Well, except for a couple - she made the rest look like short stirrup riders tonight - it was carnage - very few could navigate.
[QUOTE=Soaponarope;8350904]
I agree that the comment was odd. However the difference between you commenting on your friend’s daughter’s soccer career and anyone commenting, speculating, conjecturing, Monday morning quarterbacking on TC’s career is that TC holds several national titles and is a nationally renowned star athlete, a public figure. Her mother, probably unlike your hypothetical friend, is a professional trainer. Moreover, the transcripts have opened their professional lives to the public. People are not commenting on TC as the soccer player next door or as “other people’s children,” they are commenting on her as the holder of several national titles, a role model, the best hunter rider in the country.[/QUOTE]
None of what you’ve said makes up for the fact that in both scenarios, a minor is involved. The national titles are not something that should make a difference because girls’ soccer is hugely competitive in this country. College scholarships are on the line. Soccer moms are living in an even crazier bucket than horse show moms are living because of that.
Using the excuse that Tori is a public figure is more disgusting than anything that has yet been posted here. She’s just a kid who loves horses and has enough innate talent that she’s been able to work her way up to the top level of the sport with the help of those who have been confident enough in her abilities to help her get there.
The most disturbing thing to me in this whole mess is that there are so many who expect total perfection out of this one child who just happens to have an incredible gift that should be celebrated and nurtured, but instead the preferred MO is to tear her down and make light of her talent, and provide suggestions with regards to what would be better for her as if you knew her personally.
Whether or not you see her as someone’s child, that is in fact exactly what she is. And that is exactly what she should be. She and her family and supporters don’t owe anything to the posters of the COTH forums. No one here has any say in what happens in her life just because there are some weirdos out there who see her as public property.
Where is Sophie Simpson? Different rules apply? Perhaps I’m wrong, but is she not able to compete in medal finals?
[QUOTE=lauriep;8350019]
First, you know nothing about my world. It is hardly rarefied. I work hard and do things the right way. But, because I know a lot of people, and spend enough time at some of the bigger shows, yes, those are pretty much the only options. [/QUOTE]
Well apparently you all feel that you are far enough above it all that you can flaunt the rules and/or mistreat the horses. I guess the know-nothing hands should go back to chemistry class?
[QUOTE=Flash44;8349540]
Wow, just wow. So the choices are -
- to cheat via drugs, or
- to physically abuse the horse
to get them quiet enough to win?
I guess I do live in a different world. Not the rarefied world that lauriep lives in, but one where I work hard, give an honest effort, and am satisified with the results. I have absolutely no respect for anyone who lives in lauriep’s world, that’s for sure.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I find this rather insulting. Who are you to say you have no respect for anyone in lauriep’s world? Do you know who everyone in that world? Are you saying that you have absolutely no respect for everyone participating in some of the biggest shows in the country?
Again, the drugging (and other “methods” of quieting a horse) is an issue. But I am really sick and tired of everyone painting anyone who shows on the rated circuit with the same brush. Not all programs are the same.
[QUOTE=lauriep;8349451]
I don’t like the drugging, but I REALLY HATE the other things that are done to get the horses “quiet enough.” In my world, knowing all the options, a paste, given orally, which as far as I know has never harmed a horse, is vastly preferable to hours on the longe line, withholding feed and water, riding them in shifts…the list goes on. So much is set up to make the horse NOT quiet: little to no turn out, enough work to get them pretty fit, fed well to achieve “the look,” boredom, that for you all to say such things as they should have another job if they can’t be quiet is just ridiculous.
All the training in the world, and these horses are VERY well trained, won’t overcome the things I mention above that make them fresh and set them up for the physical abuse to get them quiet.[/QUOTE]
Because God forbid we change the judging standards to allow horses to not be penalized if they aren’t dead quiet?
I agree that calming pastes like PP probably don’t harm the horse (and if it takes nine tubes to get a horse show-hunter quiet, they probably don’t even work that well). But giving a horse a treatment to alter its temperament IS cheating, even if it’s not horse abuse.
Also, my comment about the judging doesn’t apply just to hunters … You see the same thing in all disciplines with subjective judging. in pursuit of the ideal, the norm is pushed more and more to a certain extreme. Therefore we have the slow strided, dead quiet hunters with a huge jump; the western pleasure horses with their noses down by their knees that move so slowly they are almost going backward; the dressage horses with super flashy front end movement for “expression”; the halter horses that look like they’re being bred for meat production; the freakishness of Big Lick TWH’s; and so on. The means that are used to gain these extremes certainly vary by discipline … But the rewarding of increasingly extreme performers is a common thread pretty much across the board.
