Priced out of the sport?

[Libby2563]

@Gardenhorse

Was there any indication of if/how members can comment on the proposed rules?

No, not really, other than emailing Sharon with questions. I assume this will have to appear on the USEF website at some point?? I’m a little fuzzy on the process TBH.

@Gardenhorse

Moving up to Preliminary is pretty theoretical for me at this point (was planning a Training move up when my horse went lame), and I’m lucky enough to be in Area II where we have tons of competitions

Same! Area II, was going to move up to Training last spring when my guy stepped on a nail. Now we are looking to move up to T this April. I was thinking if that goes well I’d like to aim for Prelim late this year or early next year…obviously with this rule change there’s an incentive to move up before Dec 1 but we will see if I feel ready.

[banmharcach]

10 successful trainings within 24 months is going to either prevent anybody living in the snowbelt (or at long distance from competition sites) from upgrading or have people running the legs off their horses trying to get in enough competitions during whatever season they can create—eg by adding a “short” holiday down south and cramming in as many events as possible.

Some Juniors/Young riders certainly don’t need to hit Prelim as early as they do but some of them will now age out before they get there.

These rules seem very much designed by folks riding a string of horses not your game, competent individual who can safely get around and enjoy Prelim.

[Heinz_57]

Yeah, area VII only has 11-12 events in a season between May and Oct, and that’s including Rebecca Farm. Plenty of the more prominent people go to CA to compete in the off season. It wouldn’t be impossible, but it would make it pretty darn difficult.

[Gardenhorse]

@Libby2563

Same! Area II, was going to move up to Training last spring when my guy stepped on a nail

Ha! Mine stepped on a nail 3 years ago, but luckily didn’t hit anything important and she recovered well. But unfortunately found new ways to injure herself. Good luck with your Training move up this spring!

[Gardenhorse]

I wonder if the Modified division is playing a role in their thinking about the Prelim requirements. If you really consider it a full level between Training and Prelim, then 10 events at T or above could be 1 year at Training and 1 year at Modified. But I know a lot of places don’t offer Modified yet and the ones I’ve seen in Area II seem to share half their fences with Training so it certainly doesn’t feel like a full level in between.

[Jealoushe]

@LadyB

I am super stoked for the modified division, but I don’t see many events taking on this extra level here in Canada.

This is my BIGGEST dissapointment right now. Such a missed opportunity! Even Wits End hosting FEIs and not including the 1*. UGH, they would have a massive entry. I don’t get why they don’t. Oh cause pros don’t need it…right.

[Jealoushe]

@Gardenhorse

this is going to make it very difficult for a lot of amateur riders especially in the Areas with fewer competitions.

I think that is the point. Only those with the experience should be moving up. This will ensure that. I so hope Canada follows suit. We have WAY too many people eventing above Training that shouldn’t be. Getting around does not equal getting around safely and here thats basically all you have to do. 3 Trainings, one with clean XC. Its a joke.

Unrelated but TPTB would do well to recognize this:

• 75% of riders have not competed at Prelim and above so most people will naturally be unlicensed

Support your grassroots riders, folks.

[banmharcach]

They need another category name “UL” for unlicensed will be mixed with upper level.

The other group that will have trouble–those with some but less than 25 Prelim MERs (so not yet a B rider) who acquire a new horse, possibly a going concern at prelim or downgrading from above but who will have to now enter training 10 times??

The more rules they create, the more holes turn up to be patched.

[trubandloki]

@Jealoushe

We have WAY too many people eventing above Training that shouldn’t be.

The way I am reading what has been posted here is that likely the people who are already doing this will not have to go back and qualify so those people that shouldn’t be there now will still be there.

[Jealoushe]

@trubandloki

The way I am reading what has been posted here is that likely the people who are already doing this will not have to go back and qualify so those people that shouldn’t be there now will still be there.

Unless they lose their qualifications, which can also happen.

Either way, it will prevent more happening in the future and those riders future horses, which is a positive thing.

Honestly I don’t think the rule is bad. From their data, they are seeing that you need that many runs together in that timeline to be experienced enough and safe enough to go Prelim. It isn’t that wild of an idea. Will it prevent some riders from going Prelim? Maybe, but if they want it that bad they will find a way to make it happen. The whole point is without that previous experience, data is showing you are at a higher risk of having a bad outcome.

We may as amateurs think we are capable and being pushed by friends and coaches to upgrade, but these guidelines will ensure those who are upgrading do in fact, have the miles required to be there.

[Gardenhorse]

@Jealoushe

Honestly I don’t think the rule is bad. From their data, they are seeing that you need that many runs together in that timeline to be experienced enough and safe enough to go Prelim.

I am supportive of the general idea of increasing the requirements, but I would like to see more of the underlying data they are using to make the decision on number of MERs. I think making such a large change should have clear data backing it up and that data should be clearly presented so we can all see what the decision is based on. Right now it feels kind of hand-wavy to me, which is a little frustrating.

But it was also almost impossible to understand Lesley Grant-Law on the webinar, so perhaps the data is there.

[Jealoushe]

@Gardenhorse

I am supportive of the general idea of increasing the requirements, but I would like to see more of the underlying data they are using to make the decision on number of MERs. I think making such a large change should have clear data backing it up and that data should be clearly presented so we can all see what the decision is based on. Right now it feels kind of hand-wavy to me, which is a little frustrating.

But it was also almost impossible to understand Lesley Grant-Law on the webinar, so perhaps the data is there.

Absolutely agree, hopefully the data is forthcoming!!

[Marigold]

@BoringEventer

10 within a 24 month period.

