[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8316290]
Check out this photo:
http://www.equusfoundation.org/images/news/releases/111-3-parker.jpg
Most moms would be the ones with their arm around their child. In this photo, it looks like Betsee Parker is much more interested in the camera.[/QUOTE]
Holy heck. Now we are judging her mothering or lack there of? Eesh. Can’t we stick to the horses? The mothering conversation is just beyond bitchy…
[QUOTE=RugBug;8315311]
I don’t think there so many of these naturally and/or well-trained sober, quiet, and good jumping horses out there as we’d like to believe. Sure, in the A/A ring I bet there are more but as the you get into the high performance classes, I think the numbers dwindle. [/QUOTE] We have a barnful of these mythical creatures - naturally kicking quiet, metronome-canter, amateur packers with pretty knees. They almost all top out at 3’.
The horses with the scope for the bigger fences and the peek/spook/brilliance to jump them well… they have a peek and a spook and brilliance in their way of going, not just their jump.
Somewhere along the line, it was decided that the perfect high-performance/derby horse has the same slow manners across the ground as a 2’6 or 3’ amateur hunter, but then has a brilliant back-cracking jump over a 4’+ oxer. Unfortunately, those traits very rarely occur in the same horse. And when the manners are rewarded/revered above all else, we get the current drugging issues.
[QUOTE=RugBug;8316328]
Holy heck. Now we are judging her mothering or lack there of? Eesh. Can’t we stick to the horses? The mothering conversation is just beyond bitchy.…[/QUOTE]
It’s relevant because when taken together with all the other things discussed thus far in this thread, it paints a very different picture of Rev. Parker.
I also want to say that I really feel for Tori. What a cast of awful people and terrible role models she is surrounded by. Given the lack of spine exhibited by her mother in the transcript, it wouldn’t surprise me that TC has felt no option but to go along with the program. I’m glad that so many of you had the teenage experience of strong convictions and supportive, ethical parents, but that is certainly not the case for many, many others.
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8316392]
It’s relevant because when taken together with all the other things discussed thus far in this thread, it paints a very different picture of Rev. Parker.[/QUOTE] That’s a real reach based on a single photo, and frankly, just gossipy and rude. Leave the kid out of it.
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8316290]
Check out this photo:
http://www.equusfoundation.org/images/news/releases/111-3-parker.jpg
Most moms would be the ones with their arm around their child. In this photo, it looks like Betsee Parker is much more interested in the camera.[/QUOTE]
This has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read. You can judge how good of a mother someone is from 1 picture??? She might be Mother of the Year and she might be the worst mother ever. You will never know and certainly can’t glean that information from a picture.
[QUOTE=wanderlust;8316405]
That’s a real reach based on a single photo, and frankly, just gossipy and rude. Leave the kid out of it.[/QUOTE]
We aren’t talking about the kid, we’re talking about Betsee Parker. And as for any of the statements about Betsee here, a lot of it is very relevant, i.e. the status of her “Ph.D”, who she chooses to involve herself with. That’s not gossip. If you don’t like what is being stated, that’s fine, you can put people on ignore, but when people go around swearing and calling people rude, well when you point the finger at someone, you have several pointing back at yourself.
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8316392]
It’s relevant because when taken together with all the other things discussed thus far in this thread, it paints a very different picture of Rev. Parker.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, SnicklefritzG, I have to disagree with you. The comments about BP’s parenting should be out of bounds.
This thread has NOTHING to do with conjecture you are making from a picture or others are making because the daughter may or may not love horses the same as the rest of us think she should because, by golly, what an opportunity she is wasting. Maybe you are right and she’s a terrible mother…but may she’s not and she just does things differently than you think she should. I would say that child looks quite happy and content in that picture…I would also be making a lot of assumptions in doing that that are neither here nor there.
Sorry, I used the word bitchy. Since it’s used on national radio and television, and the FCC doesn’t seem to mind, I didn’t figure the denizens of COTH would. I’ve seen it used plenty here. Should I go edit my post to say b@tchy? (<-- now that WAS b$tchy of me…but I can own it.)
[QUOTE=wanderlust;8316391]
We have a barnful of these mythical creatures - naturally kicking quiet, metronome-canter, amateur packers with pretty knees. They almost all top out at 3’.
