I can say this, I have had several OTTB’s that have appeared to be on Drugs to others, when in fact if I did drug them it would have been to give them some energy so I didn’t have to work so hard to keep them going They often look like they are trying to an impression of a one of those peanut roller QTR horses in western pleasure , I swear they are going around the ring with their eyes closed half sleeping… LOL . So I’m not sure how a judge can tell if a horse is really drugged or not, I suppose if they suspect something then a rule should be in place to where the JUDGE can actually ask for a drug test.
[QUOTE=Nickelodian;8017719]
I wasn’t at indoors, I can’t speak to those horses or how they looked. I am at WEF, and just two weeks ago our jog turned into a comedy of errors as 1-4 (I was 3rd) decided jogs were for the birds and started flying like kite like creatures at the end of our reins. It was quite a moment.
I guess I’ve just been lucky to get the right judges that award my horses’s expression.[/QUOTE]
I don’t consider the judging of the low a/o’s the barometer for the current state of hunter judging. Rider mistakes, albeit small ones at the more competitive shows, usually separate the top group of horses. That is why I referred to the pro divisions at indoors because most go mistake free and the judges are distinguishing between jumping style and way of going. The quieter the horse, the slower and softer the jump—that has always been the ideal but in my observation, has become more heavily emphasized over the last 20 years than in the 20 years before that. And medication has always been used to achieve that but even more so in the last decade as the margins among the top horses have become closer together.
[QUOTE=orangecrush;8017766]
I don’t consider the judging of the low a/o’s the barometer for the current state of hunter judging. Rider mistakes, albeit small ones at the more competitive shows, usually separate the top group of horses. That is why I referred to the pro divisions at indoors because most go mistake free and the judges are distinguishing between jumping style and way of going. The quieter the horse, the slower and softer the jump—that has always been the ideal but in my observation, has become more heavily emphasized over the last 20 years than in the 20 years before that. And medication has always been used to achieve that but even more so in the last decade as the margins among the top horses have become closer together.[/QUOTE]
Valid point. Honestly I can’t hang around a show long enough to watch the pro divisions. It’s back to the computer for me as soon as my horse is bathed, wrapped, and set for the night.
[QUOTE=Thoroughbred1201;8017323]
I would like to see a searchable database of trainers and owners that lists any and all infractions.
In addition, I’d like to see that any trainer/owner/rider with a drug infraction is automatically ineligible for USEF awards that year. That might actually make some of the multiple offenders take notice.
I’d also like to see horses microchipped.
These changes would go a long way towards leveling the playing field for all competitors.[/QUOTE]
I would like to see a searchable database of trainers period, showing their location, riding and training career. Since trainers don’t have to be certified it would be a way for parents and riders to see how much experience they have. We love our trainer but it was a long haul to finally find her. Most of us wouldn’t hire someone without seeing their resume but we are all willing to turn our hard-earned money over to trainers we often know little about when we are new to the sport.
I posted over on USEF site on FB. My post has disappeared. And my post asking where my [timely] post was has gone unanswered.
How does one actually ask questions during a Q and A session?
My issue is with the elitist perception(and validity) of the USEF. It is run for the benefit of, and by members of, the top 1%. The other 99% of members have little or no input in the decision making process. Something needs to be done to apportion seats on the board or places in the committees to insure that all levels of members get to sit at the table when decisions are made.
The argument that lower level members do not try to make their voices hear is ingenuous at best. We all know that input from the rank and file is unwanted and ignored. The 1% have no reason to care about what the balance of the members want.
Microchipping is one such issue which is being controlled by the top level of rule making members. If the entire membership were given a vote on this issue, I suspect that Microchipping would become mandatory in a heartbeat.
But, instead of passing a rule that would prevent horses from changing identities at will, the top level of the Federation has changed the rules to, in effect, institutionalize cheating.
There is NO need for European jumpers to show in the pre-green division when they are clearly not pregreen according to the (old) definition of the word. If these horses need a chance to learn to be hunters, they can show in the 3’ or 3’6" Performance horse division.
But the cheaters did not want to do this, so the deifinition of "pre-green’ has been changed to suit the demands of the top echelon of members.
I could go on, but I get too upset when I think of how little the needs and desires of the rank and file are met at the top level of the USEF and the USHJA.
As a longtime member of the AHSA/USEF, I believe that the USEF and the USHJA are still inextricably entwined. The only reason that the USHJA was spun off from the USEF was because of the FEI (and Olympic) definition of “Governing Body”.
