Rule Change Proposals

[Jump314]

If you are a USEA member, make sure to fill out the survey about the proposed rule changes. The CR part of the proposed revision to Appendix 3 – Participation In Horse Trials stood out to me as a huge change:

“Any Competitor and Horse combination competing above Starter Level that has incurred two or more MR, DR, CR or RF at the same level within 12 months, must complete one Horse Trial at the preceding level without incurring a MR, DR, CR or RF.”

There is also a proposal to add MERs to Training and to make the MERs for Modified more strict.

The current rules are here, the proposed changes are here, and you need to log in to your USEA account to fill out the survey.

[RAyers]

I honestly don’t see a major shakeup in how a horse or rider would progress. The changes appear to codify what most trainers and riders do anyway to move up the levels. I do think these rules will do more to keep the half-assed trainers and their clients out of trouble than anything else.

[Janet]

My only concern is about the Beginner Novice level. The way it is written, if you have two MR, DR, or RF at BN, you have to complete one HT at the proceeding level, which is Starter. But the recognized Starter level only begins in 2024, and we do not know how common recognized Starter competitions will be. That could cause a logistics problem.

[Jump314]

Can someone even get a CR below Training? I thought that was only for 20+ faults in SJ at Training and above.

[Janet]

Yes, CR is Training or higher. Will edit my earlier post.

[Jump314]

The proposal includes a CR in their wording for BN and N even though that’s not possible.

[BWP]

Seems to align with what BE did a couple of years ago. For our lowest level BE80 you need to be signed off by an accredited BE trainer to be safe to compete if you have been eliminated from 2 events.

I have seen this rule make a difference, here we’ve always a few who were more gallus than competent and it also encourages people to retire XC if it is really not going to plan on that day.

[leighbo009]

I’m not in full agreement with this proposal. I believe it should be required for Training+, but at BN/N you have many green horses whom may use schooling shows for “the required level below” & I feel that should be allowed.

Also since starter is new & has not even been implemented, the standards of those courses are to be determined & may not be offered regularly. Starter will not prepare you if the horse had an issue with the water or ditch at BN and then is forced to drop to starter before running BN again-since starter must have an option for both the water and ditch (if its even on the course).

Also I would suggest moving the 12 month period to a 6 month period. But still feel this should be for training or above, not BN & N.

[Highflyer1]

It looks like this doesn’t effect horses that are eliminated for refusals, just for falls of horse or rider or for dangerous riding or CR in showjumping?

[Jump314]

@leighbo009

I believe it should be required for Training+, but at BN/N you have many green horses whom may use schooling shows for “the required level below” & I feel that should be allowed.

That sounds reasonable to me. Requiring people to pay for recognized competition at the lower levels doesn’t help with inclusivity. Eventing is already becoming unaffordable for more people than in the past.

[Texarkana]

It’s bonkers to think how eventing has changed in my lifetime.

From being able to fall off on XC and hop back on to continue your ride to not being allowed to fall off more than twice at any level within a year.

[Jump314]

More than once, not twice!

[DGEventing]

I am very much against the training level MERs. I bring along a bunch of green beans, and honestly, we have so many unrecognized events in the area that I can get a horse to the training level without having to compete recognized and therefore save a significant chunk of change. Additionally, some horses may not need to do novice & below if they have schooled enough or have experience in other disciplines.

My belief is that instead of adding unnecessary runs, we start to do something with the trainer signature page. If you receive a DR penalty or multiple MRs, that should be reflected back on who is responsible for your education.

[beowulf]

The proposal says for Novice-BN, one MR/CR/DR means they have to stay at that level or lower; two MR/CR/DR and they have to drop a level.

I can follow that rule change proposal’s line of thinking for Training+, but find myself wondering the logistics for N-BN-Starter.

I agree with @Janet, we have no idea the availability for Starter and from voices in my area, it isn’t something organizers are keen to put on Recognized. The proposal does mention an ‘exemption’ could be granted if Starter is not available.

