MR, I like your plan but I’d add to it the allowance for shoes/ mesure as shown ruled discussed previously.
After the terms of measurement (shoe allowance, tiny ( 1/4 inch) room for error) are clearly defined, the only ones that need to fret about random spot measurement are those already cheating. If you’re clean within the rules, you’re legal.
I iterate, it seems such a pity that some of the most widespread cheating goes on with our youngest competitors…
Honestly, I am sorry there are so many cheaters out there that we are a laughingstock at this point.
Knowledgeable cheating to win is wrong every way you slice it. This is no different than drugging, and should be treated the same way. Play fair or go home.
I think that a contingent from USEF should be here at WIHS this week, sticks in hand. Each pony in the ribbons should be sticked and drug tested. It would be interesting to see how many will throw classes so they don’t have to face the steward and stick. However there should not be a grace period, one-time pass, or any other out for those with improperly carded ponies. Very tiny percentage of people with wrong height cards will have had that happen accidentally. I promise. They need to be held accountable immediately, publicly and face a monetary penalty as well.
There is also absolutely no reason for the identity of any equine to be questionable. We need an immediate rule change calling for an implant or retina scan to determine the identity of the horse for sure at each show, at the measuring pad, etc. With the easy, cheap technology out there, refusing to do this is actually publicly stating through your inaction/silence that you don’t care as an organization if people cheat or not.
I do think we need guaranteed measuring at shows all over, instead of one or two random re-measurements here and there. Two stewards, not one, so their is a consensus and less chance of one steward looking the other way for certain clients. I am sorry that the appearance of stewards in KY to randomly measure two ponies caused such stress for everyone. If you have a pony who measures correctly, it shouldn’t have been stressful at all. I do not think we need to change the current rules on ages/heights/divisions, just enforce the ones we already have in place and do it consistently and openly. And check often!
Be honest: how many of you looked at the provided example of the farmore pony given in a previous post showing it suddenly becoming a year younger, inches smaller and a new name and where in any way shocked by that? So are we going to let this blatant abuse of the system continue, or finally insist on doing whatever it takes to ensure ponies are measured in a consistent manner, with proof of ID via implant or retina scan. No suddenly turning up next year with a new name and a smaller card.
[QUOTE=alittlegray;7813720]
Be honest: how many of you looked at the provided example of the farmore pony given in a previous post showing it suddenly becoming a year younger, inches smaller and a new name and where in any way shocked by that? So are we going to let this blatant abuse of the system continue, or finally insist on doing whatever it takes to ensure ponies are measured in a consistent manner, with proof of ID via implant or retina scan. No suddenly turning up next year with a new name and a smaller card.[/QUOTE]
This is a fairly common occurance. I know of at least two ponies that have been reincarnated as different ponies. One for no reason at all other than to apparently get rid of the breeders prefix and gain a year. It was unshown and an easy measure. The other got a few years younger and a size small. I do not have definitive proof, other than knowing the breeder, so no sense in making an issue.
We NEED an unquestionable ID process!
Since there are lots of ponies who measure right on the line and who may exhibit height changes due to muscling, shoeing, distractions, etc, why can’t we do this:
[LIST=1]
Prior to the issuance of a permanent card, the pony must be measured at the beginning of each competition season to receive a temporary card for the year.
Just throwing out an idea…
I think measuring with shoes and an “allowance” would go a long way to taking the stress away from spot measurements. If your pony is a close measure and has to be barefoot and relaxed… and you get tapped on the shoulder at a show and have to find the farrier and start prepping-- I can see where that would be unecessarily stressful. If the rule was that the initial measurement had to be “on the nose” (with or without shoes off, prep, etc.) but then the spot checks at the show could be shod, with the thickness of the shoes subtracted, as well as with some reasonable margin of error for pony-height-fluctuations-- that seems to me to be very fair and reasonable.
I’m pretty sure the name “Permanent” Card won’t be used.
[QUOTE=vxf111;7814908]
I think measuring with shoes and an “allowance” would go a long way to taking the stress away from spot measurements. If your pony is a close measure and has to be barefoot and relaxed… and you get tapped on the shoulder at a show and have to find the farrier and start prepping-- I can see where that would be unecessarily stressful. If the rule was that the initial measurement had to be “on the nose” (with or without shoes off, prep, etc.) but then the spot checks at the show could be shod, with the thickness of the shoes subtracted, as well as with some reasonable margin of error for pony-height-fluctuations-- that seems to me to be very fair and reasonable.[/QUOTE]
maybe if the pony needs to be “barefoot” and “relaxed”, he is not really the size he is being measured for. Seems to me if you have to pull the shoes and “relax” the pony to get it measured at 14.2, then in “real” life, it isnt a pony.