The horses with the scope for the bigger fences and the peek/spook/brilliance to jump them well… they have a peek and a spook and brilliance in their way of going, not just their jump.
Somewhere along the line, it was decided that the perfect high-performance/derby horse has the same slow manners across the ground as a 2’6 or 3’ amateur hunter, but then has a brilliant back-cracking jump over a 4’+ oxer. Unfortunately, those traits very rarely occur in the same horse. And when the manners are rewarded/revered above all else, we get the current drugging issues.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for saying this so much better than I did…
If ANYTHING is going to be done, the judging standards have to change. People will do anything to win. Look at the list of faults even though in the paragraph before it describes that the performance hunter should be judged on “brilliance” I would hardly call any hunter round I have watched in the last 10 years as the definition of brilliance. If judges pinned forward going, well mannered (does not equate with dead), happily working, brilliant jumping horses, we would not be in this situation.
The following faults are scored according to the judges opinion and depending on severity or division, may be considered minor or major faults.
a. Rubbing the jump
b. Swapping leads in a line or in front of a jump
c. Late lead changes
d. Freshness
e. Spooking
f. Kicking up or out
g. Jumping out of form
h. Jumping off the center line of jump
i. Bucking and/or playing
j. Adding a stride in a line with a related distance
k. Eliminating a stride in a line with a related distance
l. Striking off on a wrong lead on the courtesy circle. (May be corrected with either a simple or flying change of lead)
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8315364]
What about more varied jumps, some unrelated distances, anything to shake things up a bit.[/QUOTE]
The CotH from 10 August has an interesting article that I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned here. (Could be wrong–I did read the whole thread, but there’s been rather a lot!) The title is “So You Say You Want a Hunter Revolution”, and it talks about the original intent of the USHJA Hunter Derby program as being to “bring the sport back to the hunter ring”, the idea being that the derby style of doing things would trickle down (back?) to the regular hunter ring. (Quote from George Morris: “They were great horses and wonderful riders, but it was so generic, so repetitive.”)
There’s a lot of relevant stuff there, but I particularly note the bit with course designer Steve Stephens and George Morris both ranting about the courses. CotH is hardly subtle, though. “For Stephens, a radical departure from what has become standard in the divisions would result in unemployment.”
[QUOTE=carroal;8316000]
Well b&c are not options for these people. Especially if you are living on the circuit and want to go to indoors - the holy grail. You have to show constantly even in the hunters to get enough points. And then the eq is constant showing because it’s point based. When juniors and their parents are into this lifestyle they don’t even go to school because they are not home enough. Not showing is just not option.[/QUOTE]
THIS is the problem… Among many other things…
[QUOTE=amb;8316452]
The CotH from 10 August has an interesting article that I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned here. (Could be wrong–I did read the whole thread, but there’s been rather a lot!) The title is “So You Say You Want a Hunter Revolution”, and it talks about the original intent of the USHJA Hunter Derby program as being to “bring the sport back to the hunter ring”, the idea being that the derby style of doing things would trickle down (back?) to the regular hunter ring. (Quote from George Morris: “They were great horses and wonderful riders, but it was so generic, so repetitive.”)
There’s a lot of relevant stuff there, but I particularly note the bit with course designer Steve Stephens and George Morris both ranting about the courses. CotH is hardly subtle, though. "For Stephens, a radical departure from what has become standard in the divisions would result in unemployment."[/QUOTE]
I had a similar discussion over the weekend with some people who know horses, but aren’t part of the H/J scene. They asked why show management and course designers don’t take a step forward to change the courses. I replied that it migh work for a show or two but competitors would likely not return to any shows where that person was the course designer. Eventually they would not get invited back to that venue or hired elsewhere.
It’s sad because I think for real change to happen it has to be swift and widespread. That is, set down more people and horses, change the courses, etc.
Here’s the thing. There are NON-DEAD looking brilliant bigtime hunters out there winning. It’s just that they don’t go around like robots or win everytime. Jersey Boy comes to mind. That horse actually IS brilliant. And he’s just as likely to go in there and jump a 10 as sometimes spook and get himself eliminated. AND THAT’S OK. It’s okay to not win every.time.out. The horses that are being doped now-- they don’t really need it, I suspect. If they were clean, sometimes they’d jump brilliantly and sometimes they’d be out. Somewhere along the line we decided that the best horses win everything all the time. That’s an unreasonable standard.
