[QUOTE=poltroon;8308140]
Those of you who say you cannot train your horses to jog disappoint me. [/QUOTE]
Good grief, haven’t they ever trotted a horse for a vet ?
If people see that the upper echelon is winning through the use of pharmaceuticals (oh, and herbal supplements), with minimal punishment, would that not cause a negativity not only among their peers who are not cheating but also those who are in the lower ranks, but are aspiring to be just like their favorite rider, Tori? In other words, a trickle down effect? (If that’s not happening already)
[QUOTE=poltroon;8308138]
They did set him down though. And the lactanase and perfect prep tubes are explicitly mentioned in the findings and decision. They didn’t need to specifically sanction him for those and that would have potentially opened a new line of appeal, since they didn’t have a positive test for those.
The committee is not specific about the components that cause them to choose the size of the fine or the length of the suspension.[/QUOTE]
While they don’t explain the reasoning behind the fine/length of suspension, their public hearing document does list the specific infractions. In the case of drug violations, it always lists the specific drug(s). They do not include PP:
STEVEN RIVETTS of Wellington, FL, and BRIGID COLVIN of Loxahatchee, FL, violated Chapter 4, GR410-411 of this Federation, in connection with the 2014 USHJA International Hunter Derby Championship Horse Show held on August 14-16, 2014, in that they, as trainers, exhibited the horse INCLUSIVE after it had been administered and/or contained in its body gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in excess of normal physiological levels.
And they do need to specifically sanction him for PP/lactanase if they are serious about the “intent” concept. And I don’t think they are. They had a golden opportunity here to tell USEF membership that using these products is in violation of the rules, and they have chosen not to.
[QUOTE=RugBug;8308147]
[
Yn1063w: I am less and less convinced that a majority of the hunters are doing it without “prep.” some absolutely are, but I think they are the exception. I’m losing out to my cynicism.
I don’t expect sub par rounds to be rewarded, but the standards for a good round need to be broadened. Get back to the roots of the sport. Who decided that the robot was the ideal? Let’s move away from that…and that starts with redefining the ideal.
. Who said they couldn’t train their horses to jog? Hold on to your disappointment. I said I have one that doesn’t jog out. I also said I haven’t worked with him in a while. I’m decently versed on how to get a light feel and have my horse move off that feel. When he’s working on that feel, I don’t even have to close my fingers around the lead rope. But if he’s not tuned up, he won’t jog out energetica or at all.[/QUOTE]
I want to be clear: I am on your side here. I have little faith that any of them are going around the way they are naturally. My thought is that it’s not fair to the judges to expect them to decide which ones are drugged and which ones are not. How can they possibly be expected to discern that? And I wasn’t talking about sub-par vs best ever; I was talking about the little nuances that almost always decide the difference between first and second at the shows that count.
How can the standards for a good round be broadened when more horse/rider combinations put in a “good” round than there are ribbons to present? The judges have to come up with a certain standard by which to judge the class. And more often than not, there are enough “good” rounds that things like a lead change that was a stride later than it should have been and came along with a little tiny bit of attitude, or a little tiny buck on the corner that had nothing to do with a lead change, can’t help but have to be taken into consideration because that’s all the judge has in front of him.
Do you really want judges to be forced to guess which horses are drugged and which ones aren’t when they are judging?
Halt Near X: I too feel your frustration. I hope that USEF can end the Perfect Prep nonsense in so many ways. It creates a poisonous culture even if it doesn’t hurt the horse directly, with one tube or 9. I hope they have smart people trying to figure out a process that will work.
