Musical Freestyle Requirements upped--let's try to rescind them

[lorilu]

@pluvinel

You are making my point.

I posited that the USEF Dressage Sport Committee = USDF.

That it is therefore disingenuous for the USDF to point their collective finger at USEF and say to the greater USDF membership, “Hey sorry members, this rule change is out of our control and it is now all in the hands of the USEF.”

I pointed out that the USEF DSC includes the current and past USDF Presidents, that 30% are high level decision makers in USDF and the rest are active competitors and member of USDF…

So…USEF DSC = USDF.

SO would you rather dressage riders were not represented at USEF, and decisions affecting us were made by those in other equine disciplines?

[Reddfox]

I would rather the USDF not backdoor decisions like this and actually talk to and listen to the majority. I’d also love if they’d actually try to grow and retain membership through their actions, rather than continue to only support the top 1% of riders.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

@rjr

Why is in inappropriate for a USEF or USDF committee member to express their opinion on Facebook? When I have been on committees, the rule has been you are not supposed to discuss specifics of what went on in meetings (ie. who said what, who voted which way). But there has been no prohibition about talking about your own views on something once it is public.

Many of us, on both sides of the argument have expressed views on facebook. This includes people who are just members with opinions, those who have a vote/role I.e. committee members, PM delegates, GM delegates, and those who may have some other official role in USDF/USDF (i.e. judge, TD, regional director). I have been quite glad to listen to and discuss with those committee members who have chosen to discuss publicly – whether I agree with them or not.

Perhaps you could re-read my post. What you are reacting to is your own misinterpretation of my words. I did not say that they were expressing opinions; I used the word arguing.
Anyone is free to express his or her opinion. What was happening was what Gram said above. There were two in particular who were being in many instances rude, argumentative, and nasty, and they ended up unfriending and or blocking people who were simply expressing and discussing. I read the posts, I read the comments, and I watched them get blocked because they are friends of mine.

Entirely unprofessional and they really should carry-on and a much more collegial manner. It’s pretty telling.

That’s one thing to sit in the judges chair. It’s another thing to be a member of our community and participate in the topic at hand in a polite manner.

This also doesn’t bode well for the committee meetings.

These are seasoned, influential judges whose self importance and self-congratulatory diarrhea of the mouth has risen above and beyond that to which they are deserving.

It was pretty telling to read.

[pluvinel]

@lorilu

SO would you rather dressage riders were not represented at USEF, and decisions affecting us were made by those in other equine disciplines?

You are misunderstanding. I am not commenting about representation.

The USEF DSC is made up of USDF power players. No problem, as the USDF is the dressage affiliate of the USEF.

My point is that it is disingenuous for the USDF to do their “hand waving” saying that rescinding the MFS rule is now in the hands of the USEF.

The USDF is abdicating their responsibility and being dismissive by passing the “blame” onto the USEF …when the decision makers in that USEF committee is really just an extension of the top USDF leadership.

The USDF should just admit they made a mistake. They should own the fact that they screwed up passing the rule thru the extraordinary rule change process…and quit trying blow smoke up the membership’s nose.

The USDF leadership must not think very highly of the intelligence of its membership. They must think the membership can’t see thru the double-talk.

Where there is a will there is a way. If the USDF really wanted to follow the guidance they got at the USDF convention, then there would action. I am not sure that there is any interest by USDF leadership to listen to what they heard at the convention.

[lorilu]

@Reddfox

I’d also love if they’d actually try to grow and retain membership through their actions, rather than continue to only support the top 1% of riders.

I agree with the back door part of your answer.
On the MFS thread, I just asked what “you” would like USDF to offer…

[netg]

USEF just sent out an email about bit rule changes. I decided to take them up on their invitation to email, though it wasn’t about that specific rule change.

The end of their email:

Complete USEF Dressage Rules can be found on the USEF website here. The Dressage “Rules & Equipment” section of the USEF website will be the official place for posting updates to DR121 regarding legal or illegal bits and equipment for dressage competition based upon FEI rulings and submissions for approval to the USEF Dressage Department. Additionally, competitors are reminded to periodically review Annex A for updates regarding bits and equipment throughout the competition year.

Questions related to Annex A and Dressage DR121 should be directed to Hallye Griffin, Managing Director of Dressage, at hgriffin@usef.org or Hannah Niebielski, Director of Dressage, National Programs, at hniebielski@usef.org.

My email:

Hi Hallye and Hannah,

I just received the USEF email mentioning the rule changes regarding tack which contained your contact information.

I was wondering what the status is of repealing the freestyle qualification rule which was improperly passed last year as an emergency change? Given the USDF convention overwhelmingly voted to repeal it, and it was passed in violation of USEF processes, I would think it would be repealed or another emergency rule change would be passed quickly. Is there a status?

Thank you for your time,

[GramV]

@netg

USEF just sent out an email about bit rule changes. I decided to take them up on their invitation to email, though it wasn’t about that specific rule change.

Thank you for posting this, and good idea. Great letter.

I have not received this email and I am a member.