USEF rule change about judges teaching

[Paint_Party]

@enjoytheride

So if my trainer purchased a horse from the judge, I can’t ride under the judge. EVER.

I purchased my horse from a judge. Eventually I’ll end up showing under him next year. It’s unavoidable. I certainly don’t expect any favors from him. If anything, I’ll be afraid he’d be thinking, “Darn, I sold that lovely young horse to that dippy woman.”

So under this rule change, I’d have to stay home while the rest of the barn goes to the show.

Or is the burden upon the judge, who must recuse themselves when a horse enters the arena and they suddenly recognize they sold that horse to the rider?

[Knights_Mom]

One thing is for sure: Were I a judge I’d choose teaching riders and clinics over judging every time.

How would I even keep track of people as a judge?

[JenEM]

Also, if you’re teaching clinics, you generally have auditors. Who you may not ever even meet or interact with. But they’re learning from you, so would also be excluded from ever riding under you as a judge.

[LexInVA]

This may be coming about because of the “Hot Potato” ownership and self-perpetuation that exists at high levels. To give an example, I once looked at a certain high-ranking and prize-winning individual who is very well-regarded as a master rider and such. That individual had horses that were being shifted around between themselves and other individuals, who were - per competition records - Judges that would Judge that competitive rider with said horse while it was in the rider’s ownership and then said horse would bounce back to the Judge after the show or series of shows, sometimes going to another rider, before going back to the Judge or the horse would be sold by said rider and everyone presumably got their piece of the action.

[SillyHorse]

@LexInVA

This may be coming about because of the “Hot Potato” ownership and self-perpetuation that exists at high levels. To give an example, I once looked at a certain high-ranking and prize-winning individual who is very well-regarded as a master rider and such. That individual had horses that were being shifted around between themselves and other individuals, who were - per competition records - Judges that would Judge that competitive rider with said horse while it was in the rider’s ownership and then said horse would bounce back to the Judge after the show or series of shows, sometimes going to another rider, before going back to the Judge or the horse would be sold by said rider and everyone presumably got their piece of the action.

This would be extremely insulting to the vast majority of judges and competitors, who are honest and above board.

[starrunner]

@enjoytheride

“A rider whose parent, guardian, or instructor has had any financial transaction with the sale, lease, board, or training with the jduge”

So if my trainer purchased a horse from the judge, I can’t ride under the judge.

That’s crazy. I want to know who they define as an instructor. There are traveling instructors (my coach’s coaches) that I ride with a few times a year. Are they also my instructors? Do I need to know every horse they’ve ever leased and purchased to know if they purchased them from a judge or if they had board/training in another barn?

Like how far down the rabbit hole does this go?

Thanks for sharing. I definitely did share with my friends since it goes just beyond dressage being affected by this issue.

[SillyHorse]

@starrunner

I definitely did share with my friends since it goes just beyond dressage being affected by this issue.

My guess is that dressage is not the major target.

[Knights_Mom]

@LexInVA

This may be coming about because of the “Hot Potato” ownership and self-perpetuation that exists at high levels. To give an example, I once looked at a certain high-ranking and prize-winning individual who is very well-regarded as a master rider and such. That individual had horses that were being shifted around between themselves and other individuals, who were - per competition records - Judges that would Judge that competitive rider with said horse while it was in the rider’s ownership and then said horse would bounce back to the Judge after the show or series of shows, sometimes going to another rider, before going back to the Judge or the horse would be sold by said rider and everyone presumably got their piece of the action.

Yes of course this is done. But this proposal doesn’t stop this. I could easily make up a fake person, have them pay membership and use that name to conduct business.

If you want to catch people doing unscrupulous things maybe make reporting them a lucrative reward thing upon a guilty finding $$$ or some other way. But this proposal is a doomsday proposal.

[MHM]

While I agree (wholeheartedly!) with your comments about judges, I noticed that the rule change proposal has several different disciplines as proponents, and the purpose of the rule change proposal is stated to make the rules the same for everyone across the board, or some similar terminology.

