I am not sure why Tryon paid NCHJA so much since it is their show held at the end of June.
I do think TPH needs to more fact checking and write articles with substance. There certainly are enough horse issues that should be discussed and analyzed. Using facts and accurate numbers would make their magazine a more desirable read.
On the topic of show dates, whatever happened to the show dates for the ones held on Snowbird Mountain? I know the owner sadly passed away.
The Snowbird shows in NJ? CJL has a bunch of them
Correct, Claudine Liberatore has almost all of those dates.
I read the article and was quite surprised by the dollar amounts given for buying and “leasing” show dates. Frankly with the exception of some of the top show management conglomerates, the shows I’m familiar with would probably happily sell a date for $350K rather than try to make a profit. The writer makes a blanket statement about shows doing this but does this actually happen that often? I would like to see some factual documentation backing up the amounts quoted and how often this actually happens. Don’t most shows prefer to keep their show dates year in and year out? Did Tryon give WIHS and $$ to hold the show there instead of DC? The writer also didn’t address what happens to show dates when a show committee decides to throw in the towel - like Deep Run in VA and there have been some horse trials which have bagged it. Did they sell their dates or are they open up for USEF to approve to another venue/show management. It would be nice to see documentation supporting the article. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but would like to know just how often it does happen and the actual costs associated with it.
Now for all y’all who want facts and documentation of claims, how do you want this editorializing writer to do that? I mean, I believe her made up names are pseudonyms for some of the Major Show Managers in the US. Someone who was closer to the inner circle of power in the USEF already know who “Phil” and “Mark” are.
But for the rest of us, did you want Klemm to write an accurate and searing exposé of what has actually happened with particular managers and show dates and the rest? That’s a “60 Minutes”-style assault on these guys, not the wee small poke of the bear kind that got us all to read this issue of “The Plaid Horse.”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m the girl who writes long, accurate footnotes and actually reads those of others (and will get pissed if those don’t lead me relatively easily to the exact source). But in this case, I don’t see a way to drop the vail of generalities and hypothetical examples without really changing the politics of this magazine.
That’s true. I doubt TPH has access to either real behind the scenes information or the scope to interview key players and get accurate information. There’s a poster up thread that said a BNT bailed out of an interview because TPH was “unprofessional” in her journalism.
That said, I also recognize that the horse world is made up of a number of small insular communities where its not in the best interests of many players to have full and accurate information on anything. As selling shows is private business information, its not in anyone’s personal interest to reveal their business formula.
But the horse communities also promote all kinds of innacurate or outdated information on health, nutrition, training, etc.
I think part of the problem for TPH trying to present as actual journalism is that it’s clearly a one person show. The quality check is about the same as a blog (ie, none). Even here on COTH there’s been a stream of people saying neither of her articles actually are credible. If she had an editorial team there might be feedback before going to print.
Does it matter? Yes and no. On the “no” side this is a minor one woman monetized blog, honestly, on a subculture that is fairly closed about its inner workings.
On the other hand, after the past decade I am so sick and tired of “journalism” that exaggerates its facts to make a point and reaches dubious conclusions. I know that long ago and far away, I had a tendency that way when I was 19 and wrote for my campus newspaper.
But I have grown deeply allergic to this tendency, even when I agree with the actual position of the articles. And even I, completely removed from the American h/j scene, well aware that there’s way more money loose down there than in Canada, can’t believe that you’d sell a show date for $350, 000. If the problem is that horse showing is a business, that just doesn’t make sense as a business decision for the buyer.
There’s a difference between writing an article suggesting it might be helpful to find out what the costs of buying dates is and how it factors into fees overall and writing an article throwing out random numbers and then concluding there’s a problem because of them.
The thing is, that’s a blockbuster claim, and it’s the key point of the piece. If you can’t back it up, it’s not responsible to write it. It matters if the amount is $350,000 versus $3,500. It also matters how long it’s allowed to go on - one or two years versus 20.
Fundamentally, is there really that kind of demand to be able to hold a horse show that you’d have multiple bidders and could command that kind of price?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. People in my circles are claiming inside knowledge that these numbers are true, but also it seems hard to swallow.
I don’t understand why people are surprised that horse show organizations are businesses?
Businesses that work for the goal of making a profit. Sometimes that might mean taking a loss initially with the long term goal of being in the green. Show venues are as diverse as restaurants. Some are corporate owned; others individually owned. The different value of these businesses is just as diverse.
Certainly, not a dark secret world.
The ‘owned’ approved sanctioned show dates have been in place for decades.
Really something about this article ‘feels’ like sour grapes. Or maybe the author has been living under a rock?
I am not shocked at the idea of leasing dates.
I just don’t believe many show dates are worth spending $350, 000 on.
Yes. Some not all. It could be more expensive to get one of those larger show circuit venues with over 500 horses entered each week. For example; Thermal in southern CA which had over 2,000 horses entered some weeks this year. It’s definitely a numbers game.
