscally responsible way to establish standards. :yes:
I think it is a very positive step, and will encourage the USEF Dressage Board to actually seek feedback from GMOs and riders.
Perhaps, persuading the USEF DC to utilize the current scoring system or medal program that is already in place as a more fiscally responsible way to establish standards. Claire
I agree with claire and then some. Using a program already in exsistence like the medal program, scoring tests for what is actually riden in realtime, and not over inflating scores because of “wb gaits” would be a great start.
I received a 60% on my last third 1 test a couple of (2004) years ago here in NC. I thought I was doing pretty well. This was before our international riders really started receiving those high 80 scores. I have since retired that horse (blind in one eye and a truck accident) but I have realized that it would be tougher to get those scores now. (I did receive my bronze medal and before I retired him I got a 58% in 4-1)
By happenstance I received a very high score of 64% from that same judge this past year(2007) on my 4 year old thoroughbred in his first show. I said something to a couple trainer friends of mine and they both commented that this judge was a high scoring judge.
Someone please tell me how to take that into account?
I can appreciate the judges concern, but it seems that the qualification requirement would be redundant. Would that minimize the effectiveness of our actual tests?
I definitely don’t know the answers but it all seems blown out of proportion.
Thank you RY for getting me involved with the “process”, I should have been years ago. Member since 1998.
I honestly like the idea that if they did the qualifing deal, just make it a test you did in front of the judges. We all do that all the time. NO PROBLEM THERE!!!
My thanks as well, Portia.
by SGray
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”
I agree that I would like to see a concise, cogent written argument put forth by the Dressage committee and published in either USDF magazine or sent to each GMO(actually both would be better!). Then each GMO could solicit individual responses and send their answers prior to the July meeting.
A followup letter from the committee stating the membership responses and the process, if any, that has been agreed upon back to the GMOs by perhaps October for any last thoughts, responses and revisions would be a more member friendly option. In terms of actual qualifying conditions, I hope that the committee would take into consideration the good number of members who train up the levels at home and only show infrequently.
If there could be more than one way to prove competency; in front of two judges for example, or by using only two scores, etc. I’m still not happy with the thought of a qualifying system that requires multiple shows/points/judges per level to move up. I’ve lived in areas with few shows and the expense since then has risen to ridiculous levels. I think it would be difficult to progress in Ocala, let alone Iowa, which is where I lived before. Travel alone is prohibitive both in miles and in fuel expenses.
Dressage used to be a sport of the very wealthy, and in some ways still is. Imported horses, imported trainers, imported judges and so on. However, as it has become more well known, more people are finding it enjoyable and a great source of time spent with their horse partner no matter what breed it is. I have mainly Hanoverians now but learned dressage in 1980 on a Quarter horse trained to 2nd level, schooling 3rd. He was a wonderful teacher and I’ve enjoyed dressage ever since.
If we make dressage as a sport seem inaccessible to those in America with non-WB breeds, or not enjoyable to the many AAs who support our sport and shows, we will just be “cutting off our nose to spite our face” as my grandmother used to say.
Sorry to be so long, I just feel very strongly on this point.:yes:
annnnnndddd - consider this point
in the days of yore you would ride a test at a show and it would be posted at the show, perhaps in your GMO’s newsletter and maybe (in teeny tiny font) in the COTH - thus, few would actually have the chance to see your score if you blew your test
today scores are posted on the internet so millions have the opportunity to see that a rider is competing beyond their (or their horses) level of competancy
in my mind creating a huge disincentive to enter at a level beyond one’s capability
so there is LESS need for this rule change than a decade ago or even a couple of years ago
Which is in part why, IMO, the USEF Board of Directors tabled the rule change proposal and asked the Dressage Committee to do more work on it and come back next year.
It seems to me the system is working.
Now we have work to do.
I’m in NC, I already contacted the pres of my GMO, what now? I didn’t get any call back by the way. Should I call all the members of my GMO, email all the GMO Board?
I’m readly!
While I am glad to see that the proposal was at least tabled for further discussion, I am absolutely APPALLED at the statements by JBF in the DDaily article. To the point where they need to seriously consider taping her mouth shut before she shoots it off anymore :mad:
I don’t buy for one second that 98% of us that were concerned either backed down or apologized and if there is ANY apology necessary, it should be coming from her.
We should not have to tolerate such a blatant, ridiculous and elitist attitude from one of the “leaders” of the sport.
