Red Hills Horse Trials - No More thanks to USEF

The USEA leadership has little to do with the USEF calendar. The USEA is an educational body and not a rules making body because of the IOC requirement that only 1 governing body can oversee all olympic equestrian sport. Your second paragraph contradicts itself. ONLY the USEF can make the rules and schedules. ONLY the USEF can field FEI divisions and teams.

As for the AEC’s, how accessible is any east coast location to the majority of activity eventers west of KY? Rebecca is a 17 hour drive to a facility that compares to any east coast location. Sara Broussard supports all levels of eventing including a HUGE training 3-day, massive Novice and Training divisions (7 Novice and 5 Training this last July). So don’t be blaming those who have nothing to do with the actual issues.

26 Likes

You are all correct. And I can briefly address the comments made by Rick and Jon as well. RHHT did bid for a date not on the “Ideal Calendar.” However, the “Ideal Calendar” was created very specifically not to have a 4* on the date where RHHT has been running one for 20 years. The committee that set the calendar up was made of people that know our event. They know the difficulty we have in coordinating with the City and the County’s schedules, and they knew, because it was made clear to them, that our course designer was not available for Week 11. We might could have made Week 13 work, which is the week they gave TN, but there was at least one year in the five upcoming where the City has a HUGE Spring festival in conflict. They were willing to work with us if necessary, but we weren’t sure that moving the date would work.

If you haven’t been to RHHT, especially on a tough weather year, you have NO IDEA how much work the City of Tallahassee’s crew does for us. We cannot make any choices that would put them in a tight situation with the rest of the calendar year.

In addition, Mike E-S had limited availability during the Spring, and he has done a marvelous job for RHHT and created a really good course for the riders prepping for KY. In addition, he is not licensed to design just Advanced courses, so it would have required a course designer change for us to take what USEF gave and run just the Advanced.

Again, USEF was TOLD all of this in our bid application. The materials also said that if an event wanted to run something that did not appear on the calendar, we could make a case for and explain why a deviation was needed. We did that. USEF was not interested.

That calendar was devised by a group that intended to shut RHHT out of running a 4* from the very beginning. To address comments made by Rick, he did suggest we add the modified and keep going, but also had the gall to suggest that we do so and just "trust’ that the fundraising would show up and that the entries would come. Here is the Real Talk where that is concerned – when you are Stable View, Terra Nova, or the Horse Park, Chatt Hills, Poplar, Rocking Horse – you have schooling shows, and many shows throughout the years to pay your bills. RHHT runs ONE time a year. There is no billonaire backing the event to pick up the pieces if we run at a loss. What USEF was asking RHHT to do was to run a different event, potentially with a $40k modified course added - which we don’t have room for unless you get ride of A altogether – with no guarantee we would get entries, or that we would be able to attract the same level of sponsorship money if it is not a qualifying event. I mean, what it comes down to in the end, is who is comfortable putting their name on a line of credit to run something that may pay for itself or it may not? Right now, we have a measurable event, that runs in a certain way, and we can estimate what sort of entries we will have etc. But the last three years, we’ve had to beg riders to get entries in. They all say “but it is expensive and what if I don’t go?!” I get that. I do, but on the other hand, the contract for temporary stabling has to be signed three months out. And if we cancel after closing date, because we don’t have enough entries?

We are still on the hook for $72,000 of stabling. It is a very different thing than a Stable View or Chatt Hills, who has stabling in place whether they get entries or not. It was a big risk, and the Board voted not to take it.

For them to suggest RHHT should have known better and it is the event’s fault is just justifying the actions taken by USEF that were intended to favor some event facilities and diminish others from the very beginning of the process.

