UNITED STATES AMATEUR DRESSAGE FEDERATION

[rebecca_yount]

Oh. To accomodate people like Kathy, we might have to change the name. We wouldn’t want to exclude anyone. There are some very good “professionals” out there.

Okay. I’ll think about a different name. I know! How about United States Pro-Am Dressage Federation?

Kind of like Pro-Am golf?

Some people on TOB are speculating about the motivation for the rule change proposal in the first place. I think this (from the 6/06 Gribbons column) has a LOT to do with the motive:

“A second good reason is our position in the international arena. We’ve struggled for years to reach the point where we’re sitting third in the world behind the German and Dutch juggernauts. But it looks like we’re about to lose ground again. Not because our top riders aren’t up to par, but because we don’t have enough of them.”

But wait. Staying third or higher in the world is important why??

If just ONE member of the Dressage Committee would come on here and give a reasonable explanation of WHY it is important to be ANYTHING “in the world” and not “to lose ground”, I’ll send 'em a dollar.

Does anyone really think the horses care? Does anyone think that winning medals has anything to do with preventing abuse or making horses’ lives better?

[magnum]

[QUOTE=rebecca yount;3044836]
So maybe we just don’t have to play in their sandbox. We will be the United States Amateur Dressage Federation.

I am really thinking that we can solve this whole problem (“the final solution”?) by just having a great big bonfire and burning our USEF and USDF cards. They won’t even miss us, probably. They can get money to self-perpetuate some other way. [/QUOTE]

I don’t disagree that the sport had gotten so elitist that it is scaring off a good deal of potential active riders, and also alienating its own amateur base …

However, in my professional life, I have faced the same problem too many times (these horrifically impossible issues within a governing organization). This ranges from having to deal with a somewhat corrupt professional union (of which I am a member) to a somewhat upsidedown professional certification organization.

A group of us did our own homework (spening thousands of hours in research and prep). We then had lawyers look it over … we estimated costs, etc. … in the end, those facts made us realize that it was too expensive and too monumental an endeavor to realistically accomplish within our pool … if at all … even within a 10-20 year period (at which time, many of us would no longer be within the group, anyway).

The bitter truth that I had to face (once I cooled off and took a more objective and less emotional review of it), is that trying to form a splinter group only made us look like big babies … so full of sour grapes.

What I had to learn, over time, is that it was better to REMAIN IN THE EXISTING ORGANIZATION as an upstart ACTIVIST FOR POSITIVE TRANSFORMATION … rather than to “take my ball and my bat and go home” approach.

I mean, new dressage judges, a new dressage judging system, new GMO’s, new regions, new lists of competitions, etc.?

I wish you well, whatever you decide to do. I can’t say you shouldn’t try.

Just that I hate to see the “divorce.” Because in a divorce, NO ONE EVER WINS. BOTH PARTIES ALWAYS LOSE … big time …

One example to consider is the (now 2) Oldenburg breed registries in this country. They ended up splitting. Now, they have no less than a contentious relationship … big guns ablazing … they compete against each other for the same pool of horses, clients and members… On top of the legal entanglement they went thru to split … even today now that they are separate, who wins when it gets that ugly?

(Here is a link to one of the several involved threads … ~7,700 views and ~650 posts):

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=119072&highlight=graystone

Just IMHO.

Magnum

[rebecca_yount]

Magnum, those are some very good points. I don’t know if it would ALL have to be redone, or even if the “organization” would promote competition as much as education.

Maybe we can just create a special GMO, or a dissident group, or something.

All yummy food for thought.

[J-Lu]

Rebecca,

You’re only getting worked up by this article now??? I wrote several editorials (I’ve written many) to this article when it came out but could never tone the anger down enough to send one. But then I remembered that she lives in a very elite dressage world and it is very easy to wonder why everyone isn’t riding a $50K+ horse.

Also, I applied the same principles to dressage as I do for politics: follow the money. Who benefits financially? That usually discriminates between who is advocating “on principle” and who has a conflict of interest.

That said, why are you concerned that people “are upset with” you? Of course DC members were upset with 500 emails in their inboxes. Of course they’re upset that people question their rationale and decisions as experts. But what’s the result? THe proposal has changed DRASTICALLY from Anne’s original suggestions in that article to what we have now. Why did it change? Because they saw that the original iterations, such as Anne’s, aren’t feasible in America. And it isn’t a picnic for German riders without UBERsponsorship and expensive horses, either. But I digress… Many of the members actually read the emails. I received personalized responses myself and only one that could be characterized as as obnoxious.

