[QUOTE=claire;3089318]
This sort of twisted logic just goes beyond the pale. :no:
So, we need to “Raise the Standards” have Qualifying Scores to move up because the judges are afraid to score accurately because they might be sued??? [/QUOTE]
Agree, Claire, seems bizarre to me too. I’d like to see the evidence/data supporting this lawsuit trend by competitors receiving low scores…not anecdotal stories. (Kind of parallels the discussion about the qualifying proposal since no data was presented!) But…if lawsuits were indeed true and rampant, if getting a low score triggers a lawsuit, can you imagine the cascade of lawsuits if these sue-happy competitors weren’t allowed to show at the level they wanted?! No, don’t think the qualifying proposal will solve that…even if it is a reason (which I doubt!).
judges can’t possibly be responsible for ALL The problems in dressage.
judges can’t be sued for how they score.
i’ve never even heard of anyone trying to sue an individual judge.
most of the dressage judges i know, i can’t really quite get my head around the idea of them being intimidated by ANYONE, in fact, i think most of them are judges BECAUSE they have a deep committment to NOT being swayed, influenced or pressured by riders who want higher scores.
most of them take quite an amount of satisfaction on setting deluded riders straight and they do a very good job of it - in my experience, so do trainers, and again in my experience, most riders listen to their trainers and listen to the judges.
rules DO need changing and updating. the double bridle rule may have had unintended consequences. that’s why the committees don’t convene once, and why they don’t etch the rules in stone and retire from the organization after one meeting 44 years ago.
even if a rule has consequences unintended it may still be something we need to keep and we need to make other changes. it also may not be.
data being used to make decisions - depends on what the data is, and what the decision is.
what they DID say that one needs to note is that it will not start til 2011, and that it will be different from the original proposal.
if they have an ‘out’ for people who can’t show much, like in europe, my major objection, cost and mileage pricing the working people out of dressage, will be much less of an issue. without that it remains a very serious issue.
I also think the comparison to qualifying to move up, etc. in eventing and steeplechasing is totally bogus. One’s LIFE (and that of one’s horse) are put at risk if you try to event/race over fences at a level beyond one’s competence. No one is going to die from riding poorly at 3rd level.
[QUOTE=Sandy M;3090129]
I also think the comparison to qualifying to move up, etc. in eventing and steeplechasing is totally bogus. One’s LIFE (and that of one’s horse) are put at risk if you try to event/race over fences at a level beyond one’s competence. No one is going to die from riding poorly at 3rd level.[/QUOTE]
Does anyone else get the feeling they are just throwing stuff out to get a reaction…the DC seriously can’t believe that is a valid comparison. Perhaps, they are having difficulties digging themselves out, and are just testing the water in search of a point of validation…
WE should all be looking forward to the document from the DC.
-said he sees more bad riding by professionals than amateurs
This is what stuck out for me. Still, the problem has not been formally written and the proposal as it was, would not stop this problem. I understand they are working on this poposal which I think is good, and that the membership has spoken.
Someone had mentioned the rider score…I think I might look into this. This might be a better avenue if they wanted to make things “less abusive” for the horse. This might be away of getting everyone under the same umbrella.
Still I am disappointed that USEF is at dressage and not in there own back yard.
RY, thank you for the update! With the exception of Janet Foy-Brown’s comments which someone posted and a lot of people complained about, and the DC’s new stance that they no longer want any feedback directly from members, but that all communication must go through the GMO or PM Representative, I haven’t heard anything further since the USEF tabled it. I would think that many judges would be pretty offended by the things the DC is saying about them - it makes them sound dishonest and incompetent.
I’m looking for eventing comparisons regarding USEF and pulled some quotes. Some core issues eventers are experiencing may be the same, and for expediency’s sake we should be aware of similarities.
Sure, post diatribes of eventing rabblerousers and etc, but before you do – understand this: The Denny I pulled unabridged posts from, in addition to his riding awards not included here, held leadership in such organizations as the USEA (twice president), the USET (vice-president of Eventing for seven years), the USEF (on the Executive Committee), and Chairman of the Breeder’s Committee of the AHSA.
