Why does COTH keep giving SO MUCH lip service to this “point of view”?
I can understand using something to calm a frantic horse, because some individuals do need something to knock that edge off. Not even showing, either. It could be just because of a farrier visit, trailering anxiety, etc etc I’m not going to knock people down for trying to be safe while handling a 1,000lb animal and some breeds might get good use of it more than others (ottb and arabians, for starters).
However, no horse should be drugged at shows to become ‘opinion-less’. That’s sick.
Why is there no vomit icon?
If there was any interest in really judging equitation, horses would be randomly assigned to riders who would then be given a half hour to assess them before their round.
[QUOTE=vxf111;8643475]
Why does COTH keep giving SO MUCH lip service to this “point of view”?[/QUOTE]
The same issue includes a commentary from the senior editor, and a lengthy letter to the editor from Patty Heukeroth. Both pieces promote the opposing point of view.
The idea of drugging hunters to enable them to conform to an impossible judging standard is repulsive to me. But the notion of drugging eq horses is simply nonsensical.
If this is where the sport is headed wouldn’t it be better just to have each rider enter the ring with a quarter, put the coin in the slot, and demonstrate their ability to pose on a mechanical horse?
But-- why bring it up at all? No cycling magazine is running articles that suggest that doping by cyclists or hiding little motors on cycles is the way to take the sport forward-- even though those cheats have occurred and resulted in wins.
[QUOTE=MHM;8643538]
The same issue includes a commentary from the senior editor, and a lengthy letter to the editor from Patty Heukeroth. Both pieces promote the opposing point of view.[/QUOTE]
But this is not the first issue in which the topic has been discussed. I feel as though it keeps being discussed over and over again with the same points being made and nothing occurring to actually change anything.
Read the article today. Yes, I was irritated to see yet another article trying to say we should legalize acepromazine. But, perhaps shining the cold light of day on the practices that eq and hunter horses go through will spur change. I can’t imagine any decent horse person reading that article without cringing. Though, the change that we need is NOT legalizing acepromazine. :no: What we need is a change in judging, not a legal way to help turn horses into opinionless robots. :no:
I do find it weird how the Chronicle belabors the problems of the hunter and equitation rings on one page and then glorifies winning hunters and eq riders with fancy pictures on the next, and then totally ignores Pony Club, where drugging is a non-issue, kids take care of their own horses, and are judged on their horsemanship.
The truth is, our current horse world culture places a LOT of value on jumping big (or little) jumps at fancy shows on a fancy horse and winning ribbons, but very little real value on horsemanship. But I also think The Chronicle is in a unique position where they could, if they wanted, find a way to shine a little bit of light and glory on good horsemanship as demonstrated by both young people and adults.
[QUOTE=jr;8643271]
I’m starting to wonder if the lack of horsemanship today is not the fault of the kids, but of the teachers.[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course it is the fault of the trainers and the parents willing to do anything to win. The kids are a mirror. I’m thinking of one jr I know who is particularly accommodating to a variety of prep methods and basically whatever adults in authority encourage. When asked why do that, the kid replied “Because I can.” No one ever taught this junior right from wrong. The result is the kid is a mirror image of the adults in charge. But it is particularly perverse and disturbing when it comes from a fresh-faced, bright-eyed kid. Ugh.
[QUOTE=Ghazzu;8643526]
Why is there no vomit icon?
If there was any interest in really judging equitation, horses would be randomly assigned to riders who would then be given a half hour to assess them before their round.[/QUOTE]
Oh so true.
One has to wonder-- if all the push to drug and make what is today cheating legal tomorrow is due to people with loads of money and not loads of ability wanting ribbons-- do those same people with loads of money realize a ribbon can be bought without actually competing? That is, if the purpose behind all this is a fancy ribbon, why not just order one custom made somewhere, and have that to show off to friends? Non- horse show friends won’t know the difference, it accomplishes the same thing, and well, if some pictures are needed, why not pay to hire a photographer, a fancy cooler, and a nice horse, and smile for the camera? Voila. Job done. Impress friends. And no need to push the whole industry to change to endorse drugging.
[QUOTE=Sunflower;8643407]
This is a very good point and an excellent question. Why is COTH giving these views print space and readership?[/QUOTE]
Frankly, I’m grateful to COTH for publishing these articles. This perspective among the top levels absolutely needs to be discussed in the light of day. The public reading and subsequent discussion is valuable, I think.
[QUOTE=Synthesis;8643725]
Frankly, I’m grateful to COTH for publishing these articles. This perspective among the top levels absolutely needs to be discussed in the light of day. The public reading and subsequent discussion is valuable, I think.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I believe they are letting people well-known in the sport verbalize their opinions (in print) and the general population can see why change is slow, if even happening.
