US Equestrian Rule Change Re Judges and Coaching

[see_u_at_x]

Hi, everyone. I hope you don’t mind that I’m popping over here from Dressage-land to share a post that Olympic judge and clinician Janet Foy posted on FB earlier. There’s a thread on the dressage forum, too, but I wasn’t sure if this is something folks over here were aware of. I know that I certainly wasn’t aware of it until I saw Janet’s post, and my understanding is that this rule affects ALL disciplines, not just those of us making 20m circles in the big sandbox.

Anyway, this is the post from FB. The key word here is “permanently.” This rule would basically allow a judge to teach a rider once, the rider then would have to wait 30 days before they were allowed to be judged at a show by that particular judge (which has been the case already), and then the rule PERMANENTLY disallows that judge from ever teaching that rider again after judging them at a show. It has the potential to be a logistical nightmare as well as a serious threat to the income of our top judges.

If you think this rule is as ridiculous as many of us dressage riders do, then please make your voices heard and comment on US Equestrian.

Thanks for your time.

[MHM]

I’m wondering if it is to eliminate the loophole that allows somebody to change trainers for 30 days and then go back to them after they judge a specific horse show.

[JenEM]

This is a GR rule, so it would be effective for everyone–Dressage, Hunters, Eventers, Arabians, etc.

It’s a poorly written proposal whose goal may have been intended to close some weird loophole stuff going on that most of us aren’t aware of–if you look at the top of the proposal it looks like it came in via the Hackney/Saddleseat/Paso Fino folks. But it creates a lot of weird conflicts–you can never and will never buy a horse from someone who’s judging you? You can never get instruction, paid or unpaid, and then show under a judge ever–so anyone who watched that “new eq tests” video can never ever show under those judges?

I don’t doubt there are real conflict of interest issues that someone’s trying to solve with this, but it’s not a good solution.

[Pandora1087]

This means you can’t clinic with someone who is a judge. I hope the pros, who probably have a bigger voice than us, make sure this doesn’t happen. This could really effect their pocket. It will also limit the judging pool even further. I wouldn’t become a judge if I was a professional, if this was the case. Judging doesn’t make enough money for that to be your only source of income.

[Janet]

This rule change proposal is so absurd that I do not think there is any chance it will be approved.

[MHM]

@Pandora1087

This means you can’t clinic with someone who is a judge.

The clinic exemption is still in the new rule change proposal.

[findeight]

This sounds like it came out of a niche breed/discipline where there just aren’t that many. Qualified judges to judge a limited number of exhibitors. A very shallow pool if you will, keep seeing the same people because there just aren’t that many.

Wonder if they thought about that backfiring on their little group getting anybody to ever officiate let alone forcing it on the other 90% of the membership?

Surprised it got this far.

[JenEM]

I think the clinic thing is probably less of an issue for h/j, where clinics are usually in group settings. In dressage, though, they’re usually one-on-one, so if you’ve ever done a clinic with someone there, you’re never able to show under them. Or presumably at any show where they’re judging, because even if there are 4 rings, how do you guarantee that everyone in First-One will never have done a clinic with Judge Jenny in Ring1?

I can see that being the bigger problem at hunter shows–so many pros do business with one another, send a horse from their barn off on lease with a client elsewhere, sell a horse to someone, you’d never be able to run a pro division under these rules, because most of the division would be in violation of section j. How on earth would you keep track of Amy Ammy not being able to show under Judge Joe because she bought a different horse from his barn 10 years ago?

The first few clauses are pretty obvious, but it’s like the Ammy rule–they’ve tried to close all the loopholes for the stupid things people have done to get around the current rule, and made it more complicated and problematic.

[MHM]

@JenEM

The first few clauses are pretty obvious, but it’s like the Ammy rule–they’ve tried to close all the loopholes for the stupid things people have done to get around the current rule, and made it more complicated and problematic.

I think that statement really applies to basically the entire rulebook.

I think I’ve posted this before, but my mother showed many years ago, and the rulebook in her day was barely more than a pamphlet. It’s kept getting thicker and thicker and thicker over the years as more people have come up with more ways to work around the existing rules, so there were more rules written as a result.

And now it shows up in the mailbox each year like a 4 pound salt block. Except by this time, it’s probably more than 4 pounds.

[Janet]

@MHM

And now it shows up in the mailbox each year like a 4 pound salt block. Except by this time, it’s probably more than 4 pounds.

The last printed rule book I got (2018) weighed 6 1/2 pound.
Since then they have not sent out printed rule book, just put it on line.

[Janet]

Latest update -, NOW when you click the link to the rule change proposal, you get “404 page not found”

[roseymare]

But how would this rule make that better? It would do the opposite because how would you ever find judges? Makes no sense whatsoever.

[roseymare]

I don’t see my Hackney friends anymore so I cannot ask them if it came from their ranks.

I really doubt it.

I’ll have to look at some of my FB groups for Arabians and touch base with my online SB friends.

[Montanas_Girl]

The Arabian world is losing its collective mind over this proposal. It didn’t come from us. Lol.

[MHM]

This is the list of committees that appear to be involved in the rule change proposal, since they are listed under it.

It also looks like no comments are being taken on it at this time while they are trying to fix the wording of it.

[roseymare]

I did a bit of sleuthing and found this

[roseymare]

My thoughts are most of these folks have never ran a major show. Sure it had some ethical dilemmas but sounds like it was a crazy situation.
From what I know this is typically a very well run show. But I do not know if the Dressage portion is run by the same person who runs the rest of the show.

[NaturallyHappy]

Thank you for this…I’m curious. I imagine SHN is an abbreviation of a show. I can’t figure out which one.

[roseymare]

Sport Horse Nationals (Arabian)

[enjoytheride]

Sport horse nationals is an Arabian show, and the FB page is notorious for the same people losing their shit over what they perceive is a slight. Some of the loudest people about whwre the show should be held or how it should run haven’t shown a horse since 1973.

You can see where someone says the emergency judge didn’t judge her own students.