So that makes me wonder if some groups have more restrictive rules that might apply to their own disciplines, and they want to see everybody have to comply to the same standard.

[BigMama1]

@LilRanger

What is with j? You can’t appear before a judge with a horse unless it’s either being shown by the breeder or it was sold through a public auction?

Who writes these rules? They are terribly unclear.

There has to be a sentence missing from that one. Surely they mean a horse for which the judge has received money through sale, lease, etc unless the sale was a public auction.

Usually Canada follows USEF rule changes but in this case, with such a small pool of riders and even smaller pool of judges here, literally nobody would be able to compete.

That being said, I purchased my horse from a judge and I don’t think I should be allowed to show in front of her. If it was a show with multiple judges, I would ask the tournament director not to schedule me in her ring. If it was a show where she was the only judge I would either not enter or enter only as hors concours.

[Texarkana]

@Knights_Mom

I think it’s hysterical. I didn’t know USEF was suicidal. I wouldn’t waste one second fighting it. Let them pass it and then watch them try to enforce it. Watch shows die because no one will judge them.

The more I read about these rule changes, the more I agree with this. If it wasn’t for the pesky IOC, no one would need USEF.

[Knights_Mom]

@Texarkana

@Knights_Mom

I think it’s hysterical. I didn’t know USEF was suicidal. I wouldn’t waste one second fighting it. Let them pass it and then watch them try to enforce it. Watch shows die because no one will judge them.

The more I read about these rule changes, the more I agree with this. If it wasn’t for the pesky IOC, no one would need USEF.

Plenty of people show in big shows, small shows, all types of shows not at all affiliated with USEF.

The largest breed association in the world running the biggest horse show in the world, the AQHA, is not part of USEF.

How big? If you took every breed association in the world and put them together AQHA is still bigger. And unlike USEF it RUNS shows around the world.

[Knights_Mom]

Not a part of USEF

So USEF who?

[Texarkana]

@Knights_Mom

@Texarkana

@Knights_Mom

I think it’s hysterical. I didn’t know USEF was suicidal. I wouldn’t waste one second fighting it. Let them pass it and then watch them try to enforce it. Watch shows die because no one will judge them.

The more I read about these rule changes, the more I agree with this. If it wasn’t for the pesky IOC, no one would need USEF.

Plenty of people show in big shows, small shows, all types of shows not at all affiliated with USEF.

The largest breed association in the world running the biggest horse show in the world, the AQHA, is not part of USEF.

How big? If you took every breed association in the world and put them together AQHA is still bigger. And unlike USEF it RUNS shows around the world.

I totally agree. For 99% of us, we have no need for USEF.

But IIRC, there is a rule of either the FEI or IOC that prohibits their competitors from competing in competitions unsanctioned by their national governing body. This rule only affects upper level jumper/dressage/eventing riders.

Can someone help me out on exactly what this rule is? I remember it coming into play when WEC and USEF were at war; they couldn’t have NSBA grand prixs like they initially proposed.

[Knights_Mom]

If there is such a rule it’s absurd.

[Mack_the_Knife]

FEI Gen Regs, Annex J

[eggbutt]

From Janet Foy via Facebook 12/3/22 at 1:30 PM:

Dear friends and friends of friends (I am making this public to share).

We have made an impact ! Hundreds of e mails were sent to Alina at EF and hundreds more to Katherine at DF. Also several hundred more went to the DF and EF websites. Good work!

They know our concerns. Now it is time to let Janine Malone and Alina Brazzil work out a rule that addresses those concerns.

Cindi Rose Wylie, Heather Petersen Kristi Wysocki and I will be vigilant in keeping a watch over the progress and we will all post the compromise. Don’t put your key boards away yet! But here is hoping the process works!

[gardenie]

off topic but where does Aiken Grand Prix of Eventing fall in these regs?

[Knights_Mom]

I imagine such a rule change would affect Foy tremendously.

[Texarkana]

@gardenie

off topic but where does Aiken Grand Prix of Eventing fall in these regs?

I don’t think “arena eventing” qualifies as an FEI discipline as it is neither eventing or show jumping.