Oh, and here is something else to consider when you are looking at the budget USEF spends on the ULR/Olympic Contingent – if any of those sports drop out of the Olympics, USEF loses its monopoly over that sport. That sport can then set up its own governing body and sanction events and have more than one sanctioning body if it wants to (vis a vis Hunter shows. The NSBA couldn’t sanction Jumper shows for Olympic level riders, but they could set up a Hunter circuit, because it is not an Olympic sport and not bound by the monopoly that USEF has) USEF NEEDS the protection of the Ted Stevens Act Monopoly for sports that participate in the Olympics and represent the USA internationally. Otherwise, it would be difficult to raise the membership monies necessary to pay the salaries of the management.

And anyone that wants to know more, I hope to have a step by step post about what happened here done, but in the meantime, reach out to me if you want to be overwhelmed with the details.

Edited to add, now having watched the comments on the Jon and Rick show: Rick vastly overstates his involvement with the event. If he was EVER involved with putting it on, it was to ride in the annual pre-event clinic and to do a publicity appearance or two in the early days. He has NEVER been involved in the actual thousands of hours that go into putting this event on. And his personal opinions aside of the hardworking people that have put this event on for years, to suggest that RHHT did a disservice to the local community in Tallahassee by not building a modified course is ludicrous and insulting. When he was specifically asked where the funds would come from to change the course and to take a chance on running anyway, he responded “you don’t need the fundraising money.”

Really? If anyone has ideas of how you can stage an enormous event without funds, I’d love to hear it! Anyone that is hiding the ability to magic all of this into existence is really doing everyone a disservice!

We are all entitled to our opinions, but to state that the event is selfish is an astonishing opinion.

Jon is the Chair of the Eventing Sport Committee currently with USEF and I respect that he has to be careful with his comments, and that he praised USEF. I also deeply appreciate his kind words for the event itself and am thankful for the number of times he’s been available over the years for advice and suggestions to make things better.

I would also like to say that I do not think it is the volunteers on the committees that caused this problem in the first place and that the original idea to reorganize the calendar was organizer driven and came from a good place in the beginning. The process went off the rails, however, and USEF could have taken the opportunity to fix it, and they chose to let the event with the second largest public spectator crowds in the country close its doors instead. They were given several opportunities to correct this, as they had to with another event on the calendar. The process was flawed, and I think the committees were used to set up someone else’s agenda. As a former USEF employee stated above up thread, the committees are just used to rubber stamp what someone at USEF wants to happen anyway.

40 Likes

The USEA leadership has EVERYTHING to do with the calendar. The calendar committee(s) - whatever special name they change to most every new season now- are composed of the EXACT same people on the USEA Executive Board, the BoG, and the USEA staff members who serve as ‘non-voting’ advisors. Pull the other one now if you think those advisors aren’t squeezing every bit of their expectations from those committees deciding in favor of the big-bucks venues these days. Those big-bucks that run 4-6 recognized events a year pay the bills - and staff salaries. Get the 2 lists size-by-side and compare names

6 Likes

Thank you for taking the time to share additional information with everyone. As someone who works for a federal land management agency I think it can be very easy for people to underestimate just what it takes to run events on any type of public lands. There is more to it then just asking the city/ county/ or federal government for the dates, there are permits and other requirements that eat up a lot of money even before you start to put the event together. After reading your post I give the Red Hill organizers a lot of credit for even considering to move the date.

18 Likes

You aren’t wrong. The USEA leadership was on the committee that designed the “Ideal Calendar.”

I did ask why the same people kept appearing on the same committees – frankly, having a committee review and approve the vote of the committee below it when half of the members are the same on the two committees just seems silly. I was told that they couldn’t find others to serve on committees.

Wait, what?! USEF has a membership of THOUSANDS that are teachers, lawyers, nurses, doctors, PR professionals and on and on. Many of whom compete at Prelim and above. And NONE of those people were willing to serve on any of these committees?

Actually, the pool of potential committee members doesn’t even include most of the membership. And that is super frustrating. You could have drawn a really good committee whose members had no conflicts or financial ties to any of these events and you’d have created something that would work for most of the membership and not had any questions of conflicts of interest.

