What? In what sense? Not arguing with you, just confused how this could be a possible excuse.
Iâm not saying SLO is not a concern. I am saying that failure to address ongoing issues for decades has resulted in a situation where we now need to earn that social license to operate. Had animal and human welfare been addressed all along, we wouldnât need to now work to prove that our sport is still valid and would not be in this situation.
For example, the HOTY rewards the horse with the most points. For many horses (not all), this means showing 2x a month or more. I have seen horses show 32 shows to earn theirs. It is ridiculous. How is this fair to the horse? Could USEF not rethink the way the points are tabulated (points from your top 10 shows and no more than 20 shows, for example)? NO, because the show managers wouldnât make money if people showed less. The facilities wouldnât host as many shows so they wouldnât make as much money. The trainers would have less income from shows (and many tell you they make their money from shows and horse sales). And so onâŠ
Yes, addressing this very issue would help to address so many issues. It would result in a more humane experience for the horse. It would change the criteria for a HOTY from the person who spent the most to campaign to the person who was most successful, making the award more attainable and fair for all. As it is now, it encourages people to campaign their horse week after week to chase points. That horse is then stuck in a stall for weeks on end (unless the trainer can rent a paddock), locked in a stall, and jumping sometimes 10 or more classes a week, on back to back to back weeks. So then comes the âmedication.â The horse is sore. It is miserable. It has pent up energy from lack of turnout. It gets lunged. You get the point.
All stemming from just ONE issue that could be easily addressed. Now consider the myriad of issues as a whole. USEF has consciously turned a blind eye to numerous matters. Why? Because acknowledging them would displease some of the most influential figures at the pinnacle of the sport. There are individuals who repeatedly resort to shortcuts such as drugging horses or conducting questionable procedures like nerving to maintain their performance. They encourage owners to excessively campaign their horses, pushing them to jump high in every lesson (train high, show low) for hunters or jumpers, or overschooling for dressage. They exploit Suzieâs horse until it wears out, all with the knowledge that they can profit from selling Suzie another replacement horse once this one is retired. Susie gets a pretty ribbon and the trainer finds the next $300,000+ horse for Susie. Everybody wins. Except the horse(s) that Suzie ruined.
26 Likes
You canât see but Iâm giving you a standing ovation
15 Likes
Probably not because they either donât know any other way or believe that their abusive shortcuts are the only way.
I sure wish there were an easy answer - push X button and everything will fall into place and there will be no more room for abusive âtraining.â
There was a Big Wig around my part of the world many years ago. It was their thought and acceptance that who cares if you break down 10 horses there is always another one.
So there is that attitude among many as well and I donât think it was just back in the day.
The poor horses.
6 Likes
Hot take from a therapist - people who abuse, neglect, and do downright horrible things are doing it because they experience so much shame. These actions are an attempt to relieve it. So adding shame onto more shame just makes a person entrenched in their beliefs and protective system of âI did nothing wrong.â
4 Likes
From the aspect of mental illness like narcissism, yes. I meant that regular ânormalâ people have the ability to feel embarrassed and ashamed if they mess up. Unstable people canât - as they cover it even to themselves as you have pointed out.
2 Likes
Iâm not sure people who do things like Parra (HelgstrandâŠmaybe, I think of him somewhat differently) are ânormalâ people. Most truly successful businesspeople are at the very least narcissists, often psychopathic. Which came first - the syndrome vs the success I think is an interesting questionâŠ
14 Likes
YeahâŠno sh*t sherlock. When big shoulders and teeny hips were rewarded by dog show judges in the bull dog breeds, the breeders responded and now bulldogs are born by caesarean section because the pelvic channel is too small for the shoulders.
When the judges start marking down artificially extravagant movement produced by this sort of training, I will believe there is will behind the words.
18 Likes
100% agree.
I do believe the pressure belongs on the judges. Not that Parra and Helgstrand are in the right and they should be penalized, but we should be focusing our ire there if we truly want to see change.
Of course, judging also has a pressure too - breeders and associations put pressure on them because thatâs what sells.
