[QUOTE=poltroon;8308587]
I didn’t understand then (why this round scored 100) and I don’t understand now. It’s a nice round, yes. Is it completely perfect and untoppable? I don’t think so. The horse could be tighter with his knees, the jumps could be rounder. Not that they need to be to win the class, lovely is good enough, just that I am confused by this as ‘perfect.’[/QUOTE]
When this first came out, I thought the same thing. “OK, soooooo”…not much that made me think WOW!! I felt that I’ve actually seen better, but ok…
The discussion here once again point out why the penalties used currently don’t work well and argue for clearer consequences. Setting down the horse and the rider eliminate the endless debate of who is the “responsible party”. When a horse tests positive there is no question as to which horse tested positive and there is also no question as to who rode that horse at the time it was tested. All for setting down the “responsible party” as well, but its difficult to determine that and easy to substitute someone else at the next show and just keep it going.
In addition, while there are benefits to random testing and while it would be incredibly expensive it would be interesting to see what happened the top two horses were routinely tested at major shows for a designated period of time (say 6 months to a year) and it those shows included all major events including indoors, and incentive finals.
[QUOTE=winter;8308622]
This really rings true to me. As I posted up thread, I hate seeing the horses that land in a heap pinned above the beautiful awake ones who also had flawless rounds. Watching the pre-green divisions, I would see legitimately young horses with a lot of sparkle; beautiful jumps and stunning animated canters with wonderful expressions and alot of scope, but they would never pin as high as the extremely quiet barely awake (and much older) horses. It made me sad for the young horses who would have to be forced into a mold so soon in their career to be competitive. I think a lot of them loose their brilliance and scope along the way.
It left me thinking that keenness should be more rewarded, particularly in the green divisions. They should actually be for green horses. Young horses should be fresh and keen and awake. Not bucking, missing changes and being disobedient, just jumping amazing and having their ears up and going forward. Making them too quiet too early (by lunging or drugging or whatever) just wears out good horses too soon and takes away their enthusiasm for the job. It also made me question green eligibility and think there really should be age limits on the green divisions and reinstatement should not be allowed. Judging in these divisions should reflect the age/greeness of the horses and allow them to shine.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I brought my mare up slowly so that at 6 she’s starting changes and jumping 2’6" a few times a week. The rest of the time she lives out 24/7. Nothing fazes her. I showed her on the line up to 3 and she has learned to trailer, braid, take in the sights at a new venue…all without a blink of an eye. So now when we go, she pops in the ring, gets to look at the jumps, does a course to get the striding and we’re out.
SPARKLE. That better then keen. We lost the sparkle. The bright expression went poof. Some WBs are dull by nature, many are not so its not just that. But think whoever pointed out that jumping the same course 3 or 4 times in a row with just a different first fence or a single to differentiate one course from the other is part of the problem is dead on target. Creating dull, bored, tired horses even if its stone cold sober is not doing us or the horses any good.
Really?!? Did you watch the winner of the derby finals this year?
Did you read Molly’s most recent article from yesterday? I am impressed that COTH is willing to print such an ugly account of the reality of the hunter world and put everyone’s name (Betsee Parker, Inclusive, Brigid Colvin) in print. That article deserves its own thread.
[QUOTE=BAC;8308765]
Did you read Molly’s most recent article from yesterday? I am impressed that COTH is willing to print such an ugly account of the reality of the hunter world and put everyone’s name (Betsee Parker, Inclusive, Brigid Colvin) in print. That article deserves its own thread.[/QUOTE]
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.
And certainly what you want in the hunt field, which is what our show hunters are supposed to reflect. My foxhunter LOVED his job, was aware of where his feet were, and what “his” hounds were doing. He tackled the terrain and the jumps with enthusiasm. And today’s pace in the ring? Laughable. Show hunters would never see a fox (or the tails of the field, for that matter). It’s a pace that is appropriate for the 2’6" and 3’ divisions, but not our 3’6" horses, IMO. I don’t show anymore, but still enjoy spectating and cheering for friends. It would be nice to see some high performance classes that are fun to watch and populated with bright, interested horses. These days, I just feel sorry for the horses.