I don’t really think judging STANDARDS are the problem. The STANDARDS don’t call for a judge to prefer a dopey looking horse over a bright one. If they did, Jersey Boy wouldn’t have pinned over walking dead horses–and he frequently did. The problem is that judges rarely HAVE any bright/brilliant horses to pin because a lot of competitors have decided ease and consistency is more important. AND judges are trainers/riders too and many themselves do a thriving business in selling/riding/working with doped horses and it’s scary to think the business model might have to change and require more/different work.
[QUOTE=wanderlust;8316391]
We have a barnful of these mythical creatures - naturally kicking quiet, metronome-canter, amateur packers with pretty knees. They almost all top out at 3’.
The horses with the scope for the bigger fences and the peek/spook/brilliance to jump them well… they have a peek and a spook and brilliance in their way of going, not just their jump.
Somewhere along the line, it was decided that the perfect high-performance/derby horse has the same slow manners across the ground as a 2’6 or 3’ amateur hunter, but then has a brilliant back-cracking jump over a 4’+ oxer. Unfortunately, those traits very rarely occur in the same horse. And when the manners are rewarded/revered above all else, we get the current drugging issues.[/QUOTE]
Really well said. There are ways of dealing with freshness and brilliance so it is channeled into a winning round. My last two junior horses were amazing jumpers, and went up through the Greens to the Regulars with my trainers and the Larges with me. One was so spooky and hot he had to be managed really well- I would take him on handwalks and hacks all over the show grounds to get him used to everything. He got 15-20 minutes of lunging every morning so he could get his bucks out, and then I (or a groom, if it was early in the week), would take him on a cool-down walk/graze. No drugs, just knowing what he needed to get settled. We won a lot on him.
My other one had the barn name of “Bucky,” so you can imagine what he was like. Huge, back cracker of a jump, but he liked to play after the fences. I got good at predicting when he would do it and getting his head up so he couldn’t start. As he matured and the jumps got bigger he didn’t do it as much and he went on with his next owner to be 5th in the A/Os at Madison Square Garden a year after she bought him. We got the best out of those horses with proper management and sold them as happy, well-mannered campaigners.
What you described is the way to do things, but so many people don’t want to take the time.
[QUOTE=foursocks;8316656]
Really well said. There are ways of dealing with freshness and brilliance so it is channeled into a winning round. My last two junior horses were amazing jumpers, and went up through the Greens to the Regulars with my trainers and the Larges with me. One was so spooky and hot he had to be managed really well- I would take him on handwalks and hacks all over the show grounds to get him used to everything. He got 15-20 minutes of lunging every morning so he could get his bucks out, and then I (or a groom, if it was early in the week), would take him on a cool-down walk/graze. No drugs, just knowing what he needed to get settled. We won a lot on him.
My other one had the barn name of “Bucky,” so you can imagine what he was like. Huge, back cracker of a jump, but he liked to play after the fences. I got good at predicting when he would do it and getting his head up so he couldn’t start. As he matured and the jumps got bigger he didn’t do it as much and he went on with his next owner to be 5th in the A/Os at Madison Square Garden a year after she bought him. We got the best out of those horses with proper management and sold them as happy, well-mannered campaigners.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=vxf111;8316618]
Here’s the thing. There are NON-DEAD looking brilliant bigtime hunters out there winning. It’s just that they don’t go around like robots or win everytime. Jersey Boy comes to mind. That horse actually IS brilliant. And he’s just as likely to go in there and jump a 10 as sometimes spook and get himself eliminated. AND THAT’S OK. It’s okay to not win every.time.out. The horses that are being doped now-- they don’t really need it, I suspect. If they were clean, sometimes they’d jump brilliantly and sometimes they’d be out. Somewhere along the line we decided that the best horses win everything all the time. That’s an unreasonable standard.
