In the April issue of Dressage Today you'll find a report on new performance standards that are being considered by the USEF Dressage Committee. The gist is that riders wanting to ride at Third Level and above will need to qualify to do so by gaining qualifying scores first. The rules are not set yet, but it has caused a lot of controversy. The DC has been working on this for more than a year. Read it and let me know what do you think?

Thanks,

Patty

  I know some people won't like this, but I think its a good idea.  Honestly, I have only shown up to 1st level, but have schooled higher.  I have been to a few shows and been very peeved when I see someone showing a higher level than they or their horse is ready for and all you see is their hands see-sawing back and forth while the horse is hollow backed and ears pinned.  I think this new system will help to weed out those who still need to stay at a lower level before moving on. 

  There is also a negative side, some horses and riders may not have the movement to actually get a high enough score, I had a horse not too long ago that could do just about every move in the book, but b/c of a disorder he had, he could engage as much as other horses.  In that case or in other cases where some horses are just naturally less engaged, I think it will be very hard on their riders when the horse can "do" the movement, but it isn't as flashy as other combos.

   I am all for a system that holds people accountable for their perfomances at the shows.  It is ridiculous that there are people showing at 3rd level and above who brag about the level they are showing but consistently get scores below 55%.  Someone needs to tell these people that they are not doing it correctly and maybe this system will ring the clue phone for them.  I am so tired of seeing horses jammed together more and more and just pushed up through the levels while not really correctly performing half the movements.

Yeah, I remember hearing that. I initially thought it was a good thing and would establish a certain standard and better quality riding but what about someone who has a 4th level -or a grand prix etc..- horse, trains and schools appropriately - just hasn't competed (after all, there are people that ride very well -just don't show). If they decide to show, do they start all the way in the begining at training/first level? It seems unfair to them.

Instead, what I personally think would be a better solution is to have riders that cannot achieve a certain score at their current level disqualfied (or eliminated etc) so they can't show at that level and they drop a level. Or something like that. But i definitely think that there should be some way of making sure that those ride a certain level have the ability and skills to do so.

  I think its a good idea, but I also think there is a better way to go about it.  How about having a regional show a few times a year and people who want to move up go to this show.  The judge(s) evaluate the team and decide if they think they are ready to move up.  I have only shown up to first level due to time and money contraints, but I have lessons every week and a horse that is solid 2nd schooling 3rd, so does that mean we aren't ready to move up?  He's fully engaged, happy and attentive, no rollkur here, lol.  Really its a great idea, again I just think it could be done a different way to incorporate people from every lifestyle bracket.  

    I don't know about you guys, but b/c of diesel prices, I have had to cut back to three events a year and just a few handful of shows (mostly schooling events).  I wonder if they could add schooling shows also?  That might help those of us who can't afford the really pricey shows.

 Ditto by the way, lol.  There are even a few trainers around here who are really pushed to get owner's horses moved up, the result is after a year or so the horse is either lame, or worn out and unhappy with their job.

OK, now that I have voice my opinion that I am all for a system to hold rider accountable I need some clarification.  Once a rider has accumulated the necessary points at Training-2nd level are they allowed to show any horse at 3rd and so on up through the levels?  If this is the case then I have no problem at all with the system.  If it means that each horse has to move up through the system then the system is flawed.  However if someone has never shown at all I don't have an issue with them having to start at 2nd level and moving up after they qualify.  There are a lot of sports were you have to prove your abilities before you are allowed to participate at the top level.  I think it's time we recognized this in dressage.  Just because one buys a horse trained to Grand Prix does not make one a Grand Prix rider.  Seeing riders flopping around like fish out of water at the FEI level is not doing anything positive for our sport.

 The initial version of the proposed standard was poorly conceived and even more poorly presented to the membership; the next version has not yet made its appearance for review and comments. The fact that the available data does not support the Dressage Committee's comments re: '30% rides' did not help the case, either.

There are certainly problems in how dressage rides are evaluated: the collective marks do not give sufficient detail to allow judges to adequately tell riders how they are doing; judges are not giving poor rides low scores; trainers are allowing / encouraging riders to compete above their skill levels; riders are not taking personal responsibility for their performance.  But these are problems that WILL NOT BE SOLVED by a mandatory performance standard imposed on ALL riders.  The data shows that the number of low scoring rides is very small; imposing the costs and administrative burdens on ALL riders to address problems with a few is not good decision-making on the part of the USEF. 

 An open dialog with the membership would have a much better chance of producing truly useful and relevant changes ... if there is a problem which needs a global solution.

*Star* 

I'm going to have to agree with Star here.  I am an active competitor, who trains with two active FEI trainers.  I feel strongly that the proposed rule will not horribly affect me; however, I do not think that the way that the article in DT portrayed the Performance Standards issue is entirely correct, but instead seemed to "gloss" over what is being discussed over many of the other BBs.  Rebecca Yount is very active in trying to get the USDF to release data, and I believe some has actually been done so at this time. 