People who think that there was any other impetus to create the USHJA would do well to research the birth of this adjunct association.
I just want clear, fair rules that actually are enforced and microchipping. I’m okay with chipping being phased in or only for certain divisions.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8017934]
I posted over on USEF site on FB. My post has disappeared. And my post asking where my [timely] post was has gone unanswered.
How does one actually ask questions during a Q and A session?
My issue is with the elitist perception(and validity) of the USEF. It is run for the benefit of, and by members of, the top 1%. The other 99% of members have little or no input in the decision making process. Something needs to be done to apportion seats on the board or places in the committees to insure that all levels of members get to sit at the table when decisions are made.
The argument that lower level members do not try to make their voices hear is ingenuous at best. We all know that input from the rank and file is unwanted and ignored. The 1% have no reason to care about what the balance of the members want.
Microchipping is one such issue which is being controlled by the top level of rule making members. If the entire membership were given a vote on this issue, I suspect that Microchipping would become mandatory in a heartbeat.
But, instead of passing a rule that would prevent horses from changing identities at will, the top level of the Federation has changed the rules to, in effect, institutionalize cheating.
There is NO need for European jumpers to show in the pre-green division when they are clearly not pregreen according to the (old) definition of the word. If these horses need a chance to learn to be hunters, they can show in the 3’ or 3’6" Performance horse division.
But the cheaters did not want to do this, so the deifinition of "pre-green’ has been changed to suit the demands of the top echelon of members.
I could go on, but I get too upset when I think of how little the needs and desires of the rank and file are met at the top level of the USEF and the USHJA.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree (although I think you meant “disingenuous”). The same people serve on the same committees over and over again and anyone new who shows interest in serving is told to wait for an “opening.” Guess when an opening happens? When the 1% decides you spend enough money to be in the club or you look like good window dressing for their newfound faux egalitarianism. And my recollection is that the USHJA had to be created because the AHSA became USAEq and then, after an ugly lawsuit, the USEF, in order to take in all of the other equestrian disciplines. Because the AHSA had been the h/j discipline’s governing body, h/j needed its own affiliate while the other disciplines’ former governing bodies simply became affiliates. So you are right, they are entwined.
Question from Canada…if microchipping was brought in, would horses coming in from Canada to show (if it wasn’t brought in up here) be made to microchip? or would the fact that we in Canada must have a current, up to date valid passport for our horses still be enough?
To clarify: I’m all for making sure that these horses are in the correct divisions and haven’t been re-named, re-id’ etc when they are imported!
[QUOTE=eclipse;8018100]
Question from Canada…if microchipping was brought in, would horses coming in from Canada to show (if it wasn’t brought in up here) be made to microchip? or would the fact that we in Canada must have a current, up to date valid passport for our horses still be enough?
To clarify: I’m all for making sure that these horses are in the correct divisions and haven’t been re-named, re-id’ etc when they are imported![/QUOTE]
I’m going to say no, because your horses are not registered with USEF, they are registered with EC and have their passports, which provides sufficient identification? But that’s just IMO.
[QUOTE=BeeHoney;8015221]
I also will be at work during the hours of the live chat.
I’m a sport horse breeder/adult amateur and compete in 10-15 rated shows per year in the hunters and jumpers on multiple horses. I do not feel the USEF is doing a good job of representing my interests, or of promoting the advancement of our sport.
From my perspective, here is what I want to see:
Horses need to be microchipped so that horses cannot be renamed and shown in divisions for which they are not eligible. This would promote fair sport and also promote horse ownership by protecting owners from being sold horses with fraudulent identities.
Green divisions need to be restricted to truly green horses with papers and a microchip to prove age and competition history.
Amateur rules need to be enforced.
Hunter judging needs to change. As long as hunter judging rewards horses that appear drugged, unethical competitors will experiment with untestable sedatives. It is NATURAL for an athletic horse that enjoys its job to show expression and keenness when jumping a course of fences.
I want to see more educational programs towards adult amateurs of all levels. I also want to see more educational programs and materials directed towards newcomers to our sport and parents of children entering our sport.
I want to see more prize money available at lower levels, money within reach of the average well-prepared competitor.
I want to see more educational opportunities accessible to a much broader base of the young riders in our sport, not just a tiny program for a few of the elite.[/QUOTE]
AMEN!!! This pretty much sums up how I feel about USEF.
