New National MERs

[AskMyAccountant.17]

My only argument is what if the data supports that requiring one additional MER statistically lowers Horse Falls/Rider Falls. The data was provided that showed this statistic.

It seemed that the rule didn’t come out of thin air, can someone locate the report that was shown? (found it) In a time of rider deaths, a “What are we doing” thread.

Do we not follow the stats? Do we believe the stats aren’t real? Or do we set the rule as to what the statistics tell us. The answer is only one of these three. They’re either right or wrong. I don’t know how you can take published statistics in today’s climate and say Yes I know these reports show that by participating in this # of MERs at this length apart a positive correlation exists to less horse falls and rider falls, but despite this we will ignore.

That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I dont lack empathy. For anything I WISH the statistics didn’t say that. I wish the reports said we needed less MERs because its costing me money to do more. But, now that they exist we have to kindof address them.

Appendix-3-Increase-Qualifications.pdf

Maybe USEA sends funds to support those Midwest Events, maybe they offer grants to compete for this demographic.

[Mounted]

Well, we can certainly believe that the statistics are real without giving them a causal interpretation. That is, it is entirely possible that combinations with more MERs have fewer falls (a negative correlation between falls and MERs) and that MERs do not have a causal effect. It could be that more talented or better conditioned pairs, or those with better coaching, choose to complete more MERs before moving up – but that the other factors rather than the additional MERs cause the improvements in safety. If that’s the case, then requiring more MERs will not cause a reduction in falls. I’m not saying that more MERs do not have a causal effect on falls when moving up, but I am saying that the simple correlation in the rule change proposal is not evidence that they do.

(Studying causation is literally my day job; I can absolutely look at a correlation between two factors and not think it’s a reasonable basis for a new policy. There are a lot of very basic limitations in the analysis in the USEA report, though I think it’s a great start. One obvious issue is that choosing an arbitrary cutoff, such as 6 MERs, is susceptible to specification searching. Why is more vs. less than 6 the right comparison? There are data driven approaches to looking for non linearities or non-parametric alternatives to the analysis. A second, related to my point above, is about other factors that are related to both the number of MERs one completes and the rate of falls. However, simply running regressions that include additional covariates does not necessarily transform correlations into unbiased causal estimates.)

[AskMyAccountant.17]

That’s a great point, so maybe I should re-word my intial rebuttal from “stats aren’t real” to “stats aren’t conclusive enough to make said rule.” See, I think your argument has more validity to a team of “rule makers” than it’s unfair for those in other areas.

I think right now, those who are making the rules will opt for safety considerations over demographic-fairness (my made-up word) In the same instance that someone in the MidWest argues that events are far from accessible, I can argue that I can’t afford entry fees.

To @Mounted two thoughts.

1. If there are other elements that curate the causal effect of more MERs (I follow you there) wouldn’t it still extract said poster who didn’t have those “other elements” to then go to MERs. (Trying to maintain as much empathy as possible for poster, those elements not excluding proximity, better conditions, etc. I guess we dont know which of these other elements Poster does or doesn’t have right now.) We would need to in my mind go up the ladder to see if those “other elements” could be quantified in a way to create different MER/qualification requirements.
   I’m not sure that’s possible.
2. In my opinion, you have to choose the first quantifiable safety measure as your minimum requirement until further studies are available, knowing that a subset will be affected due to error. Rather than the opposite of in effort to not exclude anyone not create the rule at all. (Because of the social climate, existence of the sport, etc. If those didn’t exist, I would probably argue let us all figure it out on our own. But no one would allow that.)

Really excuse my venacular. I’m an accountant, I took statistics a long time ago. It’s not my first language.

[Blugal]

There’s irony in the article quoting someone saying that out West we at least have Rebecca Farm and Aspen… when Aspen doesn’t run Modified.

[three_dayer]

Yep, that is a typo. Spokane sport horse has a modified and EI is fundraising to put in a modified.

[AskMyAccountant.17]

“karma is my boyfriend” I just got the email that I need to do two CCI3S instead of one to do a CCI3L. (I thought the old rule was that if you did a 2L, you just needed one 3S) Can we rally now that I’m affected too? I take it all back…

[EventerAJ]

That’s where the sport gets really expensive. A CCIS (ye olde CIC) is just an overpriced horse trial, practically speaking. It doesn’t really prepare you much better than a horse trial; it’s just run under FEI rules requiring FEI judges and officials ($$). The actual difference between a CIC XC and the HT XC is typically 2 or 3 fences, a more difficult combination, and an extra 20 seconds… But depending on the venue, the CCIS course at one location could be softer than a national HT at another event.

Running one CIC is justifiable particularly in developing countries where their national standards may be lax; and it’s important to learn the basics of a jog, running under FEI drug rules, etc. But completing more of the CIC events themselves don’t automatically make CCIL competitors safer. Just poorer.