<stereotypes>While a warmblood might be dead in the sense that you need to keep motivating it to keep moving, they can be spooky. And that spook can be sudden and without warning. As in, that chair they trotted by thirty times becomes The Evil Thing and they leap sideways about twenty feet when they go by the 31st time. If the TB cared about the chair they would look carefully at it when they walked into the ring and maybe react and maybe not at that point. Maybe that’s part of the reason behind feeling the need for calming warmbloods. That, and the fact that they can go from dull to not-so-dull fairly quickly–that slug high feeling. </stereotypes>
IMHO what probably needs to change in order for change to occur is the judging standards. And, as ynl1063w noted, that’s tricky because you’re going to have to differentiate between two “equally good” rounds without using the head shake or the slightly expressive change. But maybe those two rounds aren’t equally good or you can do something with course design to make it harder for everyone to be perfect. Or include a statement in the rule book that slight errors such as x, y, or z are not to be penalized. It’s still going to be a judge’s call as to whether the error is slight or not, but it might send a message. Another approach would be to judge the correctness of the horse between the fences–not just rhythm and pace, but training issues such as are the changes actually clean, does the horse bend correctly through the turn, and so on.
As the holder of an earned doctorate I just think it’s kind of amusing when people who don’t have one present themselves as if they do, but I don’t get overly excited about the whole thing.
Change the courses and the judging will follow. Take away side, diagonal, side with set related distances and the judges will have more to judge. Ask more of the riders and the horses with less ground lines, unrelated distances, and more variety in jumps. Related distances reward the über quiet hunter who can softly flow down the line without changing pace. More singles and options reward brilliance and will put more emphasis on each jump and not the “pretty” picture between the jumps. There is a reason why the handy is often won by a different horse than the other three over the jumps- it asks for a different type and allows for a different look. I am a firm believer that the small change that could make a big difference is to radically alter the course requirements for A shows.
It is possible to change the emphasis of judging to reward a different way of going, but that change won’t happen over night. The current standard says to reward performance, soundness and manners, and later HU135 explains performance. It states an even hunting pace (which is not currently rewarded- even yes, hunting pace no), and states for ladies and amateur classes reward manners, brilliance in formal and Corinthian (the latter don’t even exist at rated shows any more). Maybe in the judging clinics there could be an emphasis on rewarding actual brilliance for pro, a/o, and junior Hunter classes and ding a pace that doesn’t have enough impulsion. Like I said, making this change would be a process, but it is possible.
The judges cannot arbitrarily start pinning the bright-eyed corner-players in a sport that emphasizes manners. These are classes full of super nice animals and frequently that head-shake is the determining factor, and the guidelines fully support this.
Hunter scoring is mystical. When it is accepted that an 84 round in St. Louis is a 72 at WEF we have lost all ability to logically critique the system.
Janet’s recent explanation about the difference in dressage scoring and hunter scoring was quite superb, maybe because it’s the first time I’ve heard it explained in a way that attempted logic. The gist being:
(Janet)
The hunter judge ALWAYS knows which horse got the highest score
The dressage judge, on the other hand, assignes a score to each movement (and the collective marks), and then gives the score sheet to the runner. The judge does not know what total score any individual horse got until he/she checks the results after the class is over.
Seems to me the dressage system could address a lot of complaints in the hunter industry, from subjective bias to political pinnings to uneducated parents not understanding why their hunter isn’t worth $150,000 because By Golly it got an 84 and won the classic (out of 6) at ____! (fill in the blank with something not located on the coasts or KY).
I think it’s less about changing the judging and more about changing the scoring. Defining it, actually, is all that needs to be done.
I do not know how dressage scoring works with its coefficients, but it seems we could consider a judge’s card that:
Awards a 1-10 score for the horse’s
Overall Jump Quality
Overall Movement Quality
Overall Presence/Appeal
Each jumping effort
And coefficients for
Keenness (THIS is what we miss in the ring, and I believe the best word to combat the robot ideal)
Manners
Pace & Rhythm (?, could reflect whether the horse got the right numbers)
Lead Changes (? could be one way to reward a horse with truly correct changes, and acknowledge that another always gets them, but is always a half stride late behind)
And so on… again, not really sure how coefficients work, but I believe they provide numerical value to the tiny nuances that usually distinguish one horse from another. I could be totally wrong, but that is what I’m trying to accomplish in this loosely constructed mental plan.
I also don’t know how to make them all add up to 100% 
but surely someone can figure that out.
This idea that the judge does not know how the class pins until it pins is so very intriguing to me. Very simple, and truly has a chance of affecting change…
because trust me, all the 12-hour-no-shots rule has done is lead to the unsanitary disposal of needles.
