Good idea. I just wrote: They are an elitist organization that favors high-end sport performers to the majority of their grassroots membership.
6 Likes
I did not. This was what I left off with âWhen was the last time you rode an FEI test on on horse you trained by yourself with little to no help from anyone else?â
Her reply was: I did that for 30 years with many GP and FEI horses. I also worked with students who had Friesians and Morganâs and Appies who all made it to GP so please stop trying to belittle others accomplishments. I was never given or bought a trained horse all were done from scratch."
Here is what I replied: " I do not know of you or about you, so was not trying to belittle you in any way. Just asking a question. I got my Appy to GP and my first mare by myself. Then she died. Itâs taken 15 year to get back to GP, breeding my own. Itâs a LOT harder now with people buying gaits and the money in dressage. So, I ask the question, when was the LAST time? We (as in all of the very upset paying membership) are very upset by this and trying to start a conversation as to why, and weâre not getting it. 60% is satisfactory to get qualified for championships at FEI, but this rule now says %63 is not a satisfactory score, even though BY the rules, it says it is. This is one of many problems with this rule change. Are judges not judging correctly? If so, than 60% should be fine. I would live to see some substantive changes in in scoring so we can get back to literally what dressage means, âtraining,â not âbuy fancy gaits.â If we took out the emphasis on fancy gaits on everything and focused on correct training, that seems to be the basis of dressage. I would love to have a conversation."
I have not friended her on FB, just replying to a thread. Hopefully she will reply.
I think maybe theyâre feeling the pressure because so many people are writing them with the facts as well as personal stories?
Letâs all keep putting our voices out there and hopefully they will listen and start a conversation.
3 Likes
Going back to a question Iâve brought up previously, what is driving this rule change?
https://www.usdf.org/docs/announcemeâŠB0dbOBg-0dMQn4
Because the committee felt that âtechnical proficiency seems to be missing from some freestyles.â
The implication being, that many judges feel this way.
5 Likes
In many discussions with many individuals on the Freestyle Committee it has become quite clear that they still want the rule change, but they regret the change was made the way it was. Who exactly was the point person on the extraordinary rule change is unclear and no one wants to take responsibility for it. An attorney in our barn has written to USEF counsel and pointed out that the extraordinary rule change was a clear violation of USEF rules because the rule change must have an undeniable and necessary impact in order to be considered âextraordinaryâ. The USEF rule change document showed the impact of âNoneâ. Now, whether or not they will admit their mistake is another matter entirely. I find it offensive that a two thirds majority of USDF Delegates vote to request the rule be rescinded should be ignored entirely by people like Lisa Goretta. I also hesitate to put my faith and trust in the Dressage Sport Committee. I do not see too many individuals on that committee who appear sympathetic to the backyard rider or horse. I see lots of names who are sponsored (or have been in the past), who have sat on very well bred horses for most of their riding careers and who are unlikely to be sympathetic to the goals of the little gal or guy. If the judges are seeing tests that are substandard, they should provide the appropriate feedback. They are reluctant to do that because they donât want the competitor marching into the show office and complaining about their score. Instead they now want to hide behind this rule that penalizes many riders and horses. If the rule change goes through after debate, discussion and a VOTE, so be it. Was Lisa Goretta even there during the vote at the USDF convention??? Her letter doesnât seem to reflect what went down that day.
Here is what it boils down to for me. Is dressage good for all horses and riders? Do they ALL benefit from doing it? If it is true, then find room for everyone to be happily included regardless of their skill level or talent. USDF, do you even believe in your own product?? After spending SO much time on promoting All Breeds, average riders, adult amateurs, etc. this is a kick in the teeth to many of those people. If USDF doesnât see that, they are BLIND.
10 Likes
I really love this idea. Itâs effective tooâor at least it is in my day job. Emails to USDF are great, but they can keep deleting them/pretending they havenât been sent. Putting review after review in public? Where they canât deny their existence? Very interesting.
5 Likes
Interesting ideaâŠhow does one do that?
Remember FB and social media have toppled governments is the Mid-EastâŠwonder what effect a rally on FB might engender?
It is true that voting on FB includes those who agree and those who disagreeâŠbut then that essentially becomes a public poll on the issue.
You have to be logged in to Facebook. Search for United States Dressage Federation Office Page. Then look for a section called reviews.
Now that Iâm looking at it, it looks like USDF turned off ratings sometime in the past year as they were getting 1 star reviews because of the Shelley Browning fiasco.
But itâs still set so that you can choose to publicly recommend or not recommend them.
It is true that voting on FB includes those who agree and those who disagreeâŠbut then that essentially becomes a public poll on the issue.
Exactly. A public poll that would never be conducted by USDF because they wouldnât like the results.
3 Likes
onceuponatime Well said. Yes, the mantra from those âin favorâ of it seems to be âallâ the members want it, and it is for the benefit of the horse, despite all facts.
Here is some more good information from Cynthia Collins explaining this, which is confusing to me.
"Please remember that at this time itâs not in the hands of USDF. The members at the BOG voted overwhelmingly to ask the USEF Dressage Sport Committee to rescind this Rule.