[QUOTE=ThirdCharm;3087296] There were ULRs putting clients on uber-fancy $20K Novice horses at the event horse sale that I would not have put on a 15h BN packer. GM woulda had a coronary and sent them back to xrails, but that doesn’t pay the bills…
Jennifer[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=denny emerson;3091271]The USEA is a splendid organization, 50 years old, that has done an enormous amount of good. It should not be replaced.
Its problem is that the bigger association, USEF, doesnt want to share power, doesnt do the necessary work, but wont let the USEA run things better.
PS> If you or anyone thinks you can change the USEF, have at it! [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=denny emerson;3088014]Dont blame the USEA, blame the USEF. They have all the power, make and enforce the rules, license the officials, conduct the drug testing, send teams to the various Games. There used to be much more cooperation between the old AHSA and the old USCTA, but a group of power hungry USEF people have gradually shoved the USEA more and more to the back burner. Someone in another thread suggested that the USEA send someone to check out The Fork. It would accomplish nothing, as USEA is powerless to make changes, unless USEF agrees. Thats what we mean when we say a small group has an inordinate control over our sport.
NOT USEA people, these are the good guys in this struggle.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=denny emerson;3091221]Let me state the inherent problem one more time.
The USEF, through its mandate from the FEI, controls American eventing from preliminary through advanced.
The USEA is only an association that promotes eventing. It has very limited power.
Lets say the USEA wanted to approve xc courses at, say, The Fork. The USEF would NOT ALLOW the USEA to do so. But the USEF has not demonstrated that it is very interested in the fate of the lower levels, except, insofar, as they are sources of revenue. So if any organization is apt to truly reform this spiral of disinterest, bad xc design,etc, its likely to be the USEA, but the USEF wont permit it. Herin lies the dilemma. And herin lie the reasons given for a revolution. The USEA has the skill, the interest and the groundswell of support from its membership to effect positive change, but the USEF is unwilling to let the USEA make reforms, and share the power. We who know the ins and outs have become very cynical about the USEFs motives, and I think if the rank and file could ever actually see how the USEF High Performance Committe spends its budget, they would see why.
The salaries, the expense accounts, the trips abroad, the grants, all from member`s dues and gifts to a non profit, by the way.[/QUOTE]
And in conclusion, perhaps again parallel USEA to USDF:
[QUOTE=denny emerson;3091327]My thought is to give Kevin Baumgardner and the USEA Board of Govs a chance to try to work out arrangements with the USEF before we actually think 1776 . [ sm’s comment here between brackets, 1776 = referring to revolution]
That can`t happen overnight, and they should have time, but not forever.
If the USEA gets stonewalled in its efforts to improve xc design, for example, then we can revisit the secession concept.
While I just discovered this thread and haven’t had time yet to read through all the threads, I just wanted to say THANK YOU REBECCA for posting those minutes, and kudos to Col Edmunds for his statements, which I wholeheartedly agree.
As far as Scott Hassler and the others go regarding their comments on how negative the BBs are, well, waaah, waah, poor babies. Maybe they need to get their heads out of their asses and take a good look at the BBs because this is the real world, not some fantasy world they are living in.
I also see this as a prime example of Scott Hassler et all not wanting to take any responsibility for their actions. If they can’t take the heat, maybe they need to get out of the kitchen. Did it ever occur to any of them that maybe the BBs are negative because THEY enacted a bad policy in the first place without ever having polled their membership first? It’s all smacks of “we-know-what’s-best-for-you-because-we-are-your-elite-leaders-and-how-dare-you-question our-leadership-so-sit-down-and-shut-up-and-stop-having-a-negative-opinion.” Perhaps it a case of a big fish in a small pond mentality. Power gone to the head and all that.
Last time I checked, this is a free country. I think we need to elect new leaders. Can the current ones be impeached?
Here’s another thought on the eventing comparison.
If, say, Anne Kursinski, got herself a GP ride and wanted to come out and try dressage at the FEI levels, I wouldn’t bat an eye. No problem, Anne: go to it.
It would seem silly, to me, to force her to show multiple times at 2nd et al to get to GP.
On the other hand, if Anne wanted to change to eventing, I am completely comfortable with her needing to jump around 4 events at training, then 4 at prelim, etc, to work her way up to Advanced.