I can’t imagine even trying a #9Tubeapalooza with my mare. She’d be so indignant by the 3rd tube that til you were done, her attitude would totally negate whatever you were trying to achieve with the meds :lol:[/QUOTE]
This made me laugh. My horse would be right there with your mare. No way could I get nine tubes of anything in.
(Yes, I know this was lots of pages back, I just got around to reading the whole thread.)
[QUOTE=trubandloki;8308815]
This made me laugh. My horse would be right there with your mare. No way could I get nine tubes of anything in.
(Yes, I know this was lots of pages back, I just got around to reading the whole thread.)[/QUOTE]
AND have you ever inadvertently tasted that shit? The first one, never mind NINE tubes of it, is tantamount to horse abuse before you ever leave the stall, just based on the taste alone!
[QUOTE=BAC;8308765]
Did you read Molly’s most recent article from yesterday? I am impressed that COTH is willing to print such an ugly account of the reality of the hunter world and put everyone’s name (Betsee Parker, Inclusive, Brigid Colvin) in print. That article deserves its own thread.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Change can only come once you recognize there is a problem.
What’s amazing is that even after Brigid Colvin’s civil suit, blowing the cover off the doping, Tori was still out there showing, the horse was out there showing, Brigid was still out there being a stage mom/trainer/whatever, the trainers were still out there doing their thing, Betsee Parker was still out there posing for photos and pretending to be a doctor…where is the shame, the accountability, the sense of something has gone terribly wrong, the concern for the horse??
After reading this entire thread, I have been reading through the USEF transcripts. I can’t seem to find a transcript of Betsee’s testimony. Did she have to give testimony? If so, which of the documents is it?
It’s not just the judges. It’s the horse shows and the course designers, which is what many of you are alluding to. On our local circuit, they don’t even set on a 12’ stride. I read the course cards and have to pull out my calculator on my phone to try to figure out how many strides they are going for because it’s like 10’6 or something. For horses. Even in the 3’ divisions. I rode a friend’s 16h appendix QH in the 3’ division last summer and was pulling teeth to fit in the strides, and he was not the biggest strided horse ever.
I haven’t really been on the A/AA scene due to lack of horse since the early 2000s, but then we still had plenty of large grass fields to show on for the 3’6 and up divisions. At FENCE in Tryon we even had to LEAVE THE RING and jump a few jumps out on the grass hill next to the arena as part of the handy round. There were lines, sure, but there were also plenty of bending lines on sort-of related distances. This was when WBs were already prevalent in the ring. Some of my best scores in the A/Os were on a fairly eq-type WB at an AA show where I galloped down one of those unrelated bending lines in a brilliant 8 strides where some others took the scenic route and did as many as 11. Whether or not that would still pin today under a given judge doesn’t matter if you only have straight lines in a tiny arena set short. It also requires a bit of bravery on the part of the rider that I remember being intimidating the first time I set foot at 14(?) out on one of those big fields in the small juniors. But if you and the horse are in the 3’6 and up divisions at least, then you should be able to suck it up and do it even if you don’t have the real estate to practice that at home (I didn’t). Those kinds of challenges used to make horse showing FUN.
Would people still show up if they had a challenging ring like that or would lack of participation force venues to keep on the current trend? I recall many of the summer shows in the south east used to just slap temporary fencing out on some fields and run the show. Even the National Derby at one of the WCHR weeks I observed here in CO just ran in the main hunter ring with quiet set lines. Only the jumpers and Int’l derby used what is called our actual “derby” field, and they wouldn’t allow the Int’l derby riders to use the banks in the handy round.