[QUOTE=Silk;7817846]
maybe if the pony needs to be “barefoot” and “relaxed”, he is not really the size he is being measured for. Seems to me if you have to pull the shoes and “relax” the pony to get it measured at 14.2, then in “real” life, it isnt a pony.[/QUOTE]
Depends all on how you define the terms and requirements. As long as they are the same for everyone, it shouldn’t matter if some ponies are what another discipline would call a horse by half an inch.
And really, establishing a baseline for variation due to environment, etc. should not be that hard. Take a selection of ponies and horses and have a steward measure them in various different situations - on the home farm, at a show at the start of the season, the middle, the end. At a very loud and exciting show and at a low key schooling show. Then look at how much the height of the critter is changing over those measurements. If you collect enough data you should be able to see how much a high stress show is likely to make a pony grow vs a low stress one, and so on, and can from there determine a sensible amount to allow for deviation from the required height. You will end up disqualifying some outliers, probably, who puff up a huge amount relative to a normal pony, but that happens when you have rules.
[QUOTE=Silk;7817846]
maybe if the pony needs to be “barefoot” and “relaxed”, he is not really the size he is being measured for. Seems to me if you have to pull the shoes and “relax” the pony to get it measured at 14.2, then in “real” life, it isnt a pony.[/QUOTE]
I dunno about that. A person can be generally 145 lbs but on any given day might weigh 2-3 lbs more or less just due to water weight, normal variation etc. Same thing with human heights, they do mildly fluctuate over time. I don’t think it’s fair to expect any organic thing to be exactly the same height on different days under different conditions. Measure and weigh yourself every Monday for 3 months and see if you don’t fluctate a little. Does that make you NOT the height on your driver’s license?
[QUOTE=Silk;7817846]
maybe if the pony needs to be “barefoot” and “relaxed”, he is not really the size he is being measured for. Seems to me if you have to pull the shoes and “relax” the pony to get it measured at 14.2, then in “real” life, it isnt a pony.[/QUOTE]
It all goes back to my post earlier in the thread, about defining what exactly it means to be under 14.2. That may sound like “splitting hairs” since it is, but it’s my contention that we’ve set ourselves up to precisely measure something that has natural variability outside our tolerance. Totally reasonable for a pony to grow a measureable amount of hoof, and totally reasonable to do trims every 8 weeks rather than every week to keep it measuring. There’s no significant or useful competitive advantage from the extra height of hoof.
So is our definition “14.2 or less always under any circumstances”? or is it “can measure under 14.2”?
Actually, the horse/pony divide is in some ways less problematic than say the medium/large… where the transition sends the horse up 6" in obstacle height. That is probably where the age break proposal comes from.
A
[QUOTE=Silk;7817846]
maybe if the pony needs to be “barefoot” and “relaxed”, he is not really the size he is being measured for. Seems to me if you have to pull the shoes and “relax” the pony to get it measured at 14.2, then in “real” life, it isnt a pony.[/QUOTE]
Well, you do have a pony. Just because I am 5’6 in heels doesn’t mean I’m 5’6. Sneakers give me an extra .4-.5 inch depending if they are my running shoes or not. There’s a reason the doctor measures you barefoot.
Not that I agree with the rule proposal and but I think you can’t discount the above in your post when measuring.
Maybe I am just naive but couldn’t they simply provide a range of acceptable variation around the height thresholds and state that ponies measured on any day falling outside that range are in the next height division? They could go around measuring horses for a few months (during show season) and get a feel for “acceptable” variability in the height of individual ponies and use a bit of actualy data and statistics to make it defensible. Now, this does mean that ponies near the size threshold could show in either division but is that a real problem if they actually are, for example, a medium at some times and a large at others.
Perhaps there should be a maximum that can NEVER be exceeded. So supposing that shoes add a certain maximum amount and hoof growth adds another maximum amount, and other factors (such as excitability, etc) could add another maximum amount, then add in all these factors together and come up with a maximum cut-off. So if being generous, perhaps 14.3hh would be the absolute maximum. If a pony ever measures above 14.3 hh then it is not a pony and loses its card.