[QUOTE=ynl063w;8308039]
… But with so many horses that ARE able to reach these new standards (I have no idea if any of them are truly able to do that naturally compared to how many do that through the help of drugs), how does a judge make the call? [/QUOTE]
How about changing the task? Make the courses more varied? Add some non-standard distances? More bending lines? True verticals? Have courses that encourage (and reward) adjustability and problem solving. I realize that those changes might slow down the factory-like “assembly line” that modern shows have become. If they had to move fences between classes it would be inconvenient for management. And trainers. On the other hand, riders and trainers would have time to identify and correct their mistakes between classes. That would bring back some of the learning (and teaching) part of the client/trainer relationship. After all, we don’t all ride like Liza Boyd and John French. Not all the time.
[QUOTE=supernatural;8307867]
Please read HU 111.4. Talks about how Junior Divisions are to be run…there were 6 youngers… At least 9 olders…this is Premier show. Under usef regs…there should have never been California Split…all ages combined and NO…management did or should not have done California split. The divisions younger and older larges should have been run as such as at the start of the large juniors there were at least 6 in each age group. Yes…the results…running this as a California Split greatly skewed results.
If only my internet service would have worked in this area…[/QUOTE]
You are correct, of course. I was responding more to the 'can’t split when less than 30, portion of the comment.
So, did you file a protest? Or alert the steward?
[QUOTE=dags;8308193]
The judges cannot arbitrarily start pinning the bright-eyed corner-players in a sport that emphasizes manners. These are classes full of super nice animals and frequently that head-shake is the determining factor, and the guidelines fully support this.
Hunter scoring is mystical. When it is accepted that an 84 round in St. Louis is a 72 at WEF we have lost all ability to logically critique the system.
Janet’s recent explanation about the difference in dressage scoring and hunter scoring was quite superb, maybe because it’s the first time I’ve heard it explained in a way that attempted logic. The gist being:
Seems to me the dressage system could address a lot of complaints in the hunter industry, from subjective bias to political pinnings to uneducated parents not understanding why their hunter isn’t worth $150,000 because By Golly it got an 84 and won the classic (out of 6) at ____! (fill in the blank with something not located on the coasts or KY).
I think it’s less about changing the judging and more about changing the scoring. Defining it, actually, is all that needs to be done.
I do not know how dressage scoring works with its coefficients, but it seems we could consider a judge’s card that:
Awards a 1-10 score for the horse’s
Overall Jump Quality
Overall Movement Quality
Overall Presence/Appeal
Each jumping effort
And coefficients for
Keenness (THIS is what we miss in the ring, and I believe the best word to combat the robot ideal)
Manners
Pace & Rhythm (?, could reflect whether the horse got the right numbers)
Lead Changes (? could be one way to reward a horse with truly correct changes, and acknowledge that another always gets them, but is always a half stride late behind)
And so on… again, not really sure how coefficients work, but I believe they provide numerical value to the tiny nuances that usually distinguish one horse from another. I could be totally wrong, but that is what I’m trying to accomplish in this loosely constructed mental plan.
I also don’t know how to make them all add up to 100% but surely someone can figure that out.
This idea that the judge does not know how the class pins until it pins is so very intriguing to me. Very simple, and truly has a chance of affecting change…
because trust me, all the 12-hour-no-shots rule has done is lead to the unsanitary disposal of needles.[/QUOTE]
This is an intriguing idea. It creates a standard against which particular attributes are measured. One of the things that has not been transparent becomes more transparent. In dressage, riders and trainers actually receive the judges sheet and I know many/most use them (including the comments recorded by the scribe) as important feedback measuring their progress. A system like this would provide similar feedback here.
I like dags use of the word " keen" to describe what is, indeed, missing these days. Keen is sharp, enthusiastic and wanting to perform. Hard to describe, easy to recognize in a good Hunter and right now a thing of the past.
I honestly don’t care for " playing" in the corners, I just call that bucking, in most divisions and am not talking about misbehavior in any class but it would be nice to see a trip with some energy and brightness rewarded like they used to be. Keen used to be a plus, now it’s penalized, what the heck happened?