Janey Foy told me that they have compiled the USDF stats for 2007. Their numbers/analyses are similar to yours and it is helping them understand the multitude of problems with the original iterations of the rule change. They probably wouldn’t have done this unless they felt that they should (probably from knowing that you started compiling stats on your own). I believe they plan to disperse the data when they get a handle on it. But even you discouraged me from analyzing data on my own for fear of “too many cooks in the kitchen” on COTH and you didn’t want my help in collecting data. They probably feel the same way right now. Just wait it out.

You should be proud of spearheading the public awareness campaign. Look at what it resulted in.

J.

[rebecca_yount]

J-Lu:

When you had originally sent me a pm, Janet had actually emailed me shortly before that and asked me for my help in looking at the statistics.

I was trying to protect the integrity of what I thought the Dressage Committee was trying to do, and that’s why I asked you to lay low for a while. I was foolishly thinking that the Dressage Committee might want assistance in looking at the data in a reasonable way, and I didn’t want a lot of people bugging them about it while they were doing it. I did not want to insult you and I am sorry that you thought I was rejecting your offers of help, but I also did not want at that time to blab it all over the place (I emphasize that I was the one not wanting to blab) that the DC was seeming to be asking for help. I wanted to help them and let them see how if they went about it in a reasonable way that people might listen to them. But people will not listen if they keep insulting us and acting like only Europeans know how to teach us and that medals are the most important things in the world. I know the article was a long time ago and yes, it seems things have changed somewhat from what Anne wrote. But they are still saying it is “based on a European model” and so far what I’ve seen is not based in reality.

They ended up blowing me off completely, never even sent me any data at all, and whereas Janet had originally said it was fine to get the data directly from USDF, (I don’t even know who is allowed to say that we can or can’t have it), someone has decided that now we will not be allowed to get it.

I will be so glad when this whole hoo hah is over with. I think withholding the data is wrong. What do they think is going to happen if we analyze it?

[canyonoak]

Rebecca–you are very brave.
I think we will look back on this entire segment of our dressage lives, and remember not only this proposal and the ensuing debate/disagreements, but this particular thread.

Either these organizations serve us–or they do not.

We deerve organizations that serve us.

Bravo to you.

Ive already PMed you.

[PiaffePlease]

good for you for standing up against them. I would LOVE to have a U.S. Dressage Amateur Federation

[J-Lu]

Rebecca,

There is public face…and there is reality. Look at how much you have changed the reality of this proposal. Who cares what people “say” (everyone needs to save face), it’s what they “do”. And the DC is “doing”. The current un-proposal is miles away from the initial ideas and includes contingencies for people who live near many shows. This is actual progress! Your pressure on them for the data is probably making them extra-careful about how they analyze it. You should be proud of your influence on the final proposal.

FWIW, I still object to any kind of proposal personally and think things should rely on accurate scoring by the judges, but I’m happy that people are listening and considering (whether they are happy or not). Can elite clients close the budget of the USEF and USDF? I’m thinking no.

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=rebecca yount;3045534]
Does anyone really think the horses care? Does anyone think that winning medals has anything to do with preventing abuse or making horses’ lives better?[/QUOTE]

I just don’t get how forcing more people to stay at second and below will increase the number of riders at Grand Prix.

First, GP is so elusive, for so many reasons. You need the right horse, the right owner, the right rider, with enough cash to go to the right shows, take a tour or two in Europe, to be on the long list for the Team.

Looking at where our riders are coming from, the #1 thing they could do to make more top American riders would be to encourge/sponsor/facilitate more young riders to go spend a year or two as a working student in Europe. Imagine a scholarship contest arranged so that a high school student could go be an exchange student in Germany for a year and be part of a dressage barn. Or heck, get everyone to read Taking up the Reins; you don’t have to be a teenager.

Oh, that’s too practical. Also, the Germans don’t do it, so it’s obviously stupid for US dressage.

[poltroon]

Oh, and J-Lu: you are so right.

[ShotenStar]

@J-Lu;3045882

…
Janey Foy told me that they have compiled the USDF stats for 2007. Their numbers/analyses are similar to yours and it is helping them understand the multitude of problems with the original iterations of the rule change. They probably wouldn’t have done this unless they felt that they should (probably from knowing that you started compiling stats on your own). I believe they plan to disperse the data when they get a handle on it. …

This is music to my ears: the DC looking at data … and it is similar to our initial analysis. Imagine that! The data is consistent !

star

[rosinante]

[QUOTE=magnum;3045555]
I don’t disagree that the sport had gotten so elitist that it is scaring off a good deal of potential active riders, and also alienating its own amateur base …
…cut…
Magnum[/QUOTE]
You brought up some good points regarding breaking away…Perhaps US Amateur Dressage Federation is actually…<<<drumroll please>>> the USDF.

