If you’re talking about the Kent School horse trials, all the BN divisions are listed as open, so anyone could ride in them. Someone that advertises as a trainer/instructor should not have declared as an amateur, though!
[QUOTE=Winding Down;8709996]
Yes, there are these (rare) exceptions. But overall, I still think it is an okay rule and I SERIOUSLY doubt that an ex-Olympian would take advantage of this rule. Heck, I know someone who hasn’t competed above Novice in 10 years and she is too “proud” to put herself in a rider division.
I have not competed above Novice since 2014 and I have no intention of going out and competing in BN-Rider in the near future. I just wouldn’t, because I think it would be taking advantage of the rule…
and announcing to the world that yes, indeed, I haven’t had my butt up there for so many years, :lol:[/QUOTE]
I definitely picked some clearcut examples, to make my point, but there are tons of us who have competed at some level in the past, and now are competing several levels lower, whether because of time constraints, risk tolerance, or a less experienced horse. I bet most of us would rather compete Open or Horse at the lower level. I guess I'm smelling a story here, or why would we write a rule which allows my examples and figures pride and honor will keep most of my examples from benefitting from the rule??
Another way of framing my question might be, "What is the purpose of offering a Rider division?" Is it to give less experienced riders a chance to compete against peers? Is it to give very experienced old ladies a chance to shine? Is it to give a way to split divisions and be able to run more dressage rings? Is it because John/Jane Q Doe is a MAJOR USEA/USEF donor who really likes to see his or her name on the leaderboard, and this rule allows that?
The difference in skill set between someone who tries a level higher and doesn’t complete with a number, and someone who used to compete Prelim and Intermediate but recently has been sticking to Novice just seems like an interesting change in the emphasis of the rule, to me. And there is probably a reason for that change - I just can’t quite picture what the reason would be…
Don’t remember the motivation being discussed much at the rule change meeting, other than the “tried a higher level and decided I was not ready” I already mentioned.
Every partition like this has unintended consequences. It is just a question of which ones you would rather deal with.
[QUOTE=Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl;8710168]
…
Another way of framing my question might be, “What is the purpose of offering a Rider division?” Is it to give less experienced riders a chance to compete against peers? Is it to give very experienced old ladies a chance to shine? Is it to give a way to split divisions and be able to run more dressage rings? Is it because John/Jane Q Doe is a MAJOR USEA/USEF donor who really likes to see his or her name on the leaderboard, and this rule allows that?
…[/QUOTE]
My perspective on the Rider division, as a one-horse amateur: It is about showing with a group against which I can be competitive. My horse does a nice dressage test, but he has some miles on him as well as an ammy rider, so he is doesn’t get the dressage scores for fancy gaits that a pro rider can get with a higher-caliber (and almost certainly younger) horse.
I don’t expect to ribbon every time, but I do expect that if I do the work, I have a legit shot at some satin at a recognized horse trials. If I don’t expect to be competitive, if I’m just showing for fun or schooling, I can show much less expensively at a nice unrecognized horse trials. There are unrecognized horse trials that have facilities and courses the quality of recognized event.
IMO the main reason for ammy-friendly divisions is to encourage amateurs to continue entering and to stick with the competitive sport. Eventing needs the support, interest and commitment of amateurs to keep it going. An amateur lifetime devotee is a key asset to this sport.
Re what division former UL riders choose, even those now qualified for a LL Rider division, don’t forget year-end awards as a motivator in their choice. A more-experienced rider bringing along a nice young horse would rather pick up Horse awards and shoot for a Horse year-end championship that will stay with the horse. That goes for both USEA Area awards and the local horse trials organization year-end awards as well. That means something on the home front, especially if the horse is destined to be sold in the Area.
If the entry numbers ever justify making separate ammy divisions, that will be great. A nice goal for building the local sport. 
In terms of the pro/ammy discussion, it is important to understand that the person who teaches a few up-down lessons a week to local kids is just as much a pro as the Olympian training 7 days a week out of her own farm. Pro status has nothing to do with rider skill, and dividing divisions by pro/ammy status will not level the playing field.
I think the rider division is useful in this regard, because it effectively weeds out those who have demonstrated a greater skill set. Especially at prelim, where you get everything from people riding their first prelim on a green horse, to UL riders taking their 4* mounts out for their first run of the season. It’s not a perfect system, but it does ensure that true LL riders will not have to compete against true UL riders.
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8710042]
If you’re talking about the Kent School horse trials, all the BN divisions are listed as open, so anyone could ride in them. Someone that advertises as a trainer/instructor should not have declared as an amateur, though![/QUOTE]
Wasn’t Kent, this was an event with a very clearly marked Beginner Novice Rider division. There were also Beginner Novice Horse and Open Beginner Novice divisions.There are definitely a lot of Area 1 events that just make all divisions open, but this was not one of them.
Question. When all the divisions are open, you still see divisions which are split between mostly pros and another with mostly amateurs. Is it truly luck of the draw or are organizers looking up our status?