Lines SHOULD be shorter than the 12’ stride when the fences are 2’6" and under. They shouldn’t be on a 10 1/2 foot stride, but the line should be about 2’ short. (58’ for a 4 stride instead of 60’)
A 12’ stride in crossrails/2’ is a great way to get people hurt if they aren’t smart enough to add. (I saw so many flyers and scary distances the last time I saw crossrails at 12’. there was one horse out of 12 or so that made the distances…
You missed the part where I said that the lines are like that even for the 3’ divisions. There’s also a 2’6-2’9 division. But I dunno, I grew up with 12’ stride lines for ponies and X rails and horses alike and we had trainers who were smart enough to tell us the right numbers for our particular mount and division. At 2’6, if you calculate that the takeoff and landing distance each gets shortened by 6" in what would be a 60’ 4 stride at 3’ height, then you’re still only 1’ short.
ETA - Maybe the new pros ought to know the distances and teach their kids better too. I took a couple clinics in recent years where we were quizzed on things like line distances and what the mph is for each gait and the majority of the participants younger than me had NO CLUE what the answers were.
Brilliance is the word. Brilliance used to be right there in the rule book as something to be rewarded in the more advanced divisions. No, your 2’6 pre adult hunter shouldn’t be brilliant. It should be quiet and safe. But if your are jumping 3’6, you should be looking for brilliant.
I didn’t miss that you said and 3’…I just narrowed it to 2’6" and under because the lines should be shorter at those heights. They don’t need to be at 3’.
And while your trainer told you the “right” numbers to get for your particular mount, that isn’t how it is done anymore. You get the numbers or you are out of it, if there is any competition. So you’ve got everyone gunning for the four strides in the 60’ when they should probably be getting 5 strides. Most pros, yes…even the old skool ones, will tell you to add when the jumps are small and the lines are not adjusted accordingly.
At 2’,you are landing about 3’ to 4’ into the line, not the calculated 6’. That means you will end up about 4’ - 6’ short if you don’t make up the distance with stride length. It’s even worse in crossrails.
ETA - Maybe the new pros ought to know the distances and teach their kids better too. I took a couple clinics in recent years where we were quizzed on things like line distances and what the mph is for each gait and the majority of the participants younger than me had NO CLUE what the answers were.
You’re not wrong about that teaching distances is lost on a certain group of people. I’ve seen some crazy things set up by people that defy all sense: enough that I won’t use anything unless I know my trainer was the last person to set things in our arena, including trot poles, etc.
I don’t remember the mph for gaits. Isn’t walk is like 4, trot is 7 mph, canter is like 12-14 (or maybe that’s hand gallop). I know it when I feel it (but I did enjoy doing roads and tracks many, many moons ago and having to meet time splits, etc.)
[QUOTE=oneequestrienne;8308857]
After reading this entire thread, I have been reading through the USEF transcripts. I can’t seem to find a transcript of Betsee’s testimony. Did she have to give testimony? If so, which of the documents is it?[/QUOTE]
She provided and affidavit (not live testimony), but I haven’t seen it posted anywhere yet.
In order to regulate/legislate/punish, USEF has to think about the reasons that people dope their horses because different approaches are appropriate for different reasons. In some divisions I think they might even want to hop them up a bit.
But just looking at hunters/eq, I can think of three: pain, quieting for the rider, and quieting for the judging standard. Looking at the last two, changing the judging standards isn’t going to help if the reason you’re doping the horse is that you’re concerned about rider safety. There, the balance might be more toward purchasing a suitable horse and having judging standards for ammy/childrens classes emphasize manners (what the suitable horse should have) and a safe jump, as opposed a fancy jump. Think how pleasure SHOULD be judged as opposed to how hunter under saddle is judged.
In the case of Inclusive, clearly TC can ride circles around most people, so rider safety isn’t the issue. Instead, it’s to meet an artificial standard. So for the professional divisions, changing the standards to allow more brilliance would help. But there are some horse that maybe shouldn’t be hunters, even with a professional.
