Yes, I do understand that. :yes:
1 Like
Interesting that they committee shot down the rule change idea for that, but it was OK to do this rule change.
Again, from my understanding, the USDF committee made the freestyle extraordinary rule change. At the meeting, the populace must have been speaking up and they voted 2/3rds to rescind it. The USDF is in charge of this, but they are trying to put responsibility on the USEF by sending it to them to rescind it. The USEF needs to make USDF take responsibility and do it themselves. Then they can make the rule change correctly if they really want it, through the process.
Except that thereâs been a Freestyle qualifying score rule in place for years. And itâs already required a ride of the highest test of the level. What they did was raise the score required. Also, the MF change was generated from within the organization via the Freestyle committee.
Putting âqualifying scores in order to advance AT ALLâ in place is a whole 'nother ballgame. No rule anything like that currently exits in North American dressage. And, that proposal came not from within but from one person basically dropping an emailed note in a suggestion box. And the memberâs suggestion was very restrictive. To have taken it seriously would have upended all sorts of practices already in place and would have affected a majority of members who show.
I donât think itâs surprising or interesting they rejected that qualifying score idea. Itâs much more drastic a (suggested) change, compared to raising existing freestyle qualifying by 3 percentage points.
2 Likes
I donât think they qualifying score rejection is surprising, either. I really donât think itâs much different than raising the freestyle score 3%, which is a massive jump, and raising it the same up the levels, which is even more massive.
It doesnât make any sense. Those that did it seem to have the mantra that âeveryoneâ wanted it, and itâs for the welfare of the horse. That doesnât even make sense. No one is abusing horses in freestyles. There may be some instances where that is happening in the regular tests and a qualifying score might help, but probably not.
It all seems a complete disconnect and elitism. Thereâs nothing else I can figure out.
2 Likes
The proponents of the freestyle Q change referenced the welfare of the horse as part of the reason?
I did not see that reported anywhere. It wasnât part of the news release. And the people I know who reported the freestyle discussions from the convention back to me didnât mention that, either.
It was all about an attempt to make freestyles better technically and also more interesting to âspectatorsâ because itâs a more anticipated and more watched test. They said.
2 Likes
When I went to the FB page referenced here and the people for it, that was what they kept repeating, and then wouldnât answer beyond that. I donât think there was any âreasonâ in a any news release. It was just that they did it.
It makes no sense to make them better and more interesting this way. It will have no effect. Correct judging and education will. But right now there are so few people competing freestyles, this will only make it less, and only the big people who know they will get high scores will bother, but a lot of them wonât. I donât know about where you are, but here, a highly competitive area, freestyles are a rarity. At the CDS champs, a huge class might be 10 people? None of it makes sense.
2 Likes
Everything you say is absolutely trueâŠ
What you seem to have missed is what the reason that was given for rejecting this proposed rule ⊠Because sheâs late to the partyâŠ
âŠBecause the Dressage Sport Committee is ALREADY considering proposing a qualification score.
Committee Actions:
Draft 1: We thank you for your proposal, but a topic like this needs more collaborative discussion with membership. Additionally, the Dressage Sport Committee is already in process of considering this question with preparations in progress to discuss this topic further during the USDF Convention this Fall
https://prc.usef.org/documents/ruleCâŠals/355-18.pdf
SoâŠforewarned is forearmed.
Ten years after the first coup attempt, 2019 will see a renewed push to implement a qualifying rule.
1 Like
K
The official announcement from the USDF spelling out their reasons very plainly is linked in post #84 of this thread. Iâd link it again but Iâm on my phone now and itâs harder to paste.
Whether members will agree with their reasoning, and whether members will suspect thereâs more behind it, are not included in the information they released. ETA: they also stated it was changed in order to be in sync with the scores needed to Q for Regionals which were already 63 for Freestyles.
Anyway there IS an official announcement of the rule change and is DOES give specific reasons. Welfare of the horse wasnât a part of it.
2 Likes
No, I didnât miss any of that the first time. If you read my later response youâd see that I referenced their reply including the mention of already discussing a qualifying score idea. And I described that reply as vague. Which it is.
I read it very clearly. And I thought, âThatâs a long way off. I, like most people who show, canât imagine how they can implement it. And, whatever they do propose is likely to be less restrictive than that personâs idea. What if itâs a 55% at the highest test of the level? What if itâs 59% at any test of the level? What if itâs only for Training through Second?â
I read it. I just didnât worry about it or speculate about how to best lobby against something so vague, and thatâs only on the table for discussion in the next season.
1 Like
Yes, It basically only says technical proficiency reasons, which makes no sense. Then they need to change all of the wording on what scores mean.
And like I said, on Dolly Hannonâs thread where Janey Foy was replying, I kept seeing âwelfare of the horse,â which makes no sense, either.