[QUOTE=comingback;8351025]
Are you saying that you have absolutely no respect for everyone participating in some of the biggest shows in the country? [/QUOTE]
Nope, not at all. Because I’ve been there, honest and clean, and know people who go there honest and clean. I just have no respect for those that think it’s OK to give a horse drugs, massive quantities of calmers that don’t test, or default to abusive methods of quieting a horse in order to win the class.
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8351045]
Because God forbid we change the judging standards to allow horses to not be penalized if they aren’t dead quiet?
I agree that calming pastes like PP probably don’t harm the horse (and if it takes nine tubes to get a horse show-hunter quiet, they probably don’t even work that well). But giving a horse a treatment to alter its temperament IS cheating, even if it’s not horse abuse.
Also, my comment about the judging doesn’t apply just to hunters … You see the same thing in all disciplines with subjective judging. in pursuit of the ideal, the norm is pushed more and more to a certain extreme. Therefore we have the slow strided, dead quiet hunters with a huge jump; the western pleasure horses with their noses down by their knees that move so slowly they are almost going backward; the dressage horses with super flashy front end movement for “expression”; the halter horses that look like they’re being bred for meat production; the freakishness of Big Lick TWH’s; and so on. The means that are used to gain these extremes certainly vary by discipline … But the rewarding of increasingly extreme performers is a common thread pretty much across the board.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. But if all the hunters are not dead quiet, someone still wins the class. So what if the winning score is 80? Even though you are judged and scored against a perfect 100, the highest score (no matter how low) wins the class.
Is it easier to change the judging standards or is it easier to just let the horses go around naturally and let the scores be what they are?
[QUOTE=Flash44;8351075]
Exactly. But if all the hunters are not dead quiet, someone still wins the class. So what if the winning score is 80? Even though you are judged and scored against a perfect 100, the highest score (no matter how low) wins the class.
Is it easier to change the judging standards or is it easier to just let the horses go around naturally and let the scores be what they are?[/QUOTE]
But that’s not fair for people who have naturally great horses who go quietly and need nothing to get to the ring. Why reward freshness? When there’s horses who go naturally quiet? Why not find horses who are fit for the job, rather than dumb down the judging system?
The biggest issue is that you can’t just CHANGE the judging standards when judging in hunters is so subjective. At some point, when there are many top of the line horses putting in perfect rounds, the judges have to at least partially rely on what they like. The issue becomes changing what is desirable and what judges will find appealing as they watch. That’s a very very slow change that happens over the course of many years. The transition to liking the slowest quietest hunter didn’t just happen over night. Reversing it won’t be fast either.
[QUOTE=Flash44;8351009]
Well apparently you all feel that you are far enough above it all that you can flaunt the rules and/or mistreat the horses. I guess the know-nothing hands should go back to chemistry class?[/QUOTE]
Wow. So you are accusing lauriep of flaunting rules and mistreating horses? nice. It just proves that people on this forum have a serious issue with open discussion. Isn’t it more fun to jump to conclusions and toss around accusations rather than actualy understand what someone wrote, though.
Laurie never said she drugs horses. She stated an opinion that she thinks it was better when Ace could be used. NOT that she uses ace. She also stated that she doesn’t think the pastes are that harmful, not that she uses them…but you know what? As much as you or I kick and scream about PP and the ike on line, the USEF stills speaks out of both sides of their mouth on that one. Even if lauriep DID use PP, she wouldn’t be violating the rules as far as USEF is concerned.
The issues is WHY is the dead quiet horse better than one with a little freshness? Is that the only way to judge hunters? It’s like saying only Monet is art and too bad for Picasso, he just doesn’t measure up.
The quiet hunter ideal has been taken to the extreme. the ideal needs to be reviewed so people aren’t as tempted to take all life out of their horses in any way necessary.
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8351045]
Because God forbid we change the judging standards to allow horses to not be penalized if they aren’t dead quiet?
I agree that calming pastes like PP probably don’t harm the horse (and if it takes nine tubes to get a horse show-hunter quiet, they probably don’t even work that well). But giving a horse a treatment to alter its temperament IS cheating, even if it’s not horse abuse.
Also, my comment about the judging doesn’t apply just to hunters … You see the same thing in all disciplines with subjective judging. in pursuit of the ideal, the norm is pushed more and more to a certain extreme. Therefore we have the slow strided, dead quiet hunters with a huge jump; the western pleasure horses with their noses down by their knees that move so slowly they are almost going backward; the dressage horses with super flashy front end movement for “expression”; the halter horses that look like they’re being bred for meat production; the freakishness of Big Lick TWH’s; and so on. The means that are used to gain these extremes certainly vary by discipline … But the rewarding of increasingly extreme performers is a common thread pretty much across the board.[/QUOTE]
Nailed it…
I LOVE to see a bit of a fresh horse. To see them play a bit after they make a beautiful effort over a fence or to do an expressive change. Love a little snaking of the neck-in a happy move (you all know what I’m talking about)…all things that will be penalized in hunters but show a happy horse enjoying their job.