Another problem is that the grandfathering in of riders who actually ride poorly.  Lots of the poor riding is coming from people who already have their Bronze medals.  Super, great, but come on folks, how is this, if "poor riding" is actually the issue going to be addressed when you are allowing people who already ride poorly in with a bye.  That makes no sense whatsoever. 

Another thing, while I realize that the standards are being re-evaluated and will be presented at a later date, how about the people who have to really travel.  I have friends in the Mid-West who will be majorly impacted with the gas prices, the shows offered, so the initial 20 points is really quite insane, and to be honest, just what seems to be a ploy to bring in more money to an organization that already hits the competitor hard.  How much more are we going to see in costs for the competitor if this program is implemented?  And what about the time lag in recording scores when you want to move up during the year?  Has anyone actually seen how long it takes the USDF to record a show during the year?  How is that logistically going to be addressed?

And how is this actually going to fix poor riding?  Has that actually going to be explained.  I've seen Rebecca's statistics that she has posted on the scores, etc, and I'm afraid I have to concur that the explaination about WHY the Dressage Committee wants to do this makes little to no sense to me.  Again, my horse scores well, my trainers are excellent and do not let me show until I'm ready to score 65+ at a level, so I don't see it really affecting me much, except in the pocketbook--forcing me to show a horse at a level a certain number of times to earn a number of points. 

I think this is really about the USEF/USDF earning/gaining credibility in the International ring, based on a system that is based on a much smaller geographic area such as Germany and the people it is really going to affect are the people on the average horse, with average trainers, who don't have $$$$$ to spend going to lots of shows, and that is a real shame.  They really need to get REAL.

I guess I don't have a problem with people who think they're better riders than they really are going out and attempting tests that in reality are far beyond their skills.  If they want to pay to look like idiots, who am I to argue?

Where I DO have a problem is when judges do not penalize them for their mistakes.  Perhaps it's a fear of getting a reputation as a overly tough judge?  Oooh, scary.  I'd much rather ride for a tough, but fair, judge than an easy one who's afraid to upset some spoiled DQ.

Stop rewarding mediocrity & blatant idiocy and the problem will sort itself out without resorting to a badly thought-out qualification system.

But it's not about them embarassing themselves, some don't seem to care.  I have watched competitors get really low scores at one level abusing their horse and doing everything incorrectly come back later in the season or the next season and try to show at a higher level.  The judges do penalize these riders but if there are no other repercussions then they just keep using the same bad habits.  There needs to be some sort of system of checks and balances to let these people know this is unacceptable.  Maybe the proposed system needs to be revised but I guess I don't understand why the people who are riding correctly already and will be grandfathered in have problems with the system. 

     Am I misunderstanding something?  The rider has to accumulate the points correct?  It's not each horse who has to accumulate points is it?  That would be ridiculous.  I am all for a system that makes a rider prove they can correctly ride all the movements required for Training thru 2nd level before they can move up to 3rd level.  Then they should have to prove themself at each level above that.  I can not think of another sport where one can simply show up and register to compete at the top levels without proving themselve some in the lower levels.  Talk about promoting the elitist egotistical stereotype of dressage.

Abusive riding is a whole other ballgame, above & beyond the ability to ride well.  Where is show management when the abuse is going on?  Where are witnesses with their cameras to record the proof?  Abusive people need to be reported & kicked off the grounds immediately.  That's not USDF's problem, that's local management & fellow exhibitors falling down on the job.

Why are judges not giving harsher penalties for those bad habits?  Why are they not excusing the worst offenders from the ring?  "You don't belong here.  Go back to Training Level."

Why can't I show up and ride a Third Level test?  I've been riding since I was 11.  I'm rather good at it & I've been told Bailey has Third Level canter.  If I'm schooling properly but haven't been competing (I currently can't afford to show), why can't I show up and ride a test to find out how good we really are--or aren't?  Why do I have to dink around at the lower levels and waste money I may not have just to prove to others that I'm capable of riding higher when dressage is supposed to be about me, my horse and the test in front of us, regardless of who we're competing against?  If I suck, my scores should show it.  If I have half a brain, I'll pay attention.

What about the people who live in areas where there aren't a lot of rated dressage shows to go to in order to earn those points?  Under the proposed rules, they could be forced to drive long distances to get the right shows & right judges...or they'd have to give it up when finances became to tight.  What is the point of pricing people out of this sport? 

Who are we trying to impress?  The Europeans?  Why?  Why does it matter if a few people try to ride higher than they're capable of?   Why would you even care if I'm too dense to realize I'm a horrible rider?  Isn't that my problem?

Let scores reflect the ride and let peer pressure drive out those who don't belong.  There's no need