[QUOTE=findeight;8308268]
I like dage use of the word " keen" to describe what is, indeed, missing these days. Keen is sharp, enthusiastic and wanting to perform. Hard to describe, easy to recognize in a good Hunter and right now a thing of the past.
I honestly don’t care for " playing" in the corners, I just call that bucking, in most divisions and am not talking about misbehavior in any class but it would be nice to see a trip with some energy and brightness rewarded like they used to be. Keen used to be a plus, now it’s penalized, what the heck happened?[/QUOTE]
Back in the 70s and 80s we used to keep our ponies in the night before the show so they would have that extra sparkle on show day. Sometimes it backfired and they were a little too sparkly, but we still kept them in.
Fast forward to today, and that same barn makes darn sure that any horse going to a show gets as much turnout time as possible before loading up and hauling to the show.
[QUOTE=ynl063w;8308284]
Back in the 70s and 80s we used to keep our ponies in the night before the show so they would have that extra sparkle on show day. Sometimes it backfired and they were a little too sparkly, but we still kept them in.
Fast forward to today, and that same barn makes darn sure that any horse going to a show gets as much turnout time as possible before loading up and hauling to the show.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. We would turn ours out the night before; let them run around the indoor before breakfast to “get the bucks out”; out the door by 5:30; get to the show and school. That was our “prep”.
[QUOTE=findeight;8308268]
I like dage use of the word " keen" to describe what is, indeed, missing these days. Keen is sharp, enthusiastic and wanting to perform. Hard to describe, easy to recognize in a good Hunter and right now a thing of the past.
I honestly don’t care for " playing" in the corners, I just call that bucking, in most divisions and am not talking about misbehavior in any class but it would be nice to see a trip with some energy and brightness rewarded like they used to be. Keen used to be a plus, now it’s penalized, what the heck happened?[/QUOTE]
+1
I too want to know about the judging standards. Why did they change?
Does it have something to do with the the influx of warmbloods and their dominance in the ring? This reminds me somewhat of the change in the format for major 3 day events, particularly in the cross country. The format of X-C seems to favor the WB over the TB now that steeplecase and roads & tracks have been dropped.
Anyone who is aware at a rated show is aware of drugging, calming, etc. Check your horses at night before going to the hotel? Notice what else is going on in the barns? I remember walking my students past a famous horse at a big rated show and two big syringes were sitting just like a brush or a hoof pick on a tack trunk where the comatose horse was cross-tied. We think drugging/calming choices in this business don’t affect our young people? And what do we think they think about the drug(s) they might be offered casually by their peers after pondering their horse show experiences? Thank you Molly Sorge for your truthful, encompassing article!!! We’ve been waiting for it!
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8308310]
+1
I too want to know about the judging standards. Why did they change?
Does it have something to do with the the influx of warmbloods and their dominance in the ring? This reminds me somewhat of the change in the format for major 3 day events, particularly in the cross country. The format of X-C seems to favor the WB over the TB now that steeplecase and roads & tracks have been dropped.[/QUOTE]
Of course it started with the warmbloods. I remember hearing why the trainers were switching to warmbloods and dropping the TB’s. They were supposed to be so much easier to train, much more forgiving, didn’t need as much riding as those crazy TB’s, in other words, you could leave them in a stall and they would come out ready to go to work. Yeah, sure. I would like one of those trainers that told me this, to explain then why all the warmbloods need to be drugged in order to go around dumbed down hunter courses. What about the trainers that drug the horse before the A/O comes out to take a lesson? They’re all warmbloods now, so why is this necessary? I’ll tell you what has changed, and that is the people who own the horses. Years ago, even the rich who showed, spent lots of time in the saddle. Riding & showing was a way of life, rich or not so rich. Nowadays, it is just a hobby to be compared with tennis, golf, etc. You do it a couple of times a week and off you go to do something else. No wonder why the owner never knows what is going on with their horses. They’ve turned over total responsibility and control to someone else, trusting that everything is A-OK until they show up for their next lesson. I doubt these owners even know what being a “horseman” means!