How is the microchipping going to work for those horses that truly do not have papers or any known history? While the majority of horses showing at WEF under “unknown breeding” really did have passports/registration papers at one time, I would bet that most of the horses owned and shown by the working adults everyone is referencing here come by their unknown identities honestly. Is one of the requirements for the green divisions going to be papers or passport? Will green ponies also be required to show some kind of proof of identity for green status?
Ynl063w, my suspicion is that many of these imported horses of “unknown” breeding actually may already have microchips that were implanted before they left Europe. Before a vet would microchip a horse, they would scan to check for a previously existing chip. At that point, owners of those horses then might perhaps have access to information previously unknown (to them)–information that may or may not align with information they were given by sellers/agents/trainers. That information might even potentially incriminate those same sellers/agents/trainers, for example by proving that a horse’s age or identity was changed.
It is my suspicion (and I could be wrong) that the idea of microchipping 1) makes people who have previously engaged in shady deals involving microchipped horses very nervous and 2) also seems very unappealing to trainers/agents who use conveniently changed horse identities to enhance show results and sales.
I’m sure that folks at the USEF are scratching their heads and asking what microchips have to do with declining membership numbers. Personally I have to be a member so that I can compete in rated shows, but the reason I don’t feel good about handing over that membership fee is that I have a sneaking feeling that the USEF is more worried about protecting cheaters and preventing scandal among influential members and keeping the status quo. Instead, the USEF needs to worry about making its mission statement reality.
[QUOTE=BeeHoney;8018281]
Ynl063w, my suspicion is that many of these imported horses of “unknown” breeding actually may already have microchips that were implanted before they left Europe. Before a vet would microchip a horse, they would scan to check for a previously existing chip. At that point, owners of those horses then might perhaps have access to information previously unknown (to them)–information that may or may not align with information they were given by sellers/agents/trainers. That information might even potentially incriminate those same sellers/agents/trainers, for example by proving that a horse’s age or identity was changed.[/QUOTE]
I understand this; I was speaking more to those who have been suggesting that a horse MUST be microchipped in order to show, and that a microchip would only be issued to those who had proof of their horses’ identities. There are probably more horses and ponies out there that are registered with the USEF that HONESTLY don’t have any proof of identity, than there are those who have the documents but just don’t bother using them (for whatever reason) to register their horses with the USEF.
If the USEF is still listening…
For some reason I still am a member, in spite of not having graced a USEF-sanctioned arena since 2008. I keep hoping and there’s a part of me that says I should support the organization that governs my sport. I refuse to join USHJA unless/until it becomes necessary.
- Take the O out of AO.
- Raise the limit for junior jumpers to 21 to align with the young rider age. Change the name if you want. Still a bit of an issue since the FEI and USEF ages don't always align.
- While you're at it, raise the limit for all the junior classes to 21. I'd even be OK with the medals going to 21. After all, having the USET (or whatever they now call it) be 21/u hasn't caused mass mayhem.
- Any equine that shows in a USEF-sanctioned class restricted by age or experience must be microchipped (the owner of that unknown animal can have it microchipped, after all) and the microchips need to be checked, especially at high-profile, high-stakes events. It's not like there aren't other options at the same height. If baby greens are sanctioned by USEF, then include them because that's the next place the Euro import that did 1.2-m before being imported is going to Bogart after being kicked out of the pre-greens. Microchip info must be included in all USEF-registrations or horse ID. If there is a random check and a horse is found to have a chip and none is recorded, then there must be some sort of penalty. If there is a question about the status of a horse in a restricted division, the burden of positive proof (not negative evidence, as in, I couldn't find it) of eligibility falls on the owner.
- Enforce the existing rules and apply suitable penalties ($$$, time off, etc.). People who are riding as amateurs and aren't should NEVER be able to be reinstated as one down the line.
- Stewards should have a list of suspensions and check entries agains that. If they aren't aware of who is an assistant trainer for whom, show the list of local offenders to the people who work in the show office.
- Searchable database of previous rule violators.
On the whole issue of excessively sleepy AO horses, I don’t know if it’s drugs or training but the last time I watched junior and AO divisions (at Thermal a couple of years ago), I was astonished at the number of horses that seemed so slow that they were having trouble leaving the ground. Not quite as bad as an AQHA or Paint show where I feel like clucking pretty much the entire time I’m there, but moving in that direction. To be fair, I didn’t sit and watch an entire class plus ribbon presentations so I don’t know how it all sorted out with the judging. I have watched a few hunter derbies and those horses don’t look sleepy. The AA hunters I watch seem to get decided in large part by lack of pilot error coupled with quality of horse and jump.
