That is a pathetic response.
Pathetic.
Horses doing 30 classes, plus schooling, don’t appreciate the lack of protection.
They might not look exhausted, but it’s still abuse.
Shame on you, USEF.
USEF is under the thumb of the show managers and the trainers. Follow the money.
Absolutely, USEF continues to dig themselves a deeper hole….
Is everyone that’s bashing USEF cancelling their memberships and stopping showing at rated shows?
No.
Just like I don’t move despite my city’s decidedly weird mayor (no, I don’t live in LA) or abandon keeping horses bc I live in Southern California.
I’m not sure what your point is, but when an organization continues to ignore its membership base for years and refuses to make any actionable changes, maybe it’s time to reconsider how you’re trying to communicate to them. Town halls and promises to “do something” haven’t produced actual changes, so what’s the point in continuing to support them if they don’t care about what you(g) think?
I think that’s how we got here. Most of the people I know who show regularly believe everything their trainer tells them and have no horse experience outside that dependent client model. Everyone else has already quit or moved to another competitive discipline for one reason or another: money, time, fun, camaraderie. Me and my friends who show at best a few times a year, when we can even get stalls, are not going to make or break anything.
Ah, canceling memberships and not showing is a means of communication. Me doing either or both would have a negligible effect at best. I realize that an army of Peggys doing it might get attention. Or they might decide to ignore us bc we’re no longer members.
I guess my point is that the “taking your ball and going home” approach when you(g) don’t like how the game is being played is not likely to be effective. And I don’t even have the metaphorical ball WRT USEF.
I agree that the approach of town halls isn’t doing much, if anything.
Maybe I’ll bow out due to old age and let the next generation fight USEF.
Already did that over a year ago, however, I’m on one of those 3 year memberships they offered, so I’m technically still a “member” until end of this year. I suspect there’s many like me…non-renewal numbers for 2026 will be certainly interesting….
Until education and licensing of professionals becomes mandatory nothing will change.
Armand Leone’s opinion:
https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/opinion-we-can-remedy-the-scourge-of-overuse-in-horse-showing/
48 classes in one month at any height is excessive but not sure how they’re getting there maxing 4 classes /wk anything under 1.20? Am I missing something? 48 classes would be 12 classes a week a horse could show 4 weeks straight.
It’s four classes per day under 1.20m - with a limit of 3 consecutive days showing, limited to 3 shows per month, per this argument. So, for a 4-5 day showing, you’re looking at ~12-16 classes per week, x3 weeks a month = 48 classes per month. Which is still….a lot….for a horse to be jumping 3’6-3’9 that many times. Eek.
“ per month could be implemented, with a maximum of three consecutive days of showing permitted, and—dependent on fence height—a maximum number of jumping classes per horse per day:
- Course above 1.30 meters: Two classes
- Course 1.20 to 1.30 meters: Three classes
- Course below 1.20 meters: Four classes
These are not draconian limitations; they would still allow horses to compete in a generous monthly maximum of 24, 36, or 48 classes, depending on the level.”
Omg yes that’s still way too much imho. I loved Karl Cook’s suggestion eons ago about the point values and each course designer assigning a point value based on a predetermined scale (difficulty and height). Then you’re only allowed x points in a day/week/month/quarter. These numbers still seem too high to me just like you.
Well, at least there appears to be support for Jay Duke’s proposal. Hopefully others will join in.
I think the article suggested capping the number of shows per month as well as the number of classes per show.
Agreed, and it probably won’t happen. Anyone can call themselves a “pro” when they have little to no experience in upper level competition other than as a junior, and are woefully ignorant about many aspects of horse care and training and how much there is to learn.
From what I’ve read here, many people who enjoy showing in rated shows a few times a year (or more) would rather be a member and have a voice. Their other option is to attend only local shows, where there is often little to no drug testing, poor footing, no SS protection and very few, if any, classes at the upper levels.
Having unqualified judges is another issue at some local shows, as well as not having class limit rules. While some of the local series are good, not everyone has access to them and many COTH members have stated here that they prefer to jump classes at a height, or ride a dressage test at a level, that few local shows offer.
I agree that having judges and stewards hired by show management is problematic.
I think it’s good that Armand Leone is stating his opinion publicly and thinking about possible solutions. I didn’t get the feeling that he was writing his idea for class numbers in stone, only trying to keep the conversation about the need for an actual rule going forward. Pointing out the need for an actual rule, because as he said, many people involved have a monetary interest in more entries, not fewer.