Ex: I was at a schooling show last week, 4 Novice divisions, Half at least of my division scored in the 20s, while the others were all mid30s. Local pro’s were in mine, and I dropped my ammy status to take on some training horses at a low level so am considered pro. (I don’t think it was judge discrepancy because we were under same judge too)
Do organizers take the time to look this up? I certainly didn’t mind and like some healthy competition. I just wondered how much effort the organizers took to split them.
[QUOTE=ACountingRider;8712784]
Question. When all the divisions are open, you still see divisions which are split between mostly pros and another with mostly amateurs. Is it truly luck of the draw or are organizers looking up our status?
Ex: I was at a schooling show last week, 4 Novice divisions, Half at least of my division scored in the 20s, while the others were all mid30s. Local pro’s were in mine, and I dropped my ammy status to take on some training horses at a low level so am considered pro. (I don’t think it was judge discrepancy because we were under same judge too)
Do organizers take the time to look this up? I certainly didn’t mind and like some healthy competition. I just wondered how much effort the organizers took to split them.[/QUOTE]
You must include recent experience and/or qualifying competition results on your entry form. Many event secretaries use those results to group riders into appropriate competitive divisions, with the possible exception of riders with multiple horses.
[QUOTE=EventerAJ;8712794]
You must include recent experience and/or qualifying competition results on your entry form. Many event secretaries use those results to group riders into appropriate competitive divisions, with the possible exception of riders with multiple horses.[/QUOTE]
I’m secretary for a schooling HT, and if possible we do try to split it that way (but often there are only 4-5 pros/ UL riders and 10-12 amateur/ true LL riders.) The program we use shows USEA/ USEF membership and we ask for experience on the entry form-- to be honest I recognize 90+% of the names of the pro/ UL people anyway.
So here’s a question…
If someone ran a PT (Prelim-training) how many levels above Novice is it considered to be?
Is it 2 (because they’re not running Prelim xc) or is it 3?
Emily
It counts at the lower (level of xc) for year-end stuff/aec qualifications so pretty sure for this as well.
So to be clear if a person ran PT and then are they still eligible for BNR?
Em
Sharon!
Sharon Gallagher - sharon@useventing.com
Senior Director of Competitions
x3005 | (703) 669 - 9995
Oh I know I can call Sharon, but I was perusing results and I may have found who the OP was talking about. Maybe, maybe not
If so, I can’t find any mention of them as a trainer, but I do see where they went PT.
As such if it’s only 2 levels allowed and PT is judged to be the same as training then I think the ‘offender’ in this case is in the clear. At least for not being out of place in a rider division. The Amateur stuff… I have no information about.
~Emily
[QUOTE=Xctrygirl;8712929]
So here’s a question…
If someone ran a PT (Prelim-training) how many levels above Novice is it considered to be?
Is it 2 (because they’re not running Prelim xc) or is it 3?
Emily[/QUOTE]
I definitely think it would be considered a Training level run, as that is the level the qualification is for when running a Prelim/Training
P/T for qualification purposes is considered a Training run. So, under current rules, someone who’s completed P/T but no higher is eligible for NR but not BNR … To compete in Rider you can’t have competed above the next highest level (so for BNR you can’t have competed above Novice).
Also, I was initially skeptical, since this sort of thing is very rare in eventing, but after looking at some results the OP does appear to be correct.
[QUOTE=Highflyer;8712871]
I’m secretary for a schooling HT, and if possible we do try to split it that way (but often there are only 4-5 pros/ UL riders and 10-12 amateur/ true LL riders.) The program we use shows USEA/ USEF membership and we ask for experience on the entry form-- to be honest I recognize 90+% of the names of the pro/ UL people anyway.[/QUOTE]
I often see organizers have multiple open divisions that look like they are split, with some mostly “rider” and others mostly “open.” I assume they do this so that if they MUST move someone around, due to scheduling multiple rides, then can do so. So you may have an open division with 90% “rider” level and 10% “open” because those 10% could not be fit into other divisions for scheduling reasons.
It is relatively easy to divide them this way since entry forms require that you order division preferences.
[QUOTE=Xctrygirl;8712976]
If so, I can’t find any mention of them as a trainer, but I do see where they went PT.
As such if it’s only 2 levels allowed and PT is judged to be the same as training then I think the ‘offender’ in this case is in the clear. At least for not being out of place in a rider division.
~Emily[/QUOTE]
If she completed at P/T (counts as T), she is legal for Nov Rider but NOT for BegNov Rider.
[QUOTE=Janet;8713735]
If she completed at P/T (counts as T), she is legal for Nov Rider but NOT for BegNov Rider.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Janet. I just dug up the rule book and read it through and I see the one level thing.
So the one I found in the results was a no no, but I checked and she’s not renewed with the USEF (no status listed due to not being renewed) so possibly not the culprit OP referenced.
Emily