So when we look at ourselves as buyers, what do we buy? We buy extravagant movement for more money. Thatâs what we do.
Gotta break that cycle somehow.
8 Likes
Iâm not saying SLO is not a concern. I am saying that failure to address ongoing issues for decades has resulted in a situation where we now need to earn that social license to operate. Had animal and human welfare been addressed all along, we wouldnât need to now work to prove that our sport is still valid and would not be in this situation.
For example, the HOTY rewards the horse with the most points. For many horses (not all), this means showing 2x a month or more. I have seen horses show 32 shows to earn theirs. It is ridiculous. How is this fair to the horse? Could USEF not rethink the way the points are tabulated (points from your top 10 shows and no more than 20 shows, for example)? NO, because the show managers wouldnât make money if people showed less. The facilities wouldnât host as many shows so they wouldnât make as much money. The trainers would have less income from shows (and many tell you they make their money from shows and horse sales). And so onâŠ
Yes, addressing this very issue would help to address so many issues. It would result in a more humane experience for the horse. It would change the criteria for a HOTY from the person who spent the most to campaign to the person who was most successful, making the award more attainable and fair for all. As it is now, it encourages people to campaign their horse week after week to chase points. That horse is then stuck in a stall for weeks on end (unless the trainer can rent a paddock), locked in a stall, and jumping sometimes 10 or more classes a week, on back to back to back weeks. So then comes the âmedication.â The horse is sore. It is miserable. It has pent up energy from lack of turnout. It gets lunged. You get the point.
All stemming from just ONE issue that could be easily addressed. Now consider the myriad of issues as a whole. USEF has consciously turned a blind eye to numerous matters. Why? Because acknowledging them would displease some of the most influential figures at the pinnacle of the sport. There are individuals who repeatedly resort to shortcuts such as drugging horses or conducting questionable procedures like nerving to maintain their performance. They encourage owners to excessively campaign their horses, pushing them to jump high in every lesson (train high, show low) for hunters or jumpers, or overschooling for dressage. They exploit Suzieâs horse until it wears out, all with the knowledge that they can profit from selling Suzie another replacement horse once this one is retired. Susie gets a pretty ribbon and the trainer finds the next $300,000+ horse for Susie. Everybody wins. Except the horse(s) that Suzie ruined.
3 Likes
Judges know that if they start being critical of the big guys that they wonât be asked back to judge.
So maybe how judges are designated for shows has to change. Maybe judges should be assigned/rotated. This way they know being honest doesnât mean they are out of work.
Just a thought.
16 Likes
thatâs BS, if they are all on the same page at that level then they have no choice than to be hired again.
edited to add that there are not that many FEI judges out there and thatâs the level they need to start with.
5 Likes
Competitors will judge shop. Competitions will bitch that they are under-attended due to drawing âbadâ judges.
Until judging is corrected (notice the choice not to use âfixedâ lol) across the board, it wonât change. There is no âsneakyâ way to do this. Itâs got to be a giant, enforced and somehow enforecable change.
8 Likes
Perhaps changing the standards could help? Removing gaits from scoring other than irregularities?
13 Likes
Once upon a time if my memory is correct I was told that if you have a 7 mover no mark on that test, including rider marks, can be over a 7.
Do I remember that correctly?
1 Like
I agree that judges should be assigned and rotated. We get the same judges here every year, year after year, because we have the same show manager for all the shows and she has relationships with these judges. Many people do not like these judges and have stopped showing or go out of state. Some of these judges are perceived to be particularly grinchy. OTOH, there is a well known show series in another region that hires all of the âhappierâ judges, year after year. This sets up a system where national year end awards are influenced and the system is unfair. If you require rotation throughout the country, you create, hopefully, a more fair playing field. Additionally, the judges become more in touch with the dressage landscape overall.
8 Likes
Yes. That is accurate because the gaits are incorporated into every score. I think maybe there are exceptions for a few movements that gaits donât influence so much, like the halt.
1 Like
Bingo!
9 Likes
Thatâs what I remember from attending 2 L-judgeâs training years ago.
1 Like
