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

[GramV]

@Cowgirl

Natalie deleted her comments.

Interesting. I wonder how much flak she got.

[Cowgirl]

Natalie’s comment was on the original thread on here discussing the rule change. Who knows whether she got flak or maybe reconsidered making such a harsh statement.

[Cowgirl]

It appears that it was NOT discussed at the USEF annual meeting: http://links.usef.mkt7856.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MTQ5MzA1MDAS1&r=MTMyMTYwMzY3MDUzS0&j=MTU2MDc2NzMzMAS2&mt=1&rt=0

I don’t know what happens next

[GramV]

@Cowgirl

It appears that it was NOT discussed at the USEF annual meeting: http://links.usef.mkt7856.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MTQ5MzA1MDAS1&r=MTMyMTYwMzY3MDUzS0&j=MTU2MDc2NzMzMAS2&mt=1&rt=0

I don’t know what happens next

I was listening to some of that today on USEF network. Let’s hope it will come up and out communications will prompt a rescission.

[atlatl]

@atlatl

It’s been $15 for as long as I can remember, just went through my checkbook and verified it was $15 last year.

Apparently, my memory doesn’t go back very far! :eek:

[BlackPearlz]

I sent the following along with the Cynthia Collins letter to the emails yesterday. I might get ripped by the judges this year, but I think it’s worth it so that they know how we feel.

I 100% agree with the statement and comments in the link below. As an adult amateur who only gets to ride (my Friesian mare) three days a week and show a just a few times a year, I had to work incredibly hard to earn my gold medal last year. To say the least, it’s very discouraging that I won’t be able to continue to show and improve upon my Grand Prix freestyle, with which we actually qualified for Regionals. This initiative is completely alienating your member base – adult amateurs with average horses. As you know, showing is a costly and time consuming venture. To continue to “raise the bar” is ridiculous, when the vast majority of your members are fully aware that they are not going to the Olympics. Most of us ultimately just want to have a fun, rewarding weekend with our horses and friends. As professional adults, putting ourselves out there to be judged, and a good bit of the time be told that we’re not good enough, is a humbling venture in and of itself. To then be told retroactively that whoops, “we” thought you were good enough but “we’ve” changed our minds, is just insulting and should have been put to member vote.
I’d like to also address this quote from Mr. Rockwell: “If you feel you’re being punished, you’re only being punished by your own education,” he continued. "If you only had 62.9 percent last year, so what if you have to wait one show to compete your freestyle? Is that a tragedy compared to what else happens with horses in this world?"
No sir, it is certainly not a “tragedy,” but it is hundreds, if not thousands of dollars and even more time away from home and work, which many, many of us cannot afford. However, I do not know a single Dressage rider whose goal is not to improve. We’re all striving to improve each time our foot goes in the stirrup, as are our instructors who teach us. Have you no compassion for the literal blood, sweat, tears, not to mention vet bills, farrier bills, late nights at the barn away from family, that go into what “used to be” a huge accomplishment of achieving a 60% at Grand Prix? Your “let them eat cake” mentality is disturbing.
This initiative is missing the mark entirely and will only hurt USDF membership numbers. For the first time in 9 years, I very much considered not renewing and not showing this year. I do hope you consider the BOG vote and what the membership wants.

[Manni01]

@BlackPearlz

I sent the following along with the Cynthia Collins letter to the emails yesterday. I might get ripped by the judges this year, but I think it’s worth it so that they know how we feel.

