A Monday just before a holiday, no less! :lol:
1 Like
I just got the Dec. 24-Jan. 7 print edition of the COTHâŠit does not seem to be out electronically yet, but here is an interesting tidbit.
On p. 56 starts an article about the USDF Convention. On p. 62, here is this tidbitâŠ
[I]âThere are only four rules up for discussion at the 2019 USEF Annual Meeting (Florida): one requiring a certain number of scores at a level to move up to the nextâŠâ
https://prc.usef.org/documents/ruleCâŠals/355-18.pdf[/I]
DR119 Participation in Dressage Competitions. [CHAPTER DR - 1 Dressage Governing Regulations]
I propose that in order to progress to a higher level a competitor must either achieve 5 scores of 60% - 65%, or 3 scores above 65% at current level.
Rule Change Intent
Given the recent viral video that has attracted bullying from armchair jockeys globally, I think this is the perfect time to try and change the structure of how competitors go up the levels in this country. I am proposing the implementation of a system that would require people to demonstrate their competency at one level before progressing to the next. This kind of road block would hopefully lead to the prevention of riders getting in over their head when competing at a level beyond their abilities and drawing international scrutiny. I think ensuring that everyone develops competency at the lower levels will elevate the sport as a whole, and also create a safer environment for both horse and rider
Interestingly, the recommendation is for âDisapprovalââŠbut the comments are very interesting.
Draft 1: We thank you for your proposal, but a topic like this needs more collaborative discussion with membership. Additionally, the Dressage Sport Committee is already in process of considering this question with preparations in progress to discuss this topic further during the USDF Convention this Fall.
I donât need to see the video (no need to post it), just curious what the deal was with this particular video that was so bad it attracted international scrutiny that resulted in a rule change.
Here we go, qualifying scores to move up - AGAIN.
Global bullying - does that include the FEI judge who was doing televised commentary on the ride(s) in question? And did the person who proposed this rule change look at the scores of the video star? Reality is, if you have enough MONEY to buy the right horse(s), you will always be able to eke out the scores needed. And if you have that money, attending 10 or 20 shows is not a deterrent. :no:
5 Likes
Wealthy rider on lovely well trained horse - riding very harshly (including 2 handed whipping) while clearly unable to ride his movement or offer correct aids for the FEI class entered in. Televised ride with well known judge commenting - including moans of sympathy for the horse. Judges gave her 6 for rider score. Tons of on-line discussion on multiple forumsâŠ
Iâm not clear what you are implying, but it appears youâre saying that the rider would have had the scores to move up to the I2 (the test that she performed so badly on video) even under this proposed change? Five rides, earning between 60-65 at the prior level, OR three rides above 65 at the prior level?
Not true, according to the USDF record of her career. She rode ZERO Intermediate 1, Intermediate A or Intermediate B rides prior to plunging in at the I2. And only 2 Prix St Georges are reflected in her record.
So yes in that particular case the proposed rule would have made her rides at I2 ineligible to be ridden at the time of the controversy.
If your point is that riders with deep pockets will all get to move up eventually by trying again and again and again until they reach the number of scores, I agree. But in her particular case if sheâd been required to ride I1 before riding I2, then she would not have been in that ring on that day.
1 Like
She has 5 scores at I-II above 60. Easy enough for someone with deep pockets and access to nice horses to go back and get the scores needed at a lower level if needed (although odds are, sheâd be grandfathered in, I donât think USDF/USEF would make everyone go back and work their way back up the levels).
My point is - it wonât do what the proposer(s) say it will do. It will just continue to hurt the grass roots membership. Those with the money to buy fancy, and pay for training to keep fancy going can continue to move up the levels, whether they are prepared for it or not.
3 Likes
A couple of weeks ago my trainer rode a clientâs paint gelding in a first level test, put in a very nice test, got a score in the low 60âs.
She then rode one of her lovely young warm bloods in the same class and scored in the low 70âs.
Afterwards she said she thought the paint had put in a better test, because her warmblood was only at his second show and was a little tense through the back.
She is a wonderful rider, and could only manage the low 60âs on a limited mover, than I think the average amateur on a less than gifted horse is really up against it.
7 Likes
I donât understand how that rule change would work in practice. For example, I wouldnât have scores from a rated show past Training Level. Letâs say Santa brought me a PSG schoolmaster for Christmas (and the ability to ride it well) - does that mean i would have to start showing it at Training or First? Hardly seems fair to the people with actual Training / First Level horses in the class, does it?
1 Like
Well, I donât know what âitâ isâŠsomeone is always going to have a nicer moving horse, access to better trainers, etc. I think an individual should ride the horse they have and compete in shows to evaluate their own progression.
1 Like
Depends on how bad of a rider you are :lol::lol: Iâve mentioned before on the boards but we had a training level client, imported herself a grand prix horse, rode him at training level at one show, scores in the high 40s and low 50s, horse then went to the trainer to be shown and sold. It was ridiculous. And sad. And it soured me on that trainer, who did this not infrequently. Otherwise super nice, but encouraging these purchases (from which he benefitted immensely) was shady on his part and also sad for the client who just wanted a nice horse she could actually ride.
Right, so by the proposal implicitly designed to prevent Browning from being eligible to ride the notoriously videoed I2, she would now be eligible, sadly, for Grand Prix based on her five I2 scores. So yep, she can âmove upâ to the highest level even though she looked to be a painfully inept equestrian.