As I see it, the problem is that the USDF has lost its way. It is confused about what it wants to be when it grows up…so maybe the qualifying rule debate is the begining of a discussion that will continue in the future…

Back in the days of USET and AHSA, it was clear who fielded the Olympic teams…the USDF was more in the business of education. Somehow the roles/functions of the USDF and USEF (with regards to dressage) got muddied up since there is so much inbreeding between the 2 organizations…I mean the USEF Dressage Committee is basically the entire leadership of the USDF!!!..so confusion reigns…and they can’t seem to figure out which hat they are wearing at what meeting…

Actually, someone on the USDF is asking the questions that the folks on this BB are asking…MY question is who’s listening/hearing, but most important, where are the answers.

For the gory details, visit the USDF Feb. 2007 Strategic Plan:
http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/governance/StrategicPlan.pdf

Some snippets that indicate “someone” is at least thinking about these things in the USDF…

A strategic planning group consisting of five Executive Board members, six dressage experts, and four senior staff members of the United States Dressage Federation (USDF) met on August 23, 2006 to develop a long-range strategic direction. Bud Crouch, principal partner of Tecker Consultants LLC, led the group through the planning process.

This planning document signals the Executive Board’s desire to create and define a clear strategic direction for USDF. It is the planning group’s consensus regarding what will constitute USDF’s future success. It answers the following two strategic questions:

1. Where is USDF going? USDF’s future direction
2. Why is it going there? USDF’s reason for existence and core purpose

Strategic Focus:
Organizational strategic focus or intent is very important. One of the challenges facing USDF is the fact that there is more to be done for members and dressage than it has resources to accomplish. The temptation to do everything can often lead a not-for-profit organization to try to be “all things to all people.” The result of this approach is not doing anything particularly well. If everything is important, nothing is important. Planning strategically is counter to the all-things syndrome. It is about identifying a limited number of key strategic activities that USDF must undertake to move successfully into the future. Implementing the new strategic direction will bring focus to USDF’s future activities.

Financial Issues:
• Financial issues can be major challenges for many people involved with horses.
The cost of owning and keeping horses is rising rapidly.
• The cost of participation and showing in dressage also continues to rise.
• Economic factors may make dressage and all equestrian sports, especially on a competitive level, less accessible to people with limited income.

Strategic:
• What is USDF’s role or niche in the future? Why will it exist in the future? What is its mission? Who will it serve?
• How can USDF satisfy the varied needs of adult amateurs, junior/young riders, professionals, high performance riders, breeders and other dressage enthusiasts?
How much emphasis and resources should be devoted to meeting the needs of each of these groups?
• How can USDF better integrate members of local dressage organizations into the national organization so that they feel supported by USDF and, in turn, support the national organization?
• What is USDF’s changing role and how does it fit synergistically with USEF?

Membership Value, Relevancy and Indispensability:
• How can USDF increase its membership base and member participation?
• In what way can the organization best define, fund, communicate and nurture the diverse membership segments and members who fit and support its mission in many different ways?
• What kind of programs and services does USDF need to provide to its members, at all levels, so that they value their USDF membership?
• How can USDF become of value to people interested in dressage but who aren’t currently motivated to join a GMO or become a PM?
• How can USDF improve the overall quality of dressage instructors and USDF certified instructors. • What national programs for adults can USDF develop that are unique to USDFand do not compete with local programs (a national championship? -educational opportunities?)

USDF CORE VALUES
Excellent service to members
Quality education
Honesty, integrity and accountability
Open communication
Welfare of the horse
Harmonious relationship between horse and rider
Respect for all members

And finally….

When USDF completes its Big Audacious Goal, access to dressage and USDF will….be recognized for a culture that is more inclusive and less exclusive.

According to its web site:

Dedicated to education, the recognition of achievement and promotion of dressage, USDF is a tax-exempt 501©3 organization with more than 30 different educational programs, 125 affiliate local or regional clubs and more than 2000 annual awards for excellence in competition.

Perhaps now is the time to get active in your GMO…

[Touchstone_Farm]

[QUOTE=claire;3045122]

If the Rule is passed, I wonder what the effect will be on GMOs? [/QUOTE]

Since most of the GMOs are adult ammie-based (who else organizes the clinics, volunteers for the shows, runs the fund-raisers, the annual awards banquets and other events, etc.), I think quite a few would have no problem joining a new organization that has their interests in mind (if it turns out that Rebecca’s idea is not so "tongue-in-cheek).