I don’t really think judging STANDARDS are the problem. The STANDARDS don’t call for a judge to prefer a dopey looking horse over a bright one. If they did, Jersey Boy wouldn’t have pinned over walking dead horses–and he frequently did. The problem is that judges rarely HAVE any bright/brilliant horses to pin because a lot of competitors have decided ease and consistency is more important. AND judges are trainers/riders too and many themselves do a thriving business in selling/riding/working with doped horses and it’s scary to think the business model might have to change and require more/different work.[/QUOTE]
Agree with this completely. The truly brilliant horses are the ones who are often a bit looky - it’s what gives them the spark. So sometimes you win, and sometimes you eat dirt. That’s how the playing field could be leveled, so to speak: everybody gets a chance at being the least spooky dumba$$ out there each day.
[QUOTE=vxf111;8316618]
Here’s the thing. There are NON-DEAD looking brilliant bigtime hunters out there winning. It’s just that they don’t go around like robots or win everytime. Jersey Boy comes to mind. That horse actually IS brilliant. And he’s just as likely to go in there and jump a 10 as sometimes spook and get himself eliminated. AND THAT’S OK. It’s okay to not win every.time.out. The horses that are being doped now-- they don’t really need it, I suspect. If they were clean, sometimes they’d jump brilliantly and sometimes they’d be out. Somewhere along the line we decided that the best horses win everything all the time. That’s an unreasonable standard.
I don’t really think judging STANDARDS are the problem. The STANDARDS don’t call for a judge to prefer a dopey looking horse over a bright one. If they did, Jersey Boy wouldn’t have pinned over walking dead horses–and he frequently did. The problem is that judges rarely HAVE any bright/brilliant horses to pin because a lot of competitors have decided ease and consistency is more important. AND judges are trainers/riders too and many themselves do a thriving business in selling/riding/working with doped horses and it’s scary to think the business model might have to change and require more/different work.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly right. I was about to post something identical and use Jersey Boy as one example. Brunello’s handy round this year at Derby Finals was also nothing short of brilliant, take-your-breath away, non-robotic, etc. In fact, many horses at Derby Finals this year were animated in their performances. Some ended up brilliant, some ended up with mistakes because of their liveliness. That is how it should be. But in the end, it really is a function of quieter horses are easier to ride and more consistent for the weekend warriors to show up and get on. So don’t blame the judging standards, blame the lazy owners and riders who want to show up at the ring in clean riding clothes, jump around twice, and go have a glass of wine and shop at the vendor tents. That is where I think the problem lies.
[QUOTE=huntersgonewild;8316677]
This is exactly right. I was about to post something identical and use Jersey Boy as one example. Brunello’s handy round this year at Derby Finals was also nothing short of brilliant, take-your-breath away, non-robotic, etc. In fact, many horses at Derby Finals this year were animated in their performances. Some ended up brilliant, some ended up with mistakes because of their liveliness. That is how it should be. But in the end, it really is a function of quieter horses are easier to ride and more consistent for the weekend warriors to show up and get on. So don’t blame the judging standards, blame the lazy owners and riders who want to show up at the ring in clean riding clothes, jump around twice, and go have a glass of wine and shop at the vendor tents. That is where I think the problem lies.[/QUOTE]
I think everyone is to blame. Riders can be lazy, but if that encourages trainers to dope horses, course designers to dumb things down, then it all contributes to a downward spiral.
[QUOTE=ynl063w;8313811]
… I guess if some want to believe that giving a horse calming substances makes it able to rate itself, find its own distances, and make its rider look like one of the best in the country, that is their prerogative. I stand by my opinion that it’s just not that simple.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think what is really being lost here is that #9tubeapalooza probably doesn’t significantly alter the horse’s performance. Which makes dumping that many vitamins, minerals, lactanase, chemicals and who knows what else into the horse that much more reprehensible. There’s even some evidence that GABA doesn’t cross the blood brain barrier, meaning it may well be dangerous to administer to the horse, but actually not “calming” in the way people might think. Reprehensible squared.
Every last one of these people would spare no expense treating the horse for injury or illness.
Every last one of them would go the extra mile to ensure the future health for a horse with health issues (i.e., managing a cushings horse, a high colic risk horse and so on).
And yet it seems that when it comes to dumping 9 tubes of untested, unknown, uncontrolled substances down their throat regularly, with no regard for what the long term health implications might be, all in the off chance it might fractionally tip the balance in their favor in the ring and it doesn’t test… All bets are off.
Reprehensible.
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