I’d be perfectly fine with this requirement for Training+. I don’t see how it benefits competitors at BN/N. At the lower levels there is a lot less training of both horse and rider, so I’d expect a little more leeway with regards to rider falls.

I could go either way with the MERs for Training. On the one hand I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for the rider to have two MERs at Novice to qualify. On the other, this rule does hurt professionals as they would now have to compete two runs at Novice with the horse versus do what many do, which is get their mileage via unrecognized events and start their Recognized career at Training.

I found myself not loving the language in EV122 2.b.

[Janet]

@DGEventing

My belief is that instead of adding unnecessary runs, we start to do something with the trainer signature page. If you receive a DR penalty or multiple MRs, that should be reflected back on who is responsible for your education.

Great idea in principle, but it doesn’t fit within the USEF rule structure.

Under USEF rules, the person who signs the entry form as “trainer” is the person responsible “for the care, training, custody, or performance of a horse”. In particular, the trainer is the person assumed to be responsible if a drug test comes back positive. Even if I am taking lessons twice a week with a “trainer”, I am the one responsible for what medications or supplements the horse gets, so I am the one who has to sign as “Trainer.” In over 40 years of competing, I have always been the one who signs the “Trainer” section of the entry blank.

The other signature on the entry form (which is optional) is for “Coach,” defined as responsible “for instructing, teaching, schooling, or advising a rider, driver, handler, or vaulter in equestrian skills”. I have never had anyone sign the “Coach” section.

[Beam_Me_Up]

I think there is some wording that complicates the MER proposals.

The one about moving down OR repeating the same level following a CR/DR/MR/RF doesn’t really cover all the cases. What if you repeated and didn’t complete (but not with one of those issues)? Can you continue trying indefinitely?

And why would the rider MERs for modified be at training while the horse MERs are at novice?

I’m not a huge fan of MERs for lower levels anyway, unless there is data to suggest that there is an issue requiring more qualifications.

[Zlotych]

Be sure to fill out the survey if you are a member and have an opinion!

[skydy]

https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/usea-meeting-recap-legislating-decision-making-and-addressing-loss-of-events/

I’m curious about COTH Eventers’ response to this. It seems like an odd proposal to me, but I’m not an Eventer.

"One initiative, the newly formed Eventing Coaches Program Ambassadors, was introduced during the first board of governors’ meeting. Through the program, ECP instructors will wear a badge while attending events and be available to assist. Jennifer Howlett Rousseau, vice president of education at large, presented the initiative and said that there would be a sign-up form available at events complete with the available ECP instructors’ names and contact information.

“[They] would be available to help for general advice, to walk courses or coach competitors,” she said. “They can be made available to be a future coach. Each would have their own fee structure and be responsible for their own liability insurance. They are not obligated to assist if asked, but as ambassadors for the sport of eventing, they will try if they can be safe and effective.”

“Liability was the largest concern for board members, and Lauren Nicholson, the vice president of active athletes at large, expressed concerns about the potential damage to reputation if a trainer took on an unknown rider or if a bad accident occurred that it could reflect negatively on the ECP as a whole.”

“One suggestion was that riders had to sign liability releases with any ECP instructor they worked with at a competition, just as they would for a lesson, and that the horse’s EquiRatings Quality Index—a risk management tool that rates a horse’s likelihood of having a good round—should be shared with the instructor, as well as whether a rider is on the watch list.”

[Jump314]

I think it’s great. A large percentage of eventers go to horse trials on their own, without a trainer. Eventing is a lot more DIY than other disciplines. Having knowledgeable help available, without having to commit to anyone’s “program,” sounds beneficial.

[Janet]

@skydy

It seems like an odd proposal to me

Why do you think it is “odd”?
One of the objectives of ECP is marketing the “ECP approved” trainers to potential clients. This is clearly part of that initiative.