Del Mar Live Stream

[Angela_Freda]

@DrHB

I agree and I don’t think there is anyone on this board who has suggested or implied that these videos suggest otherwise.

Or did I miss some errant post?

?

You wrote:

[I]I am encouraging people to use their trained eye to examine carefully what the aids Actually are.

So you are saying the one handed whipping, the kicking with spurs, the yanking at the reins are aids?[/I]

[DrHB]

@SendenHorse

the aids are ineffective and the rider has no influence positively over the horse, therefore she has to get all waky and slappy.

A horse on the aids might need a kick here and there, but geez this is a complete abandonment of any thoughtfulness.

I agree. Rider is so ineffective that she is likely unable to REALLY crank and spank, as we’ve all witnessed among riders who are “educated” and have strong cores. They can do far more damage that Ms Gumby here. I won’t bother to post videos and we’ve all seen the sheer terror and pain in the eyes of a horse being ridden aggressively by a physically strong and balanced rider.

[DrHB]

@Angela Freda

You wrote:

[I]I am encouraging people to use their trained eye to examine carefully what the aids Actually are.

So you are saying the one handed whipping, the kicking with spurs, the yanking at the reins are aids?[/I]

oh I give up. I really don’t want to engage in semantic warfare.

But yes, I think others have called them “aids” albeit “ineffective aids.”

[Angela_Freda]

@DrHB

oh I give up. I really don’t want to engage in semantic warfare.

Peace.

Asking you to explain isn’t semantic warfare.
Goodness.

[Angela_Freda]

@DrHB

I agree. Rider is so ineffective that she is likely unable to REALLY crank and spank, as we’ve all witnessed among riders who are “educated” and have strong cores. They can do far more damage that Ms Gumby here. I won’t bother to post videos and we’ve all seen the sheer terror and pain in the eyes of a horse being ridden aggressively by a physically strong and balanced rider.

Ok, clearly you did not see the vid of the Friday test.
That’s where the disconnect is.

[DrHB]

@Angela Freda

So you are saying the one handed whipping, the kicking with spurs, the yanking at the reins are aids?

Asking you to explain isn’t semantic warfare.
Goodness.

I saw this as semantic warfare (a common expression in academics referring to questioning the semantics rather than the content of a statement) as I think many of us above have referred to what the rider was using, namely aids, albeit ineffective aids. I just found it tiresome to have to respond to your question as it really did boil down to semantics, and the question appeared to be a leading (?) one as in it appeared that if I had said yes, I was wrong, and if I had said no, I was contradicting myself. Lose-Lose.

Peace.

[DrHB]

which is worse?

https://youtu.be/8hIXGiV4N4k

[Angela_Freda]

@DrHB

I saw this as semantic warfare (a common expression in academics referring to questioning the semantics rather than the content of a statement) as I think many of us above have referred to what the rider was using, namely aids, albeit ineffective aids. I just found it tiresome to have to respond to your question as it really did boil down to semantics, and the question appeared to be a leading (?) one as in it appeared that if I had said yes, I was wrong, and if I had said no, I was contradicting myself. Lose-Lose.

Peace.

I don’t think it did boil down to semantics… I was asking for you to clarify what you meant.
That’s what I calla conversation.

But again, you post that youtube without much in the way of explanation other than to ask which is worse.
So you leave people to fill in the blanks you leave and assume what you mean, or ask what you mean and then be accused of Semantic Warfare.
Talk about lose/lose.

It’s not a matter of ‘worse’.
It’s a matter of even ‘not so bad’ is wrong. But YMMV.

[trubandloki]

@DrHB

I saw this as semantic warfare (a common expression in academics referring to questioning the semantics rather than the content of a statement) as I think many of us above have referred to what the rider was using, namely aids, albeit ineffective aids. I just found it tiresome to have to respond to your question as it really did boil down to semantics, and the question appeared to be a leading (?) one as in it appeared that if I had said yes, I was wrong, and if I had said no, I was contradicting myself. Lose-Lose.

Peace.

If you are trying to not sound like you are better than everyone else in the thread and that is why we do not understand, you are failing horribly.

I do not see where anyone is getting into semantic warfare with you. I see people feeling your post is insulting (and I read it the same way they did), you saying it was not insulting and people asking you to say what you meant if it was not meant the way we all read it.