Horses are usually not recorded as “unknown breeding” anymore. Instead they show up as “unrecorded breeding”. Ain’t that the truth.
I am all for microchipping horses without passports. The OWNER (not the trainer or agent who are happy to lie), will have to sign a “swear to God” form, that the information is true. At least, from that day forward, the horse’s name, age and show record will be known.
I am also for not allowing “unrecorded horses” to be known as/promoted as/ advertised as a certain breed.
If their past is truly “unknown” or “unrecorded” how do the owners/trainers know that their horse is an (e.g) Oldenburg or KWPN? If the horse is truly known to be a certain breed, then someone can try to search its foaling and competition information.
But, if that information cannot be found, I think that any horse whose parentage is “unknown” or “unrecorded” must be listed as "breed unknown, or, even more ignominious: “of unknown origin”.
It may be a little point, but I think that buyers who are spending 6 figures for an import, will not feel as important if they are riding a horse of indeterminate breed or unknown origin. 
Chances of this happening? 0 to below none, because TPTB are the ones who are importing horses and “losing” their passports. And yet still seem to know what breed the horse is.
The fox is guarding the hen house and is getting away with murder.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8018388]
Chances of this happening? 0 to below none, because TPTB are the ones who are importing horses and “losing” their passports. And yet still seem to know what breed the horse is.[/QUOTE]
Somewhere there’s a huge file of “missing and lost” passports, akin to the thick file of Jockey Club papers that a certain former kill buyer out here used to have. A friend needed papers for a broodmare so he could register the offspring by his WB stallion in the WB registry. Uncle Leonard looked through his collection for the friend and found papers to match the mare. True story.
[QUOTE=Peggy;8018344]
I guess those who truly do not know the identity of their horses (and those horses aren’t already microchipped) could just make an educated guess for the birth year of the horse and assume that it’s jumped in the Olympics at the time of registration. It’s true that there are plenty of divisions in which to show a non-provable green horse. But then, you are restricting the green divisions to horses that have registration papers and are already microchipped (the only way to prove they haven’t shown above a specific height). Is that requirement going to apply to the green pony division too? The ponies don’t have the unlimited divisions that horses do.
And just how do you show positive proof that a horse HAS NOT shown over a certain height? Microchips won’t be able to provide enough data to do that until at least several years after implementation.
I do think that microchips are the way to go, but I just don’t think it’s as easy to implement as some seem to think it is.
I have never gotten the impression that USEF really cares about recording and the reason why is that I imported a horse from Holland and filled out all of the registration information to record with USEF. It was cold at the show where I did the form so my handwriting was admittedly not great. They spelled the stallion’s name wrong and didn’t bother to even guess at the mare’s name or the sire of the dam (who is easy to decipher and famous). Instead of contacting me to ask for clarification, they recorded all of the dam’s information as unknown and put the wrong spelling on the sire. I looked up how to fix this and the process, at least at the time, to correct the recording was too much of a pain to deal with given that I filled out all the information correctly the first time and have no intention of selling him.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8018388]
I am also for not allowing “unrecorded horses” to be known as/promoted as/ advertised as a certain breed.
If their past is truly “unknown” or “unrecorded” how do the owners/trainers know that their horse is an (e.g) Oldenburg or KWPN? If the horse is truly known to be a certain breed, then someone can try to search its foaling and competition information.
But, if that information cannot be found, I think that any horse whose parentage is “unknown” or “unrecorded” must be listed as "breed unknown, or, even more ignominious: “of unknown origin”.
It may be a little point, but I think that buyers who are spending 6 figures for an import, will not feel as important if they are riding a horse of indeterminate breed or unknown origin. :)[/QUOTE]
The USEF can require those horses to be registered as manatees and it’s not going to make a difference. People know a good horse when they see one, and if it wins at WEF, indoors, and Devon, someone is going to gladly pay 6 figures for it.
It’s not as though the top pros are going to throw in the towel and get desk jobs if they have to record their horses as “unknown” somethings or other.
My horse had a Hanoverian brand - it was the pre-studbook brand with no individual identifying marks. I had no idea what his breeding was and had no way to find out. I didn’t buy him because he was a HANOVERIAN OH MY GOD I MUST HAVE ONE!!!, I bought him because I liked him. I always assumed that other registries had similar brands that identified the registry, but not the individual. I could be wrong though.