But she didn’t write this? It was a submitted letter to the editor.
Huh I didn’t see that disclaimer last week. Was it always up there? Anyone?
But no one publishes anonymous letters to the edittor.
True. But as editor she could do some fact checking. Or not publish it. Or write her own article along the lines of what @poltroon suggested.
But none of those would generate as much drama as the chosen path.
Me neither? I don’t think it was labeled a “letter to the editor” when I read it. I’m almost certain that was added later.
I only poked around, didn’t search exhaustively… but as best as I can tell that’s the ONLY “anonymous letter to the editor” they’ve published. How… odd… maybe a houseguest was logged in when that got published.
Woops… can’t deal with the new format yet. Here was my post in response to Moneypitt who thinks this is much ado about nothing but the business of horse showing.
But what I do think dues-paying USEF members should be aware of and unhappy about is the way the USEF and the mileage rule, which is part of what grants these “owned dates,” has worked to create monopolies for horse show managers.
Those guys, in turn and because of those granted monopolies, have also become real estate developers, albeit for very specialized properties. With all the sunk costs into their show grounds, they really, really (really) need this business of showing and those multi-week “destination shows” to be keep going.
So do show managers have the right to treat this as a business? Sure. Do trainers have the right to do that, too? Sure. But I don’t see how the national governing body of the sport owes horse show managers and those trainers who can afford multiple farms or to spend 10 weeks camping at this show grounds or another, everyone else’s business.
Or more to the point, why should I pay into an organization that makes sure my showing needs are not served? Those businesses get to do what they’d like, through fair competition for exhibitors’ dollars. But they shouldn’t get to use the NGB to compel that… any more than Walmart should be able to make every US taxpayer in to a Walmart shopper by encouraging their underpaid employees to apply for food stamps.
But when you chastise us for being so ignorant as to not treat these owned dates as just a normal business, you are conflating the NGB with one segment of the horse showing business-- the show managers.
In theory the mileage rule had benefits for competitors too. It was designed, in part, to reduce the situation where you showed up to do a class where you were chasing points and it didn’t fill because there were 3 other shows nearby holding the same class and the competitors were spread out at those three shows so that NO shows filled the class and no one could get points.
I do remember back in the dark ages chasing local points and trainers calling each other to coodinate who was going where to make sure that classes filled for points. And then sometimes hurt feelings if someone didn’t show up when they said they would and the points didn’t count. Or someone not getting around and the points didn’t count. I wasn’t showing USEF pre-mileage rule so I don’t personally remember this happening with USEF shows but it did happen on local circuits where multiple shows were offering classes for local points. AND it’s happening now with M&S. This Sunday there were at least 3 (I’m sure more) shows in NJ within an hour of each other where you could get M&S points and from the online show records at least 2 of those shows only had 2 in the B’O’S and therefore wouldn’t have filled (they did cajole a fill in at the show where I was). If there were 2 at my show and 2 at the other show-- that would have been 4 to fill at a single show.
How widespread is this issue today with rated shows? I dunno. They always seem to be chasing fillers for M&S? But this is part of why the mileage rule came about.
It was also supposed to prevent the issue where Suzie Amateur has a really nice horse no one can beat so they find out where she’s entered and go to a different show nearby, and thus Suzie never gets to compete against anyone because they’re all avoiding her and the shows have really lopsided entries because everyone is avoiding her and changing their show patterns accordingly. Or like, Beezie Madden is still an amateur doing the equitation and you’ll go elsewhere not to face her. So she never gets any competition. Then she goes to finals and gets crushed/feels unprepared because everyone else faced competition all year.
I never personally experienced scenario #2 but I do remember scenario #1 happening in non-mileage rule local award situations and I see it to this day with M&S.
It might be that the mileage rule has outlived its purpose but I don’t think it’s fair to overlook the fact that the mileage rule did/does have some benefits for competitors. Maybe not enough to justify the negatives. But it wasn’t completely designed to give show managers a monopoly.
I’m fairly certain that disclaimer wasn’t there. I was quite intrigued by the author being labeled as “A Fed Up Horse Owner” and don’t think I would have missed that clarification if it was literally right below it.
I actually find this to be even more curious. By the logic displayed, you could write some really wild things and rightfully expect TPH to publish them as long as you Change The Names, because sensationalism = clicks? Because otherwise, I would think the logical thing to do would be to investigate the claims, flesh them out, and hopefully get a multi-part exposé that generates months of traffic…
…unless you suspect the claims don’t flesh out. But to then publish the letter anyway?
Not sure this is a better look.
Indeed—Google doesn’t lie. Here’s the cached version of the page from May 13. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_IQFS_HebxkJ:https://www.theplaidhorse.com/2021/05/13/the-dark-underground-of-horse-show-costs-in-the-usa/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
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