I am repeating a lot of people here, but I read the whole dang thread and want to say something even if its repetitive.
I think drugs for “prep” are just far too ingrained in horse showing culture today. I showed about 15 years ago in junior hunters in a smaller zone, with trainers who even for the time were a bit old-school (their heyday was probably the 80s). We never used performance-altering drugs at shows, and while I respect those trainers, I wouldn’t say they were exceptionally moral or anything. I think they just didn’t consider doping up horses to be the usual rules of the game. It wasn’t as common.
Right now, it seems like it’s absolutely worth it to drug your horse (moral issues aside). If you do it right, you have a calm hunter - you’ve done everything you can to maximize your chances of winning. If you overdo it a bit, you can often still get a mid-level ribbon kicking around a course with a stoned looking horse and stay in the game for the division championship. And if you get caught, there’s almost no penalty. Just list your groom as a trainer and get a new groom for away shows. No deterrents. It really does seem like USEF honestly does not care AT ALL if people drug their horses as long as the fed can’t get blamed if something goes wrong.
I like the suggestions about shifting judging standards and making courses more challenging. I don’t even know how judges can pick winners among fifteen flawless rounds of six-figure brown hunters. It certainly makes it easier to bring personal relationships into judging calls when every round is identical, too.
But most importantly - I think there needs to be a massive crackdown. Testers at every single show, significant penalties for owner, rider, horse and trainer. Would you risk drugging your horse if it meant your kid couldn’t go to medal finals in their last two junior years? If it meant you couldn’t sell your horse for a year because they were banned from the show ring? If it meant you couldn’t be physically present on show grounds for your clients at Devon? Make 2015 and 2016 the years of Not Cheating. Then in subsequent years, back off the (admittedly expensive) policing, but make it sneakier. Create a legitimate fear of being caught.
And I ABSOLUTELY think that junior riders should be set down if they’re riding a drugged horse. First of all, I don’t think it’s the end of the world if a rider has to miss a big show, or several big shows. Life goes on after Pony Finals or Medal Finals or whatever. Horse showing is just a sport. Especially for juniors (I am aware that some juniors are basically professionals, but I don’t think that’s a particularly good direction for the sport either.) I also think that it is important to teach juniors that horse welfare and good horsemanship are more important than ribbons. This would be a good opportunity for that. If you don’t want to be disqualified, then make sure you know what’s going on with your horse. And don’t cheat.
Second of all, a huge amount of the money in the sport comes from parents footing the bill for their kids’ riding aspiration. These parents won’t want to spend millions on horse shows just to have their kid disqualified because the trainer was cheating. That’s a powerful incentive for trainers to get it together and leave the needles at home.
And finally, someone several pages back asked about the line with medicating and abuse. Personally, I think there’s probably situations in which it is appropriate to use calming or tranquilizing medications. For example, a horse that’s been laid up and needs to be hand walked without freaking out and reinjuring itself. A spooky young horse that will benefit from exposure to new environments with a little bit of the ‘edge’ taken off. All of these things using legal drugs for their intended purposes, administered according to your vet’s guidance, and done OUTSIDE of competition scenarios.
I do think drugging your horse to keep it calm in competition is both cheating and abuse. There’s no benefit to the horse. You’re not helping to teach it new skills of coping with new environments, you’re not helping it recuperate. It’s purely for material benefit of the horse’s owners/riders/trainers. And you’re risking the negative side effects to the horse’s health.
[QUOTE=Grazer1;8308414]
But most importantly - I think there needs to be a massive crackdown. Testers at every single show, significant penalties for owner, rider, horse and trainer. Would you risk drugging your horse if it meant your kid couldn’t go to medal finals in their last two junior years? If it meant you couldn’t sell your horse for a year because they were banned from the show ring? If it meant you couldn’t be physically present on show grounds for your clients at Devon? Make 2015 and 2016 the years of Not Cheating. Then in subsequent years, back off the (admittedly expensive) policing, but make it sneakier. Create a legitimate fear of being caught. [/QUOTE]
THIS!