This is the real kicker. I just don’t want to run my horse that much. We don’t go to Florida (hahahaha), my ego isn’t big enough to think every single run will be perfect, and I don’t want to run her more than 5-6 in a season (because a season is only 4 months - max 5 if we stretch it and the weather is perfect and my job gives me the right weekends off and and and). 10 Training/Modified MERs before we go Prelim? I think it’s excessive (I think more like 8 feels about right), but fine. Doing them in a 24 month period, and still having time to actually fit in the Prelim? Not likely. Everything would have to go perfectly… have I mentioned we ride horses??

I do understand there is a worry that someone will run 35 Trainings to get 10 MERs and then move up and be terrifying. Why can’t it be paired with a percentage? We all know this is based on Equiratings, so why not “10 Traning/Modified MERs as a combination (no time limit), with an XCJ10 of no less than 80%” or whatever. I don’t disagree with the “most recent MER within 6 weeks of upgrade” (I kind of thought that was just common sense), so it can all work in concert.

Also, if you want people to move up safely and have a good understanding of what they are up to, actually having Modifieds available on the calendar would be a great start. My area has two for the whole year. Running one last year (off the back of…6 Training runs? 5? Quite a few, anyway) was a perfect indication that we were not quite ready for Prelim. There was a separately numbered combination for the Modified that was right next to an A-B for the Prelim. We needed a circle in between, and we took it. Clear scorecard, but I went home thinking “I need to be more locked on with my eye before we go Prelim”. We went home, safe and sound, and did some homework. That was an important lesson that I wouldn’t have learned at Training, and I needed to learn before I take this mare Prelim, but try as I might there are only two Modified courses available to me for those learning purposes. I truly believe it would make riders safer to have more.

[AskMyAccountant.17]

I’m sitting here thinking about riding my one horse at the Intermediate level. While we spent two years at the preliminary level, I by no means ran 10-prelims. I definitely think quality over quantity would have been a better assessment. I guess there aren’t that many non-professionals at the Preliminary level and above to speak up? I just had to count the total number of MERs at the Prelim and above level, I’ve got 5 left to go to be a D-rider, so maybe by the end of the year I won’t complain. I just see this as not in the best interest of the horse. That’s so many runs. I know many riders who can ride circles around upper-level riders with the funds and the horses, but they are limited to the number of events they can attend due to finances.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if in addition to MERs you needed a check mark by a Steward? Obviously Dangerous riding should be halted, but if a steward was on grounds that had to present a “check” to each rider at these levels and above I think it would bring about more discussion while riders were on course. No, not fine-tooth comb each round, but the TDs are on the radio/grounds during xc anyways, dangerous riding is brought to their attention, but the dangerous riding would take precedent as a means for not earning your check mark. Rules could even be made to better explain dangerous-riding. For 90%+ every rider that jumped clear would get one, but any disturbing round would be voiced and be in question for not receiving a check mark. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a Training level round stopped for dangerous riding despite seeing some gasping rounds. So perhaps increase the MERs to 5, but each MER must have earned a check.

This is just an idea. I just see 10 MERs as an excessive amount. I don’t run that many events in the year, but I do spend more money lessons, schooling shows, schooling xc to be prepared so that I can make the competitions I can attend safe and successful.

[MorganSercu]

Have you considered judged pleasure trail riding?

[Libby2563]

Since this is still just a proposed change…does anybody want to try to work together to put together a counter-proposal more friendly to riders on a budget and in more remote areas? I’m thinking it would lower the # of MERs somewhat but incorporate some sort of percentage success rule instead? @AskMyAccountant.17 @Marigold @Gardenhorse @banmharcach @BoringEventer Anyone?

[Marigold]

If I were to be the one writing the rule change, I’d write it as follows (for non-categorized riders):

6 MERs at Training or Modified (I’m pretty open to other thoughts on this though - I don’t actually think the number of MERs is the biggest issue here)
No time limit on earning the MERs
XCJ10 (cross country jumping clear rate over the last 10 runs) must be 70% or higher
Must have earned one of the MERs within 6 weeks of upgrade

In a perfect world, I really like suggestions by people like @AskMyAccountant.17 that include an active stamp of approval by a TD. I don’t know enough about the day-to-day life of a TD to know what is feasible, but perhaps a way to indicate on an entry that you are considering moving up within your next three events - sort of like an “application” to move up, so the TD can pay closer attention to your round and give feedback or approval with that in mind?

[Jealoushe]

I don’t think six is enough. That’s 3 a year. It needs to be at least 8 IMO.

[trubandloki]

Someone started a thread on just this topic. (Just pointing it out in case some missed it.)

2022 New Rules Proposed - MERs Required to Move Up

As much lurking as I do around here and on Facebook I cannot find anyone talking about the new rules proposed when it comes to moving up the levels. Which is kind of shocking to me. Maybe I am way off base but coming from an area that is in the middle of the country I am not sure how our riders will accomplish such feats. Much less keeping trainers in the area rather than forcing them to move to areas with more events. On top of that I worry about the well-being of the horses with this new …

I agree with the people that the rules need to find a balance between helping and not making it impossible for those who do not live in an area that has endless opportunities. I like the six number and I like the idea of a percentage so the scary team can not just go to an event every weekend until they get their magical number.

[Gardenhorse]

Well, I’m not a current USEA member (because, lame horse) so don’t know if that matters. I also have never gone Prelim. I think the most valuable voices might be from people who have safely gone Prelim but aren’t at the level of an A or B rider.

I know 900$Facebook pony has blogged about this, so might be another one to engage, but I never remember her user name here.