Yes. So you’ve all spent 27 pages so far discussing this woman’s moral fiber. You’ve moved on past the actual ride into discussing her mental health. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish here? Do you want her to walk streets while the townspeople scream “shame!” at her? Do you want her banned for a bad ride? You want the dressage community to come to her place with torches and pitchforks and steal away her horses? What’s the end goal here, beside making yourselves all feel like you’re way better riders than her?
This thread has really just just turned into pages of catty unnecessary (repeating) remarks about how she’s basically the devil incarnate on horseback. It’s not doing anything productive. It’s time to stop it now.
I am going to suggest, many who are commenting may not have seen the video of the SECOND ride. When I saw the original video (first ride), my thought was, holy cow, poor woman, she doesn’t deserve to be discussed by anyone other then her own trainer. It was not the best riding, the judges were kind in their scores, the horse is saintly, but really, leave her alone. The second ride is the game changer
When I saw the second ride… I do believe this is worse then the hunter rider who tried to kick her horse in the stomach. And she was sanctioned, suspended, and fined. Not sure we (the internet crowd) should be judge and jury, but I do believe USEF and USDF need to work together to change some rules and make it possible for judges to eliminate people for cruelty. What I hear from the judges now is that they are afraid to use DR 124 and GR 839 because a rider can retaliate and file a complaint against them. I do believe that is why the blood rule was passed - it gives a specific guideline. I find it sad that we must do that for other forms of cruelty, but maybe there needs to be a change in the rules, and our governing bodies need to address this. Perhaps elimination due to cruelty should be non-challengeable (is that even a word?).
Do realize that many of the “Committee members” (from USEF and USDF) are now stating that if the “Qualification rules” had passed, none of this would have happened. That they TRIED to solve the problem, and the membership booed them and strongly objected, and basically it is membership’s fault. I suspect they’ll bring that back as a solution - and I think MOST would agree, that will not solve the issue. As I’ve stated before (a) this specific rider already has qualifying scores, and (b) horses will just get ridden over and over and over at lower levels until some judge gives the necessary score - horse will still be cranked, yanked, and spanked, just at a lower level. It will just hold back the riders who can’t afford the fancy horses - even though they may be riding much more kindly and correctly. No problem solved.
Several people have stated we need to use the “official channels” to address the issue. Anyone who actually saw the ride AT THE SHOW (not on the internet) can file a complaint. The only other official channel is to propose a rule change. And maybe the Dressage Rule Committee needs to hear from people. I’m not sure what the rule change should be - other then one to protect a judge who does eliminate for cruelty, which could include excessive whipping, spurring, or inhumane use of the bit?
AA are afraid the scores are not good enough? do you also realize that AA and Pros currently have different scores needed to qualify? this is really a silly statement.
I know for one, Im going to become more familiar with the procedures should I see abuse happen like this. I can’t help this horse, but there are plenty of ways I can speak up. If Jazz the HJ rider got a fine, there is no doubt this situation needs to escalate to a hearing, No question. However, the cover up says that is not going to happen. Total failure of the system in this case. Why even have these rules if the higher ups don’t care and protect offenders. I just don’t get it…
Introduction
A common thread that binds all of the Federation’s breeds and disciplines is a dedication and commitment to the health, welfare, and safety of the horse. US Equestrian is committed to ensuring the welfare of our horses and providing a safe and fair competition environment to all of our members and their equine partners. To do this, US Equestrian has created rules to govern the actions of our members and protect both horses and humans, allowing them to experience the joy of horse sports.
In the event that a member violates any of the Rules covering welfare and safety of a horse, and this violation ends in a hearing before the Federation’s Hearing Committee, any subsequent penalty issued should be appropriately severe, as a case of a welfare or safety violation against a horse is one of the most egregious violations under the Federation’s Rules. Previously imposed penalties in cases of welfare and safety violations are no longer sufficient in today’s cases. It is important that the Federation’s penalties reflect the severity of the violation.
Penalty Guidelines for horse welfare and safety cases (“Guidelines”) have been prepared to assist the Hearing Committee with the types and ranges of penalties to impose in such cases. These Guidelines also assist the Hearing Committee Panels in the imposition of consistent and efficient penalties. A review and evaluation of penalties imposed in these types of cases was performed. While the suspensions and fines imposed may have been appropriate at the time that they were imposed, the suspensions and fines are too light to be useful as guidelines for matters brought to the Hearing Committee today.
Penalty Range is a Guideline Only
The penalty types and ranges below are simple guidelines and are not mandatory. These Guidelines are intended to provide a basis upon which discretion can be exercised consistently in like circumstances but are not binding on the Hearing Committee Panels. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, a Hearing Committee Panel may determine that no purpose is served by imposing a penalty within the range provided in these Guidelines. In some cases, a penalty below the stated range, or no penalty at all, may be warranted. Conversely, a Hearing Committee Panel may determine that the facts and circumstances of a specific case may call for the imposition of penalties above or otherwise outside of a stated range. Examples include, but not are limited to, prior rule violations, egregious misconduct, the need for increased deterrence, or certain policy considerations.
Hearing Panel Discretion
Federation Hearing Panels must always exercise judgment and discretion and consider appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors in determining appropriate penalties in every case. In addition, whether the penalties are within or outside of the range stated in the Guidelines, Hearing Panels must identify the basis for the penalties imposed.
Categories of Rule Violations
I. Excessive Use of Whip or Spurs and Improper Use of Bits
Excessive or intentional use of whip or spurs or improper use of a bit to cause harm or pain to a horse/pony.