This is how I read it, and I believe how others read it - If we had a better eye we would be able to tell that this is just a poor quality ride with bad aids and not someone being abusive.

@DrHB

which is worse?

https://youtu.be/8hIXGiV4N4k

Does something have to be worse to be wrong?

Edit to add - Looks like Angela and I posted at the same time.

[DrHB]

@trubandloki

If you are trying to not sound like you are better than everyone else in the thread and that is why we do not understand, you are failing horribly.

I do not see where anyone is getting into semantic warfare with you. I see people feeling your post is insulting (and I read it the same way they did), you saying it was not insulting and people asking you to say what you meant if it was not meant the way we all read it.

This is how I read it, and I believe how others read it - If we had a better eye we would be able to tell that this is just a poor quality ride with bad aids and not someone being abusive.

Edit to add - Looks like Angela and I posted at the same time.

I have tagged you in the revised post, as I assume you have not read it. Post 138, I believe.

[DrHB]

@Angela Freda

I don’t think it did boil down to semantics… I was asking for you to clarify what you meant.
That’s what I calla conversation.

So you are saying the one handed whipping, the kicking with spurs, the yanking at the reins are aids?

The question was a close-ended question. Closed-ended questions are those which can be answered by a simple “yes” or “no,” while open-ended questions ask for an explanation. Yes, this is still semantics! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Angela_Freda]

@DrHB

The question was a close-ended question. Closed-ended questions are those which can be answered by a simple “yes” or “no,” while open-ended questions ask for an explanation. Yes, this is still semantics! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yes, when you ask for clarification and someone chooses not to, the next step is to offer them an easy one, since clearly effort to do more is too much for them. :lol:

Blanks filled.

[trubandloki]

@DrHB

I have tagged you in the revised post, as I assume you have not read it. Post 138, I believe.

I read it (though I assume you mean post #649 because post #138 is not by you), it does not really help your case. Sorry.

People are simply asking you to better explain yourself. It appears that lots of people took your post wrong. This is not a case of just one person not reading it right. You proclaim to be smarter so please dumb it down so we can understand what you meant to say.

[KBC]

@trubandloki

It appears that lots of people took your post wrong. This is not a case of just one person not reading it right. You proclaim to be smarter so please dumb it down so we can understand what you meant to say.

Lol, love it

[DrHB]

@trubandloki

I read it (though I assume you mean post #649 because post #138 is not by you), it does not really help your case. Sorry.

People are simply asking you to better explain yourself. It appears that lots of people took your post wrong. This is not a case of just one person not reading it right.

You proclaim to be smarter so please dumb it down so we can understand what you meant to say.

1. I never proclaimed to be smarter.
2. I have revised my post once again. #596, I think.
3. I did #2 because it is clear that a lot of people took my post to mean something different from what I intended.
4. I have deleted my contributions to the banter that followed because I do not wish to detract from the content of this thread.

[Jealoushe]

USEF Responds in Horse & Hound Article

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/outcry-riders-dressage-test-us-equestrian-responds-643557

[pluvinel]

@Jealoushe

USEF Responds in Horse & Hound Article

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/…esponds-643557

Forewarned is forearmed…the new, revised Qualifying Rule is coming to you soon…from the article…

Ms Griffin added that apart from a minimum score required to qualify for freestyle competitions, USEF “does not have rules in place regarding riding standards or qualifying requirements to move up the levels”.
…
“Dressage performance standards and qualifying requirement proposals have been and continue to be explored,” said Ms Griffin. “A 2008 proposal generated a great deal of debate but received little support, however over the past several years, discussions have taken place to re-visit these topics. We look forward to working closely with USEF affiliate, the US Dressage Federation, in obtaining feedback and coordinating forums on this issue.”

There was no mention of the poor judging that allowed this rider to receive +50%.

Crappy riding was the reason given for the 2008 proposal for a qualifying rule.

[trubandloki]

@Jealoushe

USEF Responds in Horse & Hound Article

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/outcry-riders-dressage-test-us-equestrian-responds-643557

They certainly do not say much, do they?

[Equibrit]

The letter mentioned by H&H seems to be absent from the USEF website.

[yaya]

@Equibrit

The letter mentioned by H&H seems to be absent from the USEF website.

There was no letter mentioned. Sounds like it was a conversation with Hallye Griffin.