Remind the committee members that USDF has passed the responsibility of this Rule squarely in their shoulders when it really should be on USDF, who started this in the first place.
Remind them that if they vote not to rescind this Rule, the USDF members will be upset with them only. However, if they bite to rescind this Rule, it places the responsibility back onto USDF.
All dressage rules are started at the USDF Convention. Then they are submitted to USEF. At the USEF Convention all the breed and disciplines vote on all the Rules. Then it becomes a rule and goes into the USEF Rule book. Unless itâs passed as an extraordinary rule, which this one was. Usually extraordinary rules go through faster because thereâs a safety issue.
So in December 2017, the USDF Freestyle and judges committees made the rule. Then they submitted it to the USEF Dressage Sport Committee who decided to put it in as an extraordinary rule to coincide with the new tests which did not need to happen, by passing the usual rule change procedure.
At this last USDF Convention at the Board of Governors meeting, our representatives voted overwhelmingly to ask the USEF Dressage Sport Committee, the emails I gave out, to rescind the Rule since it was put in as an extraordinary rule. Thatâs the only thing they are considering at this time.
If they vote to rescind it, then USDF freestyle and judges committee can reconsider whether to resubmit it in the normal way. Plus they can get our opinion on it which they didnât before.
However my opinion is it was just a gesture to move the responsibility of what they did over to USEF. Thatâs why we need to remind the members on this USEF Committee that they should vote to rescind it and make USDF take the responsibility for it.
If the vote not to rescind it, it stays a rule.
We can put in for a rule change ourselves, but that will take 2 years and most of the time if the rule isnât put in by the USEF Dressage Sport Committee, then they vote no and the other breed and disciplines do the same."
So, this is all on USDF, but theyâre trying to make it USEFâs problem, which is how I interpret it. I suggest everyone keep contacting them.
I was just looking over the USEF Convention agenda and do not see a meeting of the Dressage Sport Committee on there anywhere. https://www.usef.org/annual-meeting/schedule?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Annual%20Meeting%20-%20Daily%20Report%20-%2001.10.19%20(1)&utm_content=
That makes sense. However, I was thinking of the big picture regarding not just freestyle changes, but proposals for medal score cutoffs and other programs.
Donât the people proposing this realize that it will many people away? Is it because they donât want to deal with the lower level people? Or is it all about the US saving face because of the embarassment of the del mar incident and other things?
My take on it is itâs a complete disconnect. A large number of these people live in Wellington. They work with and are courted by people with big money. They think itâs no big deal because everyone just has to do what they see all of the people they are surrounded by doâget a really expensive horse, have someone train it, and spend a lot of money keeping it. This is the big business of the dressage world. No one is making money supporting the low money amateurs who are the bulk of the membership.
9 Likes
I wonder if all these ideas pass, if it will cause a mass exodus from USDF and people flocking to Working Equitation
1 Like
I agree very much. This summer I rode in a show in Wellington to get my last 4th level score and it was amazing how many clearly very expensive horses were in the warm up ring with me and how many high end trainer as well⊠Usually in Shows there are a couple of high end trainers but at this show there was nobody (except for me) without a high end trainer⊠some warmed up the horses for their clients and one literally got off when the rider was due to start the test⊠I think this type of people do not understand how normal people have to work for things they take for grantedâŠ
Please I do not complain about this, I got what I wanted and I enjoy to see nice horses⊠I liked that show! I just wanted to confirm what GramV said!!
5 Likes
The embarrassment of the Del Mar incident was, in my opinion, the failure of the judges to mark the individual down appropriately and that the judges disqualified one of the rides after it took place, instead of ringing the rider out while the disqualifying behavior was ongoing.
I found it disingenuous for the rule to be presented in the language it was, beginning with slamming the âkeyboard jockeysâ or âarmchair quarterbacksâ for complaining about the ride and then to immediately propose that something had to be done about that sort of rideâŠ
4 Likes
I would love to do that. Looks like a blast.
Cynthia Collins has her western saddle and is moving to western dressage, where the fees are lower, anyone can go to championships, and they have better prizes.
If I continue showing, these are some options.
1 Like
Adequan Global Dressage Festival on FB.
Scroll down to the 5th announcement of the Global Dressage Festival. They have a picture of a horse (no clue who it is) to advertise the best of the best showing everything that is wrong with dressage right now. The horse is not in a trot. Itâs front legs are almost up to itâs chest, the back is dropped, and the hind legs are behind.
This is all on the judges.
2 Likes
Link doesnât work.
Hm. Just type in Adequan Global Dressage Festival in FB and go to the 5th post.
Watching it right now, and I think itâs Britney Fraser on the chestnut. Not through or correct at all in the ext. trot, and she got 7 + from all of the judges on it.
You do understand that the rule change request you are referring to was not in any way presented by USDF or USEF or anyone on any recognized committee, right?
That was instead the suggestion and verbiage of just some random member making a request TO the USDF, just as any member here could write in and make. And, it was shot down in quick reply. Granted-- part of the shooting down referred to there already being some suggestions involving qualifying under upcoming consideration. It was pretty vague.
But the reference to the Del Mar ride and the proposed rule change didnât come from any organization or committee.
