I would change the HOTY criteria so it does not encourage excessive campaigning of horses. The focus should be on the quality of the performance and not the quantity. There are horses who have been competing every week of WEF winter circuit (minus 1 week off for break), sometimes in 2 upper level performance divisions each week.
I would also be looking at ways to test for administration of excessive amounts of IV magnesium.
@fivestrideline I agree completely. I think there should be limits to how many classes a horse can do today, and even how many weeks in a row they can show (as @atl_hunter mentioned for show circuits like WEF). People simply cannot be relied upon to self moderate these things.
@Tackpud Concerning what these limits should be, I would love to see this commission tackle that, maybe even send out a survey to all USHJA members to get feedback. Personally, no- I do not think all classes should be treated equally. A Long Stirrup class is a lot different than 3’6 performance classes.
@atl_hunter Absolutely, changing the HOTY criteria so it does not encourage excessive campaigning is a great idea as well.
Those whose livelihood depends on the horse show machine may not appreciate these changes. I believe it’s time for us to collectively determine what holds greater importance: horse welfare or caving to concerns driven by financial interests?
I think one way we could work through the class limit issue is by looking at a height standard. World Cup finals has 3 days of jumping at 1.60. If you use that standard for jump height vs the number of classes (and then some rounding) you get classes 1.30+ have 3 classes a week, 1.10 & 1.20 have 4 classes, 1.00 & 0.90 have 5 classes, and 0.80 & 0.70 have 6. And then if you’re playing around with multiple heights you just use the lower number. Which when I review that in context to my own jumper career, it tracks quite well. Now obviously this doesn’t account for warmups and training but the process has to start somewhere.
I don’t do hunters/eq anymore so the easy answer would be to just translate the heights so 3’6/4’ have 4 classes, 3’/3’3 have 5, 2’6/2’3 have 6, and 2’ and under have 7. But reviewing what hunters are currently doing, that is a huge shift. Which maybe it should be? Make the course a few jumps longer and reduce the class numbers.
However, in addition to class limits there needs to be moveup requirements. It’s great to limit the amount horses do but if a horse/rider is competing in something above their skill level, even a limited number of classes doesn’t do much to promote welfare.
Unpopular opinion, but I do think classes should be treated equally. 1. It’s not easy on horses to stand around in the sun at rings, do multiple warmups, walk back and forth to the stalls on pavement and stay tacked all day. No, it’s not hard on their legs to trot over ground poles but very long show days are still hard on them.
2. Let’s teach kids from the beginning that the horse comes first. Normalize a few classes per day from the very beginning, and we’ll have better educated kids and parents who are used to the idea of having limits in the interest of horse welfare.
Also, I wish the insurance companies would step up. We will not insure your horse if it jumps more than X # of classes in a day, is under a trainer with X # of drug violations. You will be dropped immediately if the horse tests positive in a USEF drug test, etc.
Yes, I’m sure there are lots of technicalities in the above suggestion, but I think it’s an interesting question about insurance companies culpability, and best interests. Like others have said, a $500 fine is nothing, but being unable to insure a 500,000 horse is a bigger wake up call.
You do realize that many people don’t insure their horses, even the top dollar horses. To them it’s just another bill to pay and the payout usually isn’t enough to make it worthwhile. The horse goes lame - cheaper to just buy another instead of doing tests and rehab.
Yep. And with the way insurance is going, it’s often not worth it to insure since they’ll drop the entire front end if you find “thickening of a suspensory”, drop the entire GI after paying for a round of GastroGard, drop the whole spine if you find incidental KS.
An in depth PPE can exclude most of the horse if you find things.
Insurance involvement might be helpful in some ways (like a “good driver” policy), but idk how many people wouldn’t just drop insurance and stay with the trainer or keep showing heavily to chase points 
Interesting. EVERY barn I have been in has required insurance. I do agree that at the top of the sport, many self insure due to the costs, much as Jay Leno self insures his automotive collection.
Interesting. What insurance do the barns require? Mortality? Major medical? Did they set amounts for how much coverage you should carry? I don’t see why it would be any of the barn’s business whether I choose to pay my vet costs directly or through insurance. I’ve never been at a barn that required insurance.
Major medical. Mortality is an option. We provide the max amount for treatment should horse require care when I am not available (so I authorize in my contract the amount they are authorized, and include all insurance details should they need a pre-authorization for treatment.
