[QUOTE=shadytrake;7253232]
Total BS. They won’t get my nomination money if they change it to that. That is basically telling the US riders to purchase overseas. A slap in the face of US breeders. The breeders need to get in on this too.[/QUOTE]
See the Sporthorse Breeding forum for the announcement of the new US Sport Horse Breeders Association …which includes hunters.
Hopefully they’ll become the voice of US breeders to USEF.
I understand that it could be a problem for the USEF to need to track down reliable proof in certain situations for horses competing in Europe, however, I strongly disagree that this proposed rule is the answer. This rule legitimatizes people going to Europe, buying well trained and experienced (definitely not green) horses and then importing them and competing them in a division that has “green” in the title. This rule revision makes the entire division a complete joke! It’s a pretty rotten joke, too, since it effectively excludes U.S. breeders and their stock from fair competition when foreign horses are allowed to have more experience.
On a personal level, it disgusts me how our national governing body doesn’t seem to have the faintest interest or concern about U.S. breeders. Giving such a large advantage to imported horses changes our sport by discouraging those participants who can’t afford to or don’t wish to import horses, and it also cuts out support for programs that breed and train young horses domestically.
I would strongly prefer that the USHJA consider switching to age based divisions. A move like this would benefit everyone. It would promote fair competition, which is something that I believe most owners and competitors wish for. It also would promote the honest identification of horses (horses would have to have proof of age).
[QUOTE=BeeHoney;7257703]
I would strongly prefer that the USHJA consider switching to age based divisions. A move like this would benefit everyone. It would promote fair competition, which is something that I believe most owners and competitors wish for. It also would promote the honest identification of horses (horses would have to have proof of age).[/QUOTE]
I may be misunderstanding, but I don’t think that is going to do what you want it to do, which is level the playing field between young Euro & NA horses, yes?
Their 5 year olds are further along than our 5 year olds, so lump them all in one class and you will still have young European horses with 3’6" experience (b/c that is how their national system is set up) competing against young American horses with a handful of shows in the Baby or Pre-Greens (because that is all American breeders can afford to do).
That said, I have - somewhere on this hard drive - a rough layout for a “Hunters by Age” division that not only separates the youngsters, but gives the senior horses their own divisions too. Also provides for jr/am splits so there is some reward to buying either young or old, rather than that golden 6-10 y.o. window, which should benefit riders that are shopping on a budget.
Dags, I appreciate your comments. I fully understand that by and large the European youngsters are ahead of ours in training and show experience. Others may feel differently, but I still feel that age divisions would be fair–more fair than any other method at least. I guess it depends on your definition of “fair.” Age at least puts everyone on the same timeline, and as a (past) breeder, I’d be happy with that. It may be more expensive to get young horses going here in the US, but I don’t think that the USHJA can make divisions based on regional economic differences. What I don’t like is that US bred horses are limited by their competition records but European bred horses aren’t–that is patently unfair. Also, it isn’t just about breeders–a lot of people who bring young horses along are people who bought that horse as a prospect and who have the option of doing more showing and development with that horse–especially IF there is an incentive to do so.
Lastly, there is the huge fact that requiring proof of age would also essentially be requiring proof of identity and would help stop all the nonsense of horses being renamed and renumbered and reappearing in green divisions.
But is age really fair either?. I’m thinking of horses who are just beginning a second career, like OTTBs or horses converted from Western showing. Most OTTBs leave the track at about the same age other horses are just beginning to jump, so that might not be such a huge problem, but second careers are an issue.
Or in my personal case, I have an eight year old who, because of a number of injuries over the years, is only now really beginning to go well under saddle.
I think an age based system would put a huge dent in the efforts to promote the OTTB horses. That promotion seems to finally be making a little headway in the last year or two, with more attention given to the fact that the Thoroughbreds can be successful in the show ring.