I 100% agree with the statement and comments in the link below. As an adult amateur who only gets to ride (my Friesian mare) three days a week and show a just a few times a year, I had to work incredibly hard to earn my gold medal last year. To say the least, it’s very discouraging that I won’t be able to continue to show and improve upon my Grand Prix freestyle, with which we actually qualified for Regionals. This initiative is completely alienating your member base – adult amateurs with average horses. As you know, showing is a costly and time consuming venture. To continue to “raise the bar” is ridiculous, when the vast majority of your members are fully aware that they are not going to the Olympics. Most of us ultimately just want to have a fun, rewarding weekend with our horses and friends. As professional adults, putting ourselves out there to be judged, and a good bit of the time be told that we’re not good enough, is a humbling venture in and of itself. To then be told retroactively that whoops, “we” thought you were good enough but “we’ve” changed our minds, is just insulting and should have been put to member vote.
I’d like to also address this quote from Mr. Rockwell: “If you feel you’re being punished, you’re only being punished by your own education,” he continued. "If you only had 62.9 percent last year, so what if you have to wait one show to compete your No sir, it is certainly not a “tragedy,” but it is hundreds, if not thousands of dollars and even more time away from home and work, which many, many of us cannot afford. However, I do not know a single Dressage rider whose goal is not to improve. We’re all striving to improve each time our foot goes in the stirrup, as are our instructors who teach us. Have you no compassion for the literal blood, sweat, tears, not to mention vet bills, farrier bills, late nights at the barn away from family, that go into what “used to be” a huge accomplishment of achieving a 60% at Grand Prix? Your “let them eat cake” mentality is disturbing.
This initiative is missing the mark entirely and will only hurt USDF membership numbers. For the first time in 9 years, I very much considered not renewing and not showing this year. I do hope you consider the BOG vote and what the membership wants.

I would love to give 100 likes for this one :). Only somebody with a heart of iron cannot be touched by this letter!

[Sturmunddrang]

I LIKE Manni01 letter also!!!

[ladyj79]

The letter is nice but the appeal is emotional.

There is a real legitimate reason why the rule needs to be rescinded:

because the language says 60 is sufficient, ergo any argument that riding between 60 and 62.99% is insufficient and abusive is false by the language and definition provided by the FEI and USEF and USDF.

you literally cannot create a rule that says that this is about combating abuse when the rules and definitions provided to members say that the riding is sufficient.

[xQHDQ]

@ladyj79

The letter is nice but the appeal is emotional.

There is a real legitimate reason why the rule needs to be rescinded:

because the language says 60 is sufficient, ergo any argument that riding between 60 and 62.99% is insufficient and abusive is false by the language and definition provided by the FEI and USEF and USDF.

you literally cannot create a rule that says that this is about combating abuse when the rules and definitions provided to members say that the riding is sufficient.

Definitely true. Just not sure what type of argument is best to get the message across…Both?

[ladyj79]

The issue with the emotional appeal is the turn around is so you should be allowed to abuse your horse because you’re poor and work hard and want to show? (Because their argument is also GARBAGE based on “emotion”)

The argument has to be the appeal to the language of existing rules and standards, ie how can a rule raising scores from 60 to 63 be about combating abuse and/or bad riding when the rules define a score of 60 to be sufficient? And this goes back to my early and often argument that USEF/USDF are trying to out FEI the FEI, in a completely insane and ridiculous fashion.

just look at the two trending threads in dressage

usdf wants to limit riders from participating with pricing, keep those left trying to plug along at more shows to eke out scores, and now try to control and pick the pockets of schooling shows.

it’s a multifaceted attack, they should at least have to deal with the logical fallacy of saying something is abusive/insufficient that the rules specifically say is sufficient.

[Dr_Doolittle]

Wouldn’t 60% be “satisfactory”? Or did they change it to “sufficient”, and then 5 to “marginal”?

In any case, I completely agree with the above posters.

[BlackPearlz]

@ladyj79

The issue with the emotional appeal is the turn around is so you should be allowed to abuse your horse because you’re poor and work hard and want to show? (Because their argument is also GARBAGE based on “emotion”)

The argument has to be the appeal to the language of existing rules and standards, ie how can a a rule be created the score raise from 60 to 63 be about combating abuse and/or bad riding when the rules define a score of 60 to be sufficient? And this goes back to my early and often argument that USEF/USDF are trying to out FEI the FEI, in a completely insane and ridiculous fashion.

just look at the two trending threads in dressage

usdf wants to limit riders from participating with pricing, keep those left trying to plug along at more shows to eke out scores, and now try to control and pick the pockets of schooling shows.

it’s a multifaceted attack, they should at least have to deal with the logical fallacy of saying something is abusive/insufficient that the rules specifically say is sufficient.

I TOTALLY agree with you, but if they continue down this path, 60-62.9999% won’t be sufficient. That’s next. Most of us who spend the time and money to show, are taking better care of our horses than we do of ourselves. Their abuse argument is baloney and they know it. They need to hear how this affects the “average joe” i.e. probably >80% of their members.