For this to work, obviously this would have to be a hard and fast rule with none of the above excuses suddenly being brought up to mitigate. No shoe removal, no trims allowed, no excuses.
Would only work if the rule was truly enforced as written, which I guess is part of the problem that now exists.
[QUOTE=kdow;7818022]
…And really, establishing a baseline for variation due to environment, etc. should not be that hard. Take a selection of ponies and horses and have a steward measure them in various different situations - on the home farm, at a show at the start of the season, the middle, the end. At a very loud and exciting show and at a low key schooling show. Then look at how much the height of the critter is changing over those measurements. If you collect enough data you should be able to see how much a high stress show is likely to make a pony grow vs a low stress one, and so on, and can from there determine a sensible amount to allow for deviation from the required height. You will end up disqualifying some outliers, probably, who puff up a huge amount relative to a normal pony, but that happens when you have rules.[/QUOTE]
They would have to skip the stewards going onto the home farm…not enough stewards, no money for travel or to reimburse stewards for their time in an official capacity. They don’t have any authority to go on private property to inspect Ponies not to mention it would be a PITA for the owners, trainers or whoever to present each Pony wherever it lives to an official representative and a PITA for that representative.
It needs to be and can be done at the shows. But until they simplify the way we currently measure, no mass measurements are going to be possible. There were 400+ Ponies at Pony Finals- how long do you suppose that would take? You want to hire more people to measure and stewards? How much more are you willing to pay in fees to fund it?
The logical place to start is simply the procedure. No shoe pulling and maybe look at a more modern measurement device, there must be something out there.
[QUOTE=findeight;7818842]
They would have to skip the stewards going onto the home farm…not enough stewards, no money for travel or to reimburse stewards for their time in an official capacity. They don’t have any authority to go on private property to inspect Ponies not to mention it would be a PITA for the owners, trainers or whoever to present each Pony wherever it lives to an official representative and a PITA for that representative.[/QUOTE]
I was talking about measuring a sample of horses and ponies for the purposes of collecting “normal” height variation data to be used to set the standards for how accurately a pony has to measure relative to the measurement on the height card.
So it would be extra work, but only for a set number of animals and a set period of time, exact parameters to be determined by someone good at statistics who can work out the proper sample size for meaningful data. You wouldn’t measure every single pony competing every single time, including at their home farms.
How often competing ponies were measured to make sure they are within the allowed range would be a different issue. Every time seems terribly impractical. Random checks plus required checks for the top X places at a big show? Dunno.
There is now. !4.2, 13.2 and 12.2.
[QUOTE=Mayaty02;7805844]
the uproar about random measurements is that a “top of the line” pony who measured under ideal circumstances (i.e. with some prep, lunging, riding down, short trim on feet etc) may not measure on any given day when pulled by USEF to remeasure. [/QUOTE]
Those are ideal circumstances for a measurement ?? Drugged, ridden down and a short trim ?
Sorry, confused.
[QUOTE=Mardi;7823516]
Those are ideal circumstances for a measurement ?? Drugged, ridden down and a short trim ?
Sorry, confused.[/QUOTE]
Depends on whether you want it to be short or tall.
The great Stroller was a pony when his rider was a junior… and then when she aged out and wanted to use him in the international classes, he magically grew overheight so he could be eligible. 
Worked out pretty well in the end (1968 individual Silver Medalist in show jumping).
[QUOTE=vxf111;7818054]
I dunno about that. A person can be generally 145 lbs but on any given day might weigh 2-3 lbs more or less just due to water weight, normal variation etc. Same thing with human heights, they do mildly fluctuate over time. I don’t think it’s fair to expect any organic thing to be exactly the same height on different days under different conditions. Measure and weigh yourself every Monday for 3 months and see if you don’t fluctate a little. Does that make you NOT the height on your driver’s license?[/QUOTE]
Height/weight on driver licenses are not generally verified. Not a good example.
This is a problem manufactured by adults with a LOT of money and prestige at stake.
The “concern” voiced by established trainers for that “poor ignorant new trainer who doesn’t know any better,” and the client that stands to lose out because of that is laughable.
How is the Poor New Trainer to know any better, growing up in a sport where rules are broken with impunity and suffering any consequences is prohibited?
Just nuts.