As soon as the divisions are divided by age, many of those Thoroughbreds will have much less of a chance to be successful, since they are taking up the show ring as a second career, not a first one. If they race until they are four, five, six, or even older, there is no way they can reasonably be expected to compete with other horses of the same age who having been showing for three years.
[QUOTE=BeeHoney;7257809]
Dags, I appreciate your comments. I fully understand that by and large the European youngsters are ahead of ours in training and show experience. Others may feel differently, but I still feel that age divisions would be fair–more fair than any other method at least. I guess it depends on your definition of “fair.” Age at least puts everyone on the same timeline, and as a (past) breeder, I’d be happy with that. It may be more expensive to get young horses going here in the US, but I don’t think that the USHJA can make divisions based on regional economic differences. What I don’t like is that US bred horses are limited by their competition records but European bred horses aren’t–that is patently unfair. Also, it isn’t just about breeders–a lot of people who bring young horses along are people who bought that horse as a prospect and who have the option of doing more showing and development with that horse–especially IF there is an incentive to do so.
Lastly, there is the huge fact that requiring proof of age would also essentially be requiring proof of identity and would help stop all the nonsense of horses being renamed and renumbered and reappearing in green divisions.[/QUOTE]
And I totally agree.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7257841]But is age really fair either?. I’m thinking of horses who are just beginning a second career, like OTTBs or horses converted from Western showing. Most OTTBs leave the track at about the same age other horses are just beginning to jump, so that might not be such a huge problem, but second careers are an issue.
Or in my personal case, I have an eight year old who, because of a number of injuries over the years, is only now really beginning to go well under saddle.[/QUOTE]
But at some point you have to draw a line among the exceptions.
We keep forgetting about the Performance classes. It used to be there was nothing a professional could show a horse in if, say, it did four First Year shows, blew a tendon, and came back very rusty the following year, but that’s not the case anymore. That horse and your slow-track 8 y.o. can show in the Performance Hunters. Sure, you’re going to be competing against veterans warming up for the Jr/AOs, but this period should just be a stepping stone towards a finished product anyway, not the end goal. And yes it sucks he missed his opening for the true “green” classes, but somehow we’ve got to define “green”, and age is really the only objective criteria to go by.
The microchip rule contains some pretty stringent age verification requirements.
It seems to me that the problem isn’t in the rules, it’s in the enforcement. When the whole Amber Eyes mess occurred, Larry was quoted as saying that even though the rule required that they consider overseas experience in determining if a horse is green, people didn’t really pay attention to that rule. If the USEF bothered to enforce the rules for everyone, there wouldn’t be a problem
The age distinction for green doesn’t make sense to me. First of all, it just kills the OTTB market right off the bat. And horses are started at different ages. And of course, all imported warmbloods immediately have their papers “lost”, so how would that work? Remember that Amber Eyes magically became a year younger when she was (illegally) registered.
The microchip rule is going to take care of a lot of the “lost” papers problems.
I’ve copied the whole rule on that thread on the last page or so if you’d like to read it.
[QUOTE=rb5007;7253219]
I totally agree - and sent in my comments. Everyone else needs to do the same. rulechanges@ushja.org[/QUOTE]
The correct email is below (no ‘s’)
rulechange@ushja.org
rb, USHJA asked me where you saw the email so they can fix it or was it just a typo?
[QUOTE=tricolor;7253265]
It would be strange to pass this rule after USEF censured Larry Glefke and Ken Garber for showing RF Amber Eyes at Upperville in the second years.
https://www.usef.org/documents/rules/HearingCommittee/2013/SeptemberAdministrativePenalties.pdf[/QUOTE]
Wow, what a harsh penalty! They have to give the ribbon back and pay a $300 fine. Is that supposed to be a deterrent?
It seems all the imported warmbloods are of, “unrecorded breeding” these days. What a joke.