But, I’m sure those thoughts are dismissable with the comment that the rest of us just don’t understand how it all works. Right, because there is no transparency and it is all done in secret. Which is what they said when we asked for the recordings of the meetings where this was discussed.

At this point, I know the situation can’t be fixed where RHHT is concerned. But this has really opened my eyes to the way the system works and the fact that USEF really doesn’t want the membership to ask any questions.

21 Likes

It should to me like they don’t actually want any membership!

This has opened my eyes to how poorly run this organization is. Count me out!

8 Likes

This is why I suspect USEF has deeper meaning behind their words like “sustainability.”

Because logic says eventing could be on the proverbial chopping block for the IOC any day now. It’s expensive. It’s a huge undertaking to execute. And on top of all that, there are greater animal welfare concerns than show jumping or dressage alone. It makes me wonder if USEF is making behind-the-scenes contingency plans for if that happens.

Thank you for sharing so many details, Bensmom. It’s been eye opening.

14 Likes

Disappointed overall. USEF used to be a handy option for checking on a horse’s experience. Now, :woman_shrugging:.

Their non-profit IRS filings show over a half a million dollars spent on horse transportation via the Dutta Corporation, and nearly that for the CEO. Something’s wonky. (If you have to register w/ Candid.org, it’s worth it. Lots of interesting numbers in the non-profit world.)

6 Likes

Yep. I found the same issue with the safety committees. The money of the owners etc. drive the rules so they can best ensure a select group of elite. And while these folks are associated with the USEA, the USEA has little real power. It is the USEF. I hear from my friends on the BoG regularly about how little the USEA actually controls.

8 Likes

Thank you for the insights, I’m just heartbroken for everyone involved in making this event a reality for all of these years. It was a must-see on my family’s calendar, and even my non-horsey parents enjoyed it and are disappointed. Seeing RHHT come to and end is just a huge loss, it always drew such a great turnout of spectators.

4 Likes

For anyone wanting to get into the weeds about how people end up on USEF committees, it is partially explained in the bylaws. There’s weirdly little information about how to express interest in committee service on the website for a membership organization, IMO.

4 Likes

Well yes, true; its a very specific group of people who are asked to serve - in order to FIT with the agenda and aspirations of the PTB.

4 Likes

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I’m sorry. But just
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

1 Like

This is where you make complaints against USEF; https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/53006/index.html

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title36/subtitle2/partB/chapter2205&edition=prelim
(The Corporation is USOC)

§220527. Complaints against national governing bodies

(a) General.—(1) An amateur sports organization or person that belongs to or is eligible to belong to a national governing body may seek to compel the national governing body to comply with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title by filing a written complaint with the corporation. A copy of the complaint shall be served on the national governing body.

(2) The corporation shall establish procedures for the filing and disposition of complaints under this section.

(b) Hearings.—The corporation shall hold a hearing, within 90 days after the complaint is filed, to receive testimony to decide whether the national governing body is complying with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title.

© Disposition of Complaint.—(1) If the corporation decides, as a result of the hearing, that the national governing body is complying with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title, it shall so notify the complainant and the national governing body.

(2) If the corporation decides, as a result of the hearing, that the national governing body is not complying with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title, it shall—

(A) place the national governing body on probation for a specified period of time, not to exceed 180 days, which the corporation considers necessary to enable the national governing body to comply with those sections; or

(B) revoke the recognition of the national governing body.

(3) If the corporation places a national governing body on probation under paragraph (2) of this subsection, it may extend the probationary period if the national governing body has proven by clear and convincing evidence that, through no fault of its own, it needs additional time to comply with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title. If, at the end of the period allowed by the corporation, the national governing body has not complied with those sections, the corporation shall revoke the recognition of the national governing body.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1476; Pub. L. 116–189, §7(d), Oct. 30, 2020, 134 Stat. 960.)

14 Likes