[ladyj79]

And i can’t wait for their weird and insane and contrived rule change for increments of 3% having different designations, because that will be hilarious.

Well Mary, I see here you got a 62.7% at t3, so we went ahead and called the humane society to come pick up dobbin.

Thanks, Karen.

seriously it is a dangerous road ahead for usdf and USEF to say this is about combating abuse because then we really will have the antis out there throwing fake blood on all the sub 63%ers :lol:

[GramV]

BlackPearlz–Wonderful letter. I sent a similar one along with the one listing the specific reasons why this is a bad idea logically–it was passed without feedback and 60% is considered satisfactory for everything else.

I think everyone should send both.

I think it is very important that they keep hearing the personal stories and why they will be losing their base paying most of the bills.

Interesting. I commented against Janet Foy’s positive comment about this on FB, and she replied “no one ever said it was easy.” So I replied she was missing the point that this was done as a extraordinary rule change with no thought to the base of riders, and the USDF voted to rescind it. Leet’s see if she replies.

[SnicklefritzG]

What do people suppose is the real reason behind these changes? Is it backlash from the Del Mar incident that has embarrassed USDF? Do they know feel that they have to blame that on the general membership in some way?

Surely they must realize this will push a lot of people out. Is that what they want?

@ladyj79

The issue with the emotional

appeal is the turn around is so you should be allowed to abuse your horse because you’re poor and work hard and want to show? (Because their argument is also GARBAGE based on “emotion”)

The argument has to be the appeal to the language of existing rules and standards, ie how can a rule raising scores from 60 to 63 be about combating abuse and/or bad riding when the rules define a score of 60 to be sufficient? And this goes back to my early and often argument that USEF/USDF are trying to out FEI the FEI, in a completely insane and ridiculous fashion.

just look at the two trending threads in dressage

usdf wants to limit riders from participating with pricing, keep those left trying to plug along at more shows to eke out scores, and now try to control and pick the pockets of schooling shows.

it’s a multifaceted attack, they should at least have to deal with the logical fallacy of saying something is abusive/insufficient that the rules specifically say is sufficient.

[xQHDQ]

Thanks you ladyj79. Here’s what I just sent to everyone on the committee based on your post above:

Since no one at USDF is listening to your members and how the new 63% requirement affects them, here is a more logical reason why the rule needs to be rescinded:

Current language states that 60% is satisfactory However, the proposal essentially negates that and declares that scores between 60.00% and 62.99% are insufficient and abusive. This is untrue by your own (USDF) language and definitions, as well as those provided by the FEI and USEF. Thus, your argument regarding raising the score for qualifying is necessary to “raise the standards of riding” is false.

See: https://www.usdf.org/about/about-dressage/competition/tests.asp for current score definitions.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

@GramV

BlackPearlz–Wonderful letter. I sent a similar one along with the one listing the specific reasons why this is a bad idea logically–it was passed without feedback and 60% is considered satisfactory for everything else.

I think everyone should send both.

I think it is very important that they keep hearing the personal stories and why they will be losing their base paying most of the bills.

Interesting. I commented against Janet Foy’s positive comment about this on FB, and she replied “no one ever said it was easy.” So I replied she was missing the point that this was done as a extraordinary rule change with no thought to the base of riders, and the USDF voted to rescind it. Leet’s see if she replies.

Did you point out that she would not be qualified if she were showing?
Maybe she’ll unfriend you like she’s doing other people who disagree with her.

[pluvinel]

Deepthroad said…“Follow the money.” Money makes the world go 'round.

I think everyone should just boycott USDF for a year and just not send in membership renewals…both GMO’s and USDF membership.

I have never seen the breakdown of GM vs PM membership, but it seems the majority USDF members are members due to their GM status.

Let the GMO’s feel the pinch…and let them carry the the message back to “headquarters.”

[TequilaMockingbird]

What if we all started giving USDF poor ratings on Facebook and stating exactly why in the review? Since they didn’t allow members to vote on it. There are currently only 91 ratings for them. It’s a way of publicly showing them just how many disagree with this change (and other things). Of course those who agree are free to rate them as well.