[QUOTE=teddygirl;7257995]
The age distinction for green doesn’t make sense to me. First of all, it just kills the OTTB market right off the bat. And horses are started at different ages. [/QUOTE]
No, really, it doesn’t kill the OTTB market. There are so many classes/heights that a horse can show at and gain experience to go on and do his “grown up” career (AOs, derbies, AAs, etc.), that you do not need to rely on a path through the greens as you did many years ago. That argument held some water in the 70’s/80’s, but not today.
US hunters are one of the few disciplines that hasn’t resorted to age and I cannot understand why. It makes no sense.
Sure, Europeans start their horses earlier/do more, but that is the market that American breeders have to compete against, so the smart ones act accordingly and either figure out how to sell competitively, but make the same amount of money while hanging on to a horse another year or two (not likely) or they start early to be on par.
And if you have a young jumper, then you compete by age in the YJS.
If you have a reining horse, you compete by age before open.
If you have a cutting horse, you compete by age before open.
If you have a breed horse (QH, Apps, I think Arabs too) you compete in the big classes by age (junior/senior refers to horse, not rider)
If you want to be in the Kentucky Derby, it’s still an age thing.
And then there are plenty of classes/races, etc. for horses who age out/don’t compete in their young horse divisions, because it ain’t only hunters who have good reasons why horse X can’t compete in year y. Dear racing QH starting a new career, you will probably not make the junior english pleasure classes. I know that is a big deal at QH shows but that’s just the way it goes, nothing personal. And if you choose to, or circumstances require you to start your young horse late in any one of these disciplines, then you will probably miss the young horse classes. Too bad, so sad, but that is life. You will not be alone, this I promise you.
It seems to be more the norm to have age limits/requirements than not. But in hunters we twist ourselves into knots trying to be something super awesome to everyone, and the end result is we have an unenforceable rule that either gets exploited by opportunists or pisses off people who try to comply with the intent, and mostly ends up being the least fair option of them all. American breeders will never compete fairly with the current/proposed rule. Some may not be able to compete under an age rule, but at least the playing field will be level and their fate is in their hands, to fail or succeed.
Precisely, DMK.
Boggles my mind… a division judged entirely on the horse and separated largely by human age, once you get to the jr/am levels at least. Perhaps I will start a new thread with what I roughly laid out as an idea for “Hunters by Age”.
Did anyone notice the complete lack of mention of this proposal in “In Stride” this month? This is a pretty controversial topic and didn’t warrant a paragraph in the “Rule Change Overview” article? Wow. That is pretty discouraging. 
[QUOTE=shadytrake;7260101]
Did anyone notice the complete lack of mention of this proposal in “In Stride” this month? This is a pretty controversial topic and didn’t warrant a paragraph in the “Rule Change Overview” article? Wow. That is pretty discouraging. :([/QUOTE]
Mushroom treatment.
[QUOTE=HorseLuvr;7259231]
It seems all the imported warmbloods are of, “unrecorded breeding” these days. What a joke.[/QUOTE]
And this is what irritates European breeders about our USEF horse recording system. There’s no way to track the offspring of their breeding programs if the US buyer chooses not to include it when registering with USEF. The horse becomes “lost” and performance results practically untraceable.
[QUOTE=MHM;7253889]
^ I would imagine the FEI show records are easy to track, unlike the variety pack of assorted national shows held all over the place in Europe.
It might be like trying to keep track of results of a hundred different groups of schooling shows in this country that may or may not run similar classes under similar rules.
I agree it is disappointing that there are giant loopholes in the rule. I will say it is still a PROPOSED rule change, so now would be the time to voice your opinions via email to the people who can actually do something about it. Discussing it here on the BB is all well and good, but that’s not the same as going on the record to the USEF.[/QUOTE]
But… but… people on the interwebs noticed the ineligibility of several horses that have brought this “proposed rule” to fruition. USEF really can’t throw their hands in the air, be so ineffectual, and maintain any credibility.
Honestly, incompetence is not an excuse.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