Why change the judging standard when judges and trainers, widely known, are asking “Why NOT ACE?”
I’d have a hard time giving a dime to someone who expresses those opinions.
[QUOTE=BeeHoney;8643570]
Though, the change that we need is NOT legalizing acepromazine. :no: What we need is a change in judging, not a legal way to help turn horses into opinionless robots. :no:[/QUOTE]
Which I think is one of the more disappointing aspects of this article. Regarding a horse shaking its head if an ear plug slips or a horse raising its head at the sight of a scoreboard changing its display, Kip (an R judge) states, “Judging will not change. It is what it is; it’s noticeable, therefore penalized.” (Full disclosure, she also includes swapping of a lead for a stride in this list. I’m not sure I agree that activity can be written off as something not in a rider’s control.)
My point is, this judge is saying it isn’t going to change. Makes me feel like she’s passed the buck onto others because as a judge she isn’t willing to change the judging opinion for which she’s paid.
Although, someone mentioned above about keeping yourself employable by judging to a certain standard, or you might not be asked back. Don’t you think that’s an issue for USEF and/or USHJA to address?
It makes me sick because not everyone is lunging their horses for hours and giving them six tubes of perfect prep (although I personally have seen this done). There are horses out there that can stretch on a lunge for fifteen minutes and then go. They are successful in great company. And they are successful because THEY ARE SUITABLE for their job!
It was nice to see Bill Moroney state in the Rolex issue that the position of USEF is that this is never going to happen because it is not in the horse’s best interest.
For once, USEF seems to have its ducks in a row.
As a lawyer, I can’t see any other solution. Honestly, the AR people will kill the sport if we allow our horses to be drugged to ride them!!! It is such a wrong direction.
Now we need to fix the sport so that the horses don’t need to be ridden all night to be competitive. That is inhumane.
Same with hunters…no more metronomes.
I voted with my feet in 1995 and switched to jumpers. I had a very competitive hunter but he would leap in his lead changes. I could have broken him longeing and riding him down, or turn him into a jumper. So I did the latter for him own good. I felt it was wrong to do the prep he would have needed to even look as deadheaded as was necessary then. And he was pretty calm – he was a nice, nice horse.
A few years later, incidentally, I was able to take that same horse and play with him in the Regular Workings. He could walk flat footed in the ring with zero prep by that point --flat a bit, jump a vertical and an oxer and go in – and got decent ribbons against good horses, including the one Tommy Serio rode to Horse of the Year in that division that year. He just needed time. Not drugs or endless prep.
People turn to drugs and tons of prep because these days, there is so much pressure to get results NOW. There is no place for time and patience. and who can blame them or the owners? Showing is so expensive. But it is terrible for the horses to put so much pressure on them so young, because what it takes to produce those kinds of rounds…the commentators are right that it is bad. Drugs aren’t the answer but it is a huge problem.
Our expectations need to change of what we want the horses to look like. Of what a show schedule should look like. Of what a horse should be doing when it is five, six, seven. So that one day 7 and green is not a death knell for your horse’s future, and 12 is not “old”, and 20 is not so amazingly old no one can contemplate how you are still jumping the horse.
Well said fordtraktor!
[QUOTE=equisusan;8642504]
If you’d love to be riding some little jumps why don’t you?
Oh, we do! At home on our “days off”. Very good for relaxing and stretching us both. And we have gone to a couple of tiny schooling shows, for fun and to practice dealing with new environments. But I will not spend the money on a rated show, even though this horse is very stylish…we’ll stay in the sandbox, where his very happy, alert, expressive personality tends to help us rather than hurt us (well, he CAN get too exuberant sometimes:-))
As for this discussion, I just wish you folks had a bigger megaphone. I don’t know who is hearing us…
Although I like and agree with most of what you said Fordtraktor, I must say it makes me sad when people say they voted against the hunters by leaving to go and do the jumpers or eventing or dressage. I guess I think that the people that do it the “right way” should stay in the hunters even if they don’t place as well as they think they should’ve. I understand a little why a professional would want to go into a division that they can place for their clients but I don’t understand why an amateur would do that if they enjoy doing the Hunter division. I started riding hunters 40 years ago and I still love the pursuit of the perfect trip. It’s never been the pursuit of first place for me. Sometimes you win with your perfect trip and sometimes you get out jumped. But you know sometimes you win with not a great trip because it is a comparative competition.
All for a $1.50 ribbon, pathetic.
[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;8643768]
I agree. I believe they are letting people well-known in the sport verbalize their opinions (in print) and the general population can see why change is slow, if even happening. [/QUOTE]
It bears repeating that The Chronicle is not promoting the use of Ace.
The magazine simply provides a place for people to express their opinions in the Horseman’s Forum submissions. No more, no less.