Honestly, it seems they want to turn dressage into Saddlebreds and who can do the most extravagant movement without training. Janet posted somewhere else a 6 mover shouldnât be OK, which negates the whole point of dressage. As everyone should know, dressage literally means âtraining,â not big extravagant mover. Theyâre heading towards making it all about natural piaffe and passage.
1 Like
I think we have all been reading an out-of-date dictionary. In the modern dictionary dressage = money. With roots in the terms ground cover and suspension. 
4 Likes
GramV said in post 110
Janet posted somewhere else a 6 mover shouldnât be OK, which negates the whole point of dressage. As everyone should know, dressage literally means âtraining,â not big extravagant mover.
I think my heart just died.
Good luck American show Dressage
Keep up the good fight folks.
5 Likes
Hoopoe, where did she post that? Can you link to it?
1 Like
I am not sure whether I should laugh or cry while I read this⊠at what point do you score the movement of a horse?? And donât you believe that training improves the gaits?? I have this 7 to 8 mover and I was told today that if I donât ride her correctly I will never make it to Prix St George. And I admit Janet Foy said something similar to me some years ago⊠I think the most important part of Dressage is how you train your horse (and I know C. Hester agrees with me. He brought the 6 mover up to the OlympicsâŠ). So I donât even care about gait scores⊠there is so much more to dressageâŠ
5 Likes
A 6 mover shouldnât be okay? Doesnât that sort of negate her indignant protest to you that she has worked and will work with ANY breed of horses, Appies, etc.? Of course, this is the person who is âtired of seeing horses coming down the centerline that look like they should be out chasing cattle.â Sorta contradicting herself, isnât she? Or is it more a case of
" Iâm willing to take money to teach owners of unsuitable horses, but donât expect me to - o horror - judge them at a show."
7 Likes
fairly certain JF stitches this on pillows.
2 Likes
What I want to say about Janet Foy is not fit for print on this website if she truly said a 6 mover is not ok.
2 Likes
Yâall, since we arenât invited into the room, we can only guess at who is really pushing this.
Iâve seen Janet tell L candidates that if they didnât place the horse who had the least impressive natural gaits in a class first, they were going to have a hard time passing without more practice, because the horse had been the clear winner. Iâm sure she prefers great gaits and super athleticism - everyone does.
But letâs not let that distract. I would love to know what the lawyer who wrote to USEF (I think someone in Colorado said it was someone at their barn?) said. I have been trying to figure out if the fake use of the emergency clause is a violation of the charter of USEF in some way, or if the bylaws even explicitly state how rule changes happen vs they just have a rule on how to change rules. Because itâs possible there is legal ground to demand they use an emergency process to rescind the rule change.
But what we need to focus on is how to ensure that TPTB are clear we wonât accept qualifying rules to move up the levels. No question in my mind if we suddenly need multiple scores above a certain level I will just quit showing rated. I do it for fun and feedback, and could potentially increase as much as 5% if I made regular showing a thing - but I put my budget of time and money into learning more than competing, and if Iâm told I have to show more or not at all, Iâll choose not at all. Itâs an easy choice for me!
Is there anyone on that new grassroots panel who would be good to approach? Does anyone know any of the members? It could be a good start.
1 Like
Exactly. It totally negates that idea. And also, nothing else we qualify for is based on that standard. Not All Breeds or HOY or rider medals.
So why did they say it should now be 63 at the highest test of a level to Q, and THEN also raise the Regionals Q score for the Freestyles themselves by two more points?
I think it only underscores their complaint that they are seeing too many crappy freestyles.
Everything about this rule change, from its bizzarely urgent enacting, has pointed to that perception. 1) They believe that there are too many crappy freestyles out there, particularly at the lower levels. 2) They feel that Freestyles âshouldâ be a showcase for the discipline. The implication is that instead of being better than regular tests, these tests that pull more spectators to ringside are, too often, worse than regular tests.
Thatâs what they attempted to âfix.â Thatâs what they saw as broken.
Thereâs nothing in the action, or implied in the explanations of it, about poor movers versus good movers, the future of showing, pros versus ammies, billionaires versus poor people, saddlebreds, riding thatâs so generally bad that it borders on abuse, or eventually needing to qualify to move up levels.
Those are all tangents that may or may not be related. If people want to read all that into it and argue against rumors and feelings and what it âseems likeâ USDF/USEF will intend to do to make everything harder eventually-- IMO that wonât be anywhere near as effective as arguing directly against what they did do, and what they did state are the reasons.
1 Like
That seems to be the message, As my friend who rides western told me when she saw Totillas, how is that different that saddleseat? It will be all about the huge money in breeding and selling big gaits and the promotion of those horses with their massive wins. At the top levels, you can almost do nothing but piaffe and passage and win, since itâs 40% of the test.