Changing the standard is going to be hard because it is a fine line between okay-fresh and bad fresh. For me the difference is Canadian Blue yesterday (first class) where the spooks didn’t affect the jumping efforts and the rhythm stayed pretty much the same, compared to Inclusive today. Today Inclusive ran at the jumps, stalled and leaped over them in poor form (height doesn’t necessarily mean good form). For me, Canadian Blue’s freshness was acceptable.
On a related note, it appears Inclusive didn’t get 9 tubes of perfect prep or GABA, so perhaps the Parker team is taking a step in the right direction!!
IMO if you just do not allow anything for medication or prep, and punish it immediately if somebody is caught doing it, you do not need to change the standards.
The judges will simply judge whats in front of them.
But then you can make no exceptions. Everybody has to be equal.
I think whatever the current rules are, it is a confusing situation for everybody. Some things are legal, some are not some people dont like to use whatever, some do it very extensive. So there is no common level for everybody.
But I guess thats a solution which is not possible in reality…
[QUOTE=Manni01;8351359]
IMO if you just do not allow anything for medication or prep, and punish it immediately if somebody is caught doing it, you do not need to change the standards.
The judges will simply judge whats in front of them.
But then you can make no exceptions. Everybody has to be equal.
I think whatever the current rules are, it is a confusing situation for everybody. Some things are legal, some are not some people dont like to use whatever, some do it very extensive. So there is no common level for everybody.
But I guess thats a solution which is not possible in reality…[/QUOTE]
But that is the problem. Despite the fact that many substances are illegal as per the intent of the rule, there is no way to confirm that a horse has been given those substances unless the person is caught red-handed in the act, or there is photographic/video/admission evidence. So even if they tested every entry in the class, many of the substances given (or procedures done, e.g. longeing) won’t show up.
And as we all know, no matter how strict you make the rules, there will always be people hell-bent on cheating that will find any loophole available or any number of unscrupulous things that are beyond the testing capabilities of the federation. Note that the FEI has a ZERO-TOLERANCE policy, yet there has not to my knowledge been a single time where there hasn’t been at least one violation at any given point in time.
Of course you are right, but I do firmly believe that the ZERO-TOLERANCE policy is still the best way to do it. Of course there will be still people who cheat, but it is a lot more difficult and people doing it will become punished immediately and they will not be defended by everybody. So I think most people will think at least twice before giving anything to the horse.
In this threat I got the impression that there is no punishment possible because its not even clear whether anybody did anything wrong or not… For me this whole thread was totally confusing and I had the impression for many other people as well. Nobody really knows what is right and what is wrong anymore…
[QUOTE=Denzel;8351377]
. Note that the FEI has a ZERO-TOLERANCE policy, yet there has not to my knowledge been a single time where there hasn’t been at least one violation at any given point in time.[/QUOTE]
True but many of the FEI violations (not all) have been from cross contamination…and in such TINY microscopic amounts that there was no practical effect or benefit gained. But the Zero tolerance means it doesn’t matter…
Having had a number of FEI horses…it sucks. You don’t even give them a peppermint treat, or use typical shampoos or liniments and try and keep their food so separate to avoid a stupid positive.
[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8351414]
True but many of the FEI violations (not all) have been from cross contamination…and in such TINY microscopic amounts that there was no practical effect or benefit gained. But the Zero tolerance means it doesn’t matter…
Having had a number of FEI horses…it sucks. You don’t even give them a peppermint treat, or use typical shampoos or liniments and try and keep their food so separate to avoid a stupid positive.[/QUOTE]
Definitely agree with your point. I am not advocating a zero-tolerance policy because I don’t think it’s the answer, and it is not foolproof either. But my main point is that even a zero-tolerance policy will not eliminate the substances that cannot be tested for due to biology (natural occurring substances, no baseline level available) or no evidence (longeing, no accepted “minimum” or “maximum”) or substances that there is not yet a test for. Unfortunately, the tests are developed only after the substance has become popular, so the federation is forever behind the proverbial ball.
[QUOTE=bjd2013;8351122]
But that’s not fair for people who have naturally great horses who go quietly and need nothing to get to the ring. Why reward freshness? When there’s horses who go naturally quiet? Why not find horses who are fit for the job, rather than dumb down the judging system?[/QUOTE]
The naturally great horses should get great scores, so there should not be a problem. I’m not saying reward freshness, give the round what it deserves according to the judging standards.