I think with any qualification system, say the cutoff is 60%, then I suspect we’ll start seeing a dearth of scores in the 57-59.9 range. I mean, really, what judge will want to chance a score of 59.8? For that same reason, when I took the CPA exam years ago, there were never any scores from 65-70% (70% being a passing score). So, like it or not, ADMIT it or not, there will be intentional “pass or fail” decisions being made by judges, and not all judges will be fair or accurate. If they are afraid of lawsuits now, just wait until scores really matter!
Um…what if the people that really need to not ride those levels aren’t amateurs at all, but professionals who show in 3rd, 4th and up and score very low? If I go back thru the statements from the organizations, I don’t see a whole lot that actually fingers amateurs as the sole source of this problem. I think much of the readership here is assuming that the organizations are specifically targeting amateurs and their non warmblood horses, but i don’t see anything yet that proves that.
There is a group of people who promote themselves as expert instructors and get top dollar, won’t go thru certification (or go thru it and then ignore what it teaches), and use their show awards (they can win all breed awards, etc, regardless of how poor they score…and some of their awards can be 20 or more years old when classes were much smaller) to validate their skill to eager inexperienced students.
I’m pretty sure this has been discussed on these threads, and I don’t think that anyone thinks that the organizations are specifically “fingering amateurs as the sole source of the problem”. As you said, there is no evidence to show that the rule is specifically directed at amateurs as much as “bad riding” or “abusive riding” or what was it specifically directed at?? But I digress… I think the point people have made many times is that amateurs will be most affected by it because often, but not always, amateurs don’t ride horses of the same quality as most professionals so won’t score as highly, amateurs don’t ride as well as professionals because most work a full time job and ride only one horse per day so often don’t score as highly, amateurs don’t show as much as professionals because and so have less chances of accumulating points per ride, amateurs ride less classes per show (accumulating less points) because they frequently bring only one horse per show, amateurs pay all of their horse bills/show bills and so accumulating points may be more of a financial burden for them as compared to professionals, who are often paid to show.
I don’t think that anyone (including the organization board members) would say that amateurs as a group, especially those coming up through the levels now, would not be most affected. But I think we know that both amateurs and future professionals climbing the levels will be affected in the years to come. Unfortunately, I think we all have seen professionals who habitually score low and are really, really not pleasant riders. But most of them will unfortunately be grandfathered in to the top levels with the current rule change proposal. Sad, but true.
[QUOTE=slc2;3093486]
Um…what if the people that really need to not ride those levels aren’t amateurs at all, but professionals who show in 3rd, 4th and up and score very low? If I go back thru the statements from the organizations, I don’t see a whole lot that actually fingers amateurs as the sole source of this problem. I think much of the readership here is assuming that the organizations are specifically targeting amateurs and their non warmblood horses, but i don’t see anything yet that proves that. [/QUOTE]
Hmmm. Let’s see. Junior riders are being exempted in the proposal, so it can’t be them. Professionals should already largely be grandfathered in…who is left?
It is my understanding that junior/young riders who have qualified for NAJYRC are grandfathered in at third level and PSG, respectively, because by definition, if they have scores to qualify for these championships (the classes are roughly third level and PSG, respectively), they have fulfilled the criteria to move up. I think that otherwise, juniors and young riders have to qualify like everyone else. At least, this is my understanding of the last iteration.
[QUOTE=anita m;3093272]
I think with any qualification system, say the cutoff is 60%, then I suspect we’ll start seeing a dearth of scores in the 57-59.9 range. I mean, really, what judge will want to chance a score of 59.8? For that same reason, when I took the CPA exam years ago, there were never any scores from 65-70% (70% being a passing score). So, like it or not, ADMIT it or not, there will be intentional “pass or fail” decisions being made by judges, and not all judges will be fair or accurate. If they are afraid of lawsuits now, just wait until scores really matter![/QUOTE]
Sad to say, I had thoroughbred riders just miss qualifiying for 2007 All Breeds 60% median by ONE-QUARTER of a point. And ONE-HALF a point. And plenty of ONE points. It wasn’t that long ago that they would have been safe — the median was moved up from 58% to 60% not that long ago.
They were ammie and/or vintage cup that just lost here, not pros, and I think not JrYR.
one would hope that attending a particular convention/session/meeting should lead one to sharing what what one learned/heard/discovered at that meeting
[/QUOTE]