I’m in Atlanta but have also had horses in FL and show hunters. It was the same way when I competed in ApHC and my trainers were in WI and IN. It could be the level at which I’m competing?
Edited because I left off dressage and had a multi-disciplinary trainer in there as well.
I don’t know of any insurer that would give you a MM policy without mortality (as mortality is where they make the most money on the premiums). And it’s totally weird to have the barn require that of individual horse owners. Someone might rather self insure for MM rather than spend 3+% on a mortality premium for an expensive jumping show horse to have access to a MM policy.
Some of the zones (at least I think it was zone level, maybe state organizations) used to have rules on max number of over fences classes…I think it was per day and not per week. Which might make a little more sense for some of the h/eq divisions, and then limit number of divisions in a week perhaps. I don’t think it would be all that hard to find some of these old rules to use as guidelines.
It doesn’t work that way. You can’t get major medical without mortality, so mortslity is not an “option”.
Also, what about horses over 18, for which major medical is not available?
I’ve always specified vet care costs limits with the barn and my vet if I’m unreachable in case of emergency, as well as whether colic surgery is authorized or not. Quite normal for them to ask for insurance info if you have it but I’ve never been required to carry any form of insurance.
I also don’t understand how you can have major medical without mortality.
Back to the beginning of this thread - Yet Another do-nothing committee/panel/whatever. If USHJA/USEF wants to make a real difference in what’s going on, this isn’t the way. And one of the reasons I no longer (a) show and (b) support USEF.
“Business as usual” is not good enough.
I’d be curious to see how many people complaining about USEF put their money where their mouth is. How many people complain they aren’t doing anything while sitting at the show between classes? Sure, Suzie Billionaire isn’t going to quit showing but she doesn’t make up the majority of the membership.
Stop supporting them and they’ll wake up.
“Suzie Billionaire” either owns or provides horses to the USEF International teams, in Dressage, Show Jumping and increasingly in Eventing. That is what USEF cares about and it will continue without the plebeians.
I disagree.
Even if you are right, are we just going to keep screaming into the void or actually do something?
ETA: WEC wouldn’t play ball with USEF and USEF changed their tune. That’s one show venue. What happens if competitors and show venues refuse to support them?
I was able to insure a horse up to 21 so long as the horse was covered by 18. Most insurance companies don’t have this option, however, mine did. BTW, ASPCA offers health insurance w/out Mortality (limited in some states). I’m sure the trainers waive the insurance for horses of certain ages, especially since they are likely no longer surgical candidates.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that some programs are just different than yours?
I suppose some people are “screaming into the void”? most of the horsey people I know are not.
Dressage people are sending emails to USDF, USEF, and the FEI about the Parra abuse, as the Jumper people (who cared) did when Kocher and Ryan were abusing horses.
USEF"s new “Social License” concern has put it in a situation where they can’t ignore abuse anymore, especially when its members speak out loudly to them about the subject and whomever can, provides proof.
They know that people are noticing now. That is why I brought up Devin Ryan, and will continue to do so with USEF every time he is put on a U.S. team.
Many people were outraged that he was put on a team, but many people weren’t paying attention and had no idea what he had done.
Dressage people are sending emails to USDF, USEF, and the FEI about the Parra abuse, as the Jumper people (who cared) did when Kocher and Ryan were abusing horses.
USEF"s new “Social License” concern has put it in a situation where they can’t ignore abuse anymore, especially when its members speak out loudly to them about the subject and whomever can provides video or photo proof.
They know that people are noticing now. That is why I brought up Devin Ryan, and will continue to do so with USEF every time he is put on a U.S. team.
Many people were outraged that he was put on a team, but many people weren’t paying attention and had no idea what he had done.
ETA: I am nobody as far as USHJA and USEF are concerned , but I have emailed a USHJA official on two separate occasions who then contacted USEF, and action was taken.
What difference does it make to a trainer whether or not MY horse is insured? My financial investment in the animal and my responsibility for the vet bills… I can see strongly suggesting it, because it can sometimes be a good thing to have , but to “require” it? Yeah, no.
If a trainer wants to “require” someone insure their horse the trainer should have to pay for it. I’m sorry but that’s really some balls.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