[LIST]
First Offense - Suspension of 6 months and $6,000.00 fine
Second Offense - Suspension of 12 months and $12,000.00 fine
Third Offense - Suspension of 24 months and $24,000.00 fine
If there are multiple horses involved, the penalty should apply to each horse and run consecutively
[/LIST]
Q – What is the definition of excessive? A – Excessive can be defined as more than is fair, reasonable and appropriate under usual, normal and ordinary circumstances. As is current practice, if a case comes before a Hearing Panel they will determine whether the incident is deemed excessive based on the circumstances and facts in the case
Q – What if I use draw reins or a bit on my horse when the rules do not permit their use or I momentarily lose my temper? A – The vast majority of these types of violations do not reach the level of a hearing and are dealt with on site at a competition, in accordance with USEF general and breed/discipline rules, which may include verbal warnings, warning cards, and elimination from current and future classes during the competition, etc. Should a violation of this type result in a hearing, the penalty would be decided by the Hearing Panel as is current practice.
Q – What is the protocol on welfare and abuse violations when competing in FEI competitions? A – Officials and competitors must follow the process outlined in FEI General Regulations Section VIII and also discipline specific FEI regulations.
If you have additional questions, please contact Emily Pratt at epratt@usef.or
What I find confusing about Axel’s post about people commenting on this ride was that his commentary was not gushing rainbows. Was it OK for him to groan and sigh and comment but no one else to?
Just want to add, I have posted several times that I enjoyed the commentary on the videos I watched. I found it very educational.
Well… There was quite a bit of buzz about how adorable that buckskin pony was too.
Yes! I wonder why people are not wanting people to comment about how cute their critter is (those same people who will not ride because people made comments about the beating with spur and whip)?
It is worth noting that though that pony was adorable, their rides were not perfect yet everyone still is saying how cute they are. All this call about mean bullies seems to miss the point that no one is complaining about less than perfect rides (especially when they involve an adorable pony).
Rides that are not perfect are ok. We are humans riding a live animal, we make mistakes or have to deviate from our plan on the spot and figure out how to recover. This is normal.
Harsh and unfair treatment of your horse is not ok. That is not normal.
Lol. Yes, we all wonder. It’s peobably because their “cute critter” will draw the attention of the CoTH dressage police, who will see that one millisecond where the rider’s leg slipped and she spurs her cute critter too hard and he crow hops and the next thing you know, that poor rider is the star of her very own “Del mar live stream” thread. I don’t blame any of them. I wouldn’t want to star in this circus either. Guys, let it go. Contact people who can actually change the system, but stop picking on this woman. She had an attrocious ride. The entire planet knows it. You’re beating a dead horse at this point (pun intended).
He commented on the ride alone with a couple of remarks along the lines, of “she’s an AA so likely has a trainer to help her” or commenting on how saintly the horse was, he did not devolve into personal attacks on rider, trainer or judges.
I’m baffled as to why this difference is so hard for some to understand.
Is that really how you see the video that this thread is all about? “one millisecond where the rider’s leg slipped and she spurs her cute critter too hard”?
If I remember correctly the cute pony had a moment like that (might have been right before it went into the ring though). Which only cements the fact that no one cares if someone makes a mistake and no one cares if the horse is not perfect. That second ride (which it seems like you might not have seen if your opinion is what you said above) was not that. There was no reason at all to jerk the poor mouth of that horse after the ride was over.
As far as action items go, the rider WAS eliminated for Friday’s ride. She should’ve been rung out during her ride, but I can understand a group of judges not wanting to make that call in the moment and rather conferring afterwards (as was the case).
And if there was a qualifying system in place, she would have certainly qualified based on her previous scores. It was a horrendous ride and hopefully an anomaly.
Can we move on?
I heard the commentary. He did not say anything about the rider being angry, he did comment on ineffective leg aids. He talked about the amateur status, he didn’t say the trainer was selling out by having this person as a client. He offered his opinion of how he would score the ride, he didn’t say the judges were held hostage by rich AAs.
See the difference?
People should really stop trying to use his commentary as a shield for their own poor behavior.
I appreciate that dig at my intelligence, and thank you for proving my point. I saw the whole ride and I’ve said several times that it was an atrocious ride. But how is coming on here and bitching for 28 pages about how she’s so rich and entitled and obviously suffering from mental illness, etc fixing anything? This crowd of CoTHers very much does care about anyone making tiny mistake. Have you read any other threads on here?
Again, the Horse died a long time ago. Let’s move on, ok?
There is a big issue now with calling it like it is being seen as bullying.
Basically you can’t say anything negative without being a bully or racist these days. Except of course if you are talking about the POTUS lol…amuses me how many people on FB are complaining about people bullying this rider yet I see worse every day aimed at Politicians. Pot meet kettle?
It’s worth noting, though, that “we” does not include all those on this thread or on social media who’re most harshly condemning not only the individual rider, but also the officials and, in some cases, the entire discipline. It is implied that it does, but there are thousands of people who are incredibly angry, and who are not part of that “we” at all. And those people can easily (and obviously often do) skip over the point you made. It does not apply, in a virtual riding world. They are included among a different “we” which is everyone INTERESTED in dressage and able to recognize it and discuss it.
I believe there’s a very acute awareness of the difference between those two categories (not the best word, maybe “factions” ?) of online commenters, among judges and trainers and show officials and competitors.
And yet on social media and on boards like this, there is almost no consideration or recognition that there are two categories or factions at all. Everyone’s voice is heard, and it’s a phenomenal total, when looked at that way.
I and I mentioned that already on page 8… so I was pretty early!!
