One doesn’t have to know the solution to a problem to know there is a problem.
8 Likes
Yes, but discussion can be more productive if potential solutions are introduced 
It’s easy to point out problems, but not so easy to think of solutions. If you can’t, or think that’s not on you, then fair enough, but some people are problem solvers and are often driven to finding a solution when a problem is discovered.
It’s not about having to know a solution to know that there is a problem. It’s just that when potential solutions are continously shot down by those that don’t provide any ideas regarding a solution themselves, it just leaves one wondering, what is it that you want? Or what do you think should happen here? If these are all wrong, then what could be right?
10 Likes
The problem is that it is not clear what is “the problem” that is being addressed by this new rule. In the Theory of Constraints Handbook, Goldratt posts this model on “Getting to Agreement.”
Here is an article describing the "Layers of Resistance.
- We Do Not Agree on the Problem
- We Do Not Agree on the Direction of the Solution
- We Do Not Agree That the Proposed Solution Resolves the Problem
- Yes But…the Proposed Solution Will Create Other Problems
- Yes But…there Are Huge Obstacles to Implementing the Proposed Solution
- Unverbalised Fear
3 Likes
This is a great idea! In order to give it teeth, you probably can’t release ribbons/placings from the class until all random bits have been checked. That means you can’t give people too long to come back without angering everyone - but the advantage is that anyone can come back with the bit - so if a trainer has to jump on another horse a groom can bring the bit back.
7 Likes
I also think that this a neat idea and a good potential solution.
13 Likes
I’ve not competed in some years now–are illegal bits a significant problem?
4 Likes
Ahhh…and THAT is the question.
Seems like there are differing opinions on whether “a problem” exits…thus the appropriateness of this graphic
6 Likes
Do they release numbers of folks disqualified for illegal bits? That would be interesting. Especially over time.
Especially considering how often they change the rules 
2 Likes
I think we should just plant the cause of the consternation clearly on CDJ’s head. She was eliminated a while back for having a directional bit in the wrong way. Wait, no let’s go up the food chain and blame Sprenger for manufacturing directional bits! (They are confusing AF imo annd I always had to check the stupid directions and not just the arrow on the side because dyslexia and over thinking wreak havoc)
2 Likes
Well, if dressage were a bitless sport we wouldn’t have this problem. That’s the ultimate solution; eliminate all of the bits!
(this post was made in jest)
15 Likes
If you don’t want silly ideas discussed, don’t bring them forward. Easy peasy.
Or bring them forward and don’t whine about them being called out as completely impractical.
Focus instead on the potentially plausible idea of bit tagging that came out of this discussion. If a bunch of us hadn’t said, “nope, not acceptable for all these reasons”, Pluvinel may not have given a most excellent solution because it wouldn’t have been getting tossed around. That’s what discussion is all about. It’s not about who can manufacture the most butthurt from their idea getting shot down. It’s about the great things that can be found when lively discussions are had.
10 Likes
Look. Here is the thing. The people making these rules are a bunch of old ladies. They are not vets, they are not bit experts and they are definitely not scientists. I think a lot of people will back me up when I say that some outlawed bits are kinder than some approved bits. Why is that? However, even if I used an illegal bit because my horse finds it more comfortable for their conformation and stage in training (i.e. a locking bit which can be a transition from a mullen to a three piece bit), I would never EVER effing SHOW in it. Why? Because the shit show that is the USEF tribunal is nothing that anyone EVER wants to blow hundreds of hours of their time on, especially if this is just their hobby and they have more important things in their life (like earning a living). (I have several friends who have gone through this for very minor infractions and, guess what, don’t show anymore). If you want to police bits, be my guest, but the more hassle, inconvenience, opportunities for people to get snitty with you, and downright bullshit that you add onto showing, due to the vast overthinking that is the USDF/USEF leadership, the more you drive people from the sport. Check a bit when there is a test where the horse has its mouth open through the test. Get some vets to show you what it looks like when a horse is uncomfortable with a bit. Otherwise, the Powers Who Be have to pull their heads out of their sagging arses and start making it more inviting for people to show and less like an obstacle course of dread and punity.
22 Likes
I actually like this.
5 Likes
not that I have seen…and I showed as well as was on two GMO boards.
1 Like
hahahaha…you go girl!
Who does this new rule effect?
Stand on a mounting block and again, a little louder for those with the sagging arses, please
6 Likes
I think a lot of the problem is this insistence by USDF on imposing FEI-level rules on what are really mostly lower and mid-level AAs who just want to go have fun and show off their nice horses of a weekend.
By all means, run the FEI-level classes with the FEI rules–that would affect about 6 people at most of our local shows, normally, and would be easy and relatively cheap to police just by sending someone back to the stalls with the competitors.
19 Likes
preaching to a choir here. no need to be aggressive… “Look. Here’s the thing…” Really?
Well, Look, here’s the thing… I’m reporting what occurred. There was a great long discussion. Best practices were suggested.
I trust the TDs to do it right by both the horses and competitors.
(And I own a horse who never competed for me because he prefers an illegal bit. So there is that aspect to my experiences…)
1 Like
Here is the other thing: this bit rule is dangerous and ridiculous. People who show are required to waive liability. We (I am still a card carrying member and I did pay show fees last year) have a say as to how much liability we want to take on. I don’t want a volunteer’s fingers in my horse’s mouth; nor do I want someone insisting I remove my horse’s bridle in the open areas around the arena. Period. What I do want is some training and rules around cruelty and abuse. If you see cruelty and abuse involving the bit, have someone stop that person, follow them to their stall, check their tack and also write a warning. Especially if there is blood. The number of people who will have this done will not be anywhere near 50%. Checking 50% of bits just isn’t a realistic, safe goal. Will they put a sticker on your number so they know you’ve been checked? What’s to stop you from changing the bit after being checked? Are they checking 50% of rides? Because that could be 200 in a long weekend. I don’t care how productive you think the discussion is about all the extra crap that could be done to make it happen. It’s just not safe, productive or necessary, not to mention that we already DO NOT have enough volunteers to run successful shows. Policing cruelty, abuse–and defining the behavior that will automatically get a stop–is. I have seen a lot of horses whipped and spurred through a test and no one ever does anything about that–I’d love a rule on excessive use of whip and excessive use of spur and what that means. I’d love a rule on misuse of the curb and what that means.
20 Likes