[Velvet]

Why do we expect and want people to “test” and PASS in the educational process before moving on, and yet we balk at doing it in dressage?

I’m still lost as to why some sort of criteria is a bad thing. (BTW, we don’t need another association. The politics and money involved in the current plethora of organization/associations is enough to make one think of giving up the sport.)

[rebecca_yount]

Velvet, for an explanation please read above and also the thread re Performance Standards.

We are NOT necessarily opposed to some sort of standard, nor are we necessarily saying that some sort of criteria is a bad thing. We just think it needs to be based on data that is analyzed carefully and results that are replicable.

We think that what is “passing” should be based on the above.

[sm1]

[QUOTE=magnum;3045555]
I don’t disagree that the sport had gotten so elitist that it is scaring off a good deal of potential active riders, and also alienating its own amateur base …

The bitter truth that I had to face (once I cooled off and took a more objective and less emotional review of it), is that trying to form a splinter group only made us look like big babies … so full of sour grapes.

What I had to learn, over time, is that it was better to REMAIN IN THE EXISTING ORGANIZATION as an upstart ACTIVIST FOR POSITIVE TRANSFORMATION … rather than to “take my ball and my bat and go home” approach. [/QUOTE]

Well said. It does seem easier to kick a couple people off a comittee for incompetence. Or maybe they should be asked for their resignation. If a committeee member can’t represent the majority of an org (adult amateurs), keep the amateurs strong and growing for all horses not just the $100,000+ ones — then what good are they in the USDF or the USEF.

[slc2]

The resources that would be required to run such an organization, independent from USDF and USEF (they assist eachother and share, i assume this org would not), and what its function would be, that’s just huge. Who has the computer resources, the time to set up software and customize it, maintain and initiate records, take the ton of phone calls and emails, and answer all the complaints? It’s a monstrously large undertaking.

Would judges give up their licenses to join this organization? Who would do that? Those that have a beef with the organization? Possibly, but that beef isn’t necessarily going to make them suitable for helping amateurs. Would they wind up having to give up their other licenses… because needs and requirements of the two organizations would eventually force that upon them?

What would the organization do that would be different from the existing organizations? What’s its mission statement? Its function?

To judge harder? Score lower? Use more numbers when scoring?

How long, exactly, do you really think that will last as a foundation for an organization? I read a post of Rebecca’s complaining about how ‘the other people’ keep their horses and behave…can this really lead to the founding of a productive organization?

Such an organization has to have a much more solid direction. Something founded merely in opposition of something else has no direction, no goal, and no identity.

I can see the need for a lobby or advocacy group to help represent amateurs if the current system of representing them is failing, I can see the possibility that GMO’s can put on schooling shows and offer awards, even national ones, for those who don’t feel qualifying can be fair to them and their level of resources…

but I don’t see the need, or even what the mission statement would be of an independent organization…(listens to something that sounds like a herd of charging rhinos…) and no, I don’t really expect to get chewed out for not immediately leaping on the bandwagon.

I too lament the possibility that dressage would become more like showjumping and the hunters, with lots of money involved, less independent riders, lots of points chasing, and all that…that would really be sad. I’ve always said I didn’t want dressage to become a big money sport (and got shot down for saying so, often by the same people lamenting a qualification system now…that’s ironic…)

But are we calling for a new organization because we have complaints about the current one, or because a totally separate organization is needed, and could have a clear mission statement? Organizations formed ‘because we don’t like how The Other Organization is doing things’ tend to … fail.

[DressageGeek_Ribbon]

Late to the party, as usual.

But I am an ex volunteer for our GMO. I became very disillusioned by the change in board in our GMO to reflect members who were about points and year end awards and feathering the nests of local, pricey trainers, so I just …left.

I would love to be a part of something that truly promotes training, of horse and rider.

After all, I will never be an elite level rider. But who knows how somehow I may influence someone else, who may become one?

Cutting to the chase: sign me up.

[slc2]

Is that all ALL the GMO’s are about? :no:

[flshgordon]

Rebecca just wanted to give you another “pat on the back” so to speak. You have done a great job in getting these ideas in front of the people that needed to see them. They can see now that the majority of the general population of USDF is pissed off by their efforts to ramrod this ridiculous proposal through. I hope something good will come of it and I hope they will realie that it is really us “little people” who support them through our thousands and thousands of $$$ in entry fees each year.