I hope the powers that be take some time to regroup and think about why they want this proposal and why they can’t force judges to USE the 1, 2, 3 numbers as a score if it is deserved. I suspect it’s because they have blown the whole thing out of proportion and that 30% ride is more rare than an 85%. And I love how she tells us a 50% is failing in school. Well a 90% is an A and you don’t see that too often do you? I’d like to know if she really thinks no one in this country has ever performed an “A” ride :no:
QUESTION
from the DD article "Janet went on to explain that there were riders completing Third Level tests with a 30% score. “That’s bad. A lot of time it is not the horse but the rider has no clue about the correct classical aids. Little things like the rider sitting crooked or giving the horse poor signals and then the horse becomes confused and frantic. There are also riders that think that every horse should do Prix St. Georges but not every horse can be trained to be in the correct balance and have the necessary elasticity for that level. I see a lot of very unhappy horses.”
if that is indeed the case then why DOESN’T the proposal include negative points? If JBF is thinks that these riders are so bad that they are harming the horse then you’d think she want to have the subtraction of points for horrid rides so that one of her clueless riders couldn’t keep riding their confused horse and perhaps luck into some good scores when the judge was asleep.
EXACTLY
60 % 1 point
64 % 2 points
67 % 3 points
70 % 4 points
50% minus 1 point
47% minus 2 points
45% minus 3 points
40% back to school
[QUOTE=piaffegirl;2936662]
I’m in NC, I already contacted the pres of my GMO, what now? I didn’t get any call back by the way. Should I call all the members of my GMO, email all the GMO Board?
I’m readly![/QUOTE]
R
Rachael, I am sorry that I didn’t call you back, but I thought the response I gave to you in the other thread was enough. Your phone message was cut off in mid-sentence and so I never heard a request from you to return your call. Regardless, I always appreciate hearing from the NCDCTA membership and I will reiterate here what I said to you in another thread a few days ago…I personally contacted the entire dressage committee to express my concerns about the new proposal. I printed the entire proposal in the NCDCTA newsletter (along with the DC’s contact information )so that every member had an opportunity to express their views. I also sent a letter as soon as I returned from the USDF convention to every single GMO president in Region 1 to make them aware of the USEF proposal so that they would have ample time to respond. My letter was circulated to members of at least one GMO via their own website.
I agree with Rebecca Yount that we have done all that could have been done and it worked. The USEF Dressage Committte obviously has heard from the masses and is responding in a reasonable fashion.
I think it is important for me to represent my GMO and I will try my best to do so. For me PERSONALLY…I am in favor of a type of qualifying system that is reasonable for a rider who only shows at a couple of USDF/USEF shows a year to qualify. This was what I expressed to the DC. I adamantly oppose the requirement for riders to be full Participating Members and said so during the BOG at the USDF convention. George Williams kindly responded to those of us with that specific concern saying that they didn’t want to hurt GMOs and that they obviously hadn’t considered the impact of that decision. They have since retracted that part of the proposal. I appreciate that greatly.
As for the qualifying system idea…MANY people across the country DO support it, as long as it is reasonable. I think they are just keeping quiet for some reason. I am one of those who thinks that a reasonable qualifying system could help the sport and actually increase interest.
However, no matter what my personal opinion is, I speak on behalf of my GMO, so I will be asking for more feedback in the coming year with plans to represent my membership at next year’s USDF convention.
So, Rachael, once again I am sorry you thought I chose not to respond to your phone message. I surely would have if I had known you were expecting a return call.
Jennifer Mitchell
President, NCDCTA
GMO Council Member
2007 Region 1 PM Delegate
Could it be that these quiet people focus on improving their riding skills and their horses ?
RonaldGroen–whoever you are–I tried googling you and didn’t come up with anything using Ronald Groen and dressage–
I completely RESENT the fact that you come on here and imply that those of us who spoke our mind and requested change are somehow NOT “improving our riding skills and our horses”.
I use my real name, and you are welcome at any time to come and observe what I’ve done, how hard I work, and my riding skill as well as my horse’s training. How DARE you suggest otherwise! Many of us work our butts off not only riding and training, but raising wonderful families and contributing in many other ways to American society and American dressage. We have studied for years with excellent trainers and teachers.
What have YOU done to contribute?
I don’t like negative points… you can have a god-awful ride…that is an anomally.
[QUOTE=RonaldGroen;2937502]
Could it be that these quiet people focus on improving their riding skills and their horses ?[/QUOTE]
Could it be that RonaldGroen is a pot-stirring alter? Don’t feed the trolls, they’ll go elsewhere for entertainment if ignored.
Portia,
thank you for the inside scoop. Hopefully the communication begun between the USDF/USEFmemberships, the DC and the USEF BOD will make a difference.
Janet and Rebecca Yount deserve kudos for factual and focused posts.
Any suggestions on how to provide reasoned input?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