Except-- sheâd never have gotten the five I2 scores due to her ineligibility (again, based on this membersâ proposal, which is not my idea) to have ever been in the arena at I2. Unless and until she âgoes backâ to complete the requirements first at PSG and then at I1. âEasy enoughâ you say. Maybe. But it would take time, and she couldnât have been at the level she attempted in the spring of '18, just based on ineligibility to even sign up for it, under that hypothetical proposed scenario. Five rides at PSG and five at I1 would take the better part of a season even for a good rider to whom the 60 came easily. For the type of rider theyâre hoping to punish it might take two years.
Well that is the crux of it, isnât it? Itâs not just the hated wealthy ammies of the discipline who âskipâ levels under the current honor system.
What COTHers call Regular People on more regular horses do it all the time. And pros do it all the time. I know pros and ammies alike who came to Dressage from other disciplines with good independent seats, who have no scores at all at Training Level. They were ready for First Level and were riding more seasoned horses for their show debuts, and so thatâs where they came out showing the first time. And there are people I know who bought mid- or upper-level horses, who then skipped levels also, sometimes due to limited budgets. They just felt theyâd get more out of their showing $$ by waiting until they were ready to show either true collection and uphill balance (Second Level) or Flying Changes (Third Level). SO they did unrated shows or eventing or nothing at all until they felt like they were getting judge feedback for movements that mattered to them. Under the honor system we have now, itâs all a very personal decision.
By this memberâs qualifications proposal, these level skippings wouldnât be allowed anymore and it would upset way more than just the uber wealthy people like Browning who skipped the Intermediate 1 and scarcely touched upon the PSG, after buying her imported GP horses to show.
2 Likes
Agree. Here is another example, a rider moves to the US bringing a well trained horse, would they have to show at Training Level and move up the levels?
As I read the rule change proposal, it might be a topic for the Dec 2019 convention.
1 Like
I would imagine they would handle it like when a U.S. Jumper rider goes to Europe to show and has to produce usef records that show their qualifications to show at particular levels (I donât know if us dressage riders have to do the same)
But rest assuredâŠthe rule to qualify is moving thru the system. The Nerd Herd took a bite out of that apple 10 years ago and helped with the analysis that defeated the proposed rule back then.
Now it is up to the next generationâŠor just wait for the qualifying rule to be passedâŠthe link to the USEF proposed rule change was just a shot across the bow.
And Thank You to COTH Magazine for following thisâŠ
1 Like
I am not missing any point at all. You are discussing things apart from my discussion of this passage, from post #321.
" âŠI propose that in order to progress to a higher level a competitor must either achieve 5 scores of 60% - 65%, or 3 scores above 65% at current level.
"⊠Rule Change Intent
Given the recent viral video that has attracted bullying from armchair jockeys globally, I think this is the perfect time to try and change the structure of how competitors go up the levels in this country. I am proposing the implementation of a system that would require people to demonstrate their competency at one level before progressing to the next. This kind of road block would hopefully lead to the prevention of riders getting in over their head when competing at a level beyond their abilities and drawing international scrutiny. I think ensuring that everyone develops competency at the lower levels will elevate the sport as a whole, and also create a safer environment for both horse and rider."
Mystic posted that this would NOT have prevented this rider from having appeared at Intermediate 2 and riding it so badly. Obviously it would have, because she did not meet/has not met these hypothetical requirements. She would have been prevented from signing up ON THAT DAY, for that particular notorious ride.
Whether she was overscored in the test she wouldnât have been riding under so rigid a qualifying system is irrelevant. Whether she hypothetically rides it that badly in in 2020 or 2121 after spending hypothetical time at levels leading up to I2, is irrelevant. Whether sheâd likely be equally overscored at the PSG and Intermediate 1 tests she would be going back to ride in order to qualify for I2, is also irrelevant.
The question is only whether sheâd have been in the ring that day, with the record she has, had there been a requirement as outlined above (not by me) in place. The answer is no, she wouldnât have been allowed.
I am saying that you donât need a qualifying rule if the JUDGES would actually score poor riding appropriately.
As evidenced in the DelMar rideâŠand captured on video with an audio commentary by an âOâ judgeâŠa judge who groaned at the poor riding, yet the rider got 5âs and 6âsâŠIt is THE JUDGING WAS INSUFFICIENT.
This rider has 64 scores in Centerline. There are no scores below 40%. If this rider was that bad, then the JUDGES should have given her scores to reflect that the poor riding. The judges did NOT.
If the riding was that bad, the JUDGES should have given her scores that indicated the riding was INSUFFICIENT (as defined by the rules as 40% OR LESS)âŠthen the rider would not have been showing.
Right now the definition IN THE RULE BOOK of a 60% is that this score indicates SATISFACTORY riding.
It is the JUDGES who are perverting the judging scale by calling âUN-Satisfactoryâ a score that is defined in the rulebook as âSatisfactoryâ (6)âŠcan we say George Orwell?
And it is the membership of the USDF who are paying the price for these judges errors in judging.
3 Likes
I would very likely stop showing rated shows at all if a qualifying rule passed. I simply donât show frequently enough for the number of scores they require, and see that as unlikely to change.
3 Likes
Well that would suck, I have my bronze⊠but i wouldnât be able to show out of training level as I donât have enough scores at any level to qualify. I got my bronze in 12 tests, so I didnât hack my way through it either. Seriously, I can not afford to show that much or buy a fancier horse.
1 Like
Looking at the situation from the outside, it seems to me that the complaints from all sides would be solved by judges adhering to their judging criteria. It does seem as if many judges are hesitant to give accurate âpoorâ scores, except perhaps for gaits⊠Are they concerned they wonât be invited back to judge again?
If the qualifying scores rise, the judgesâ scores will as well, if this is their concern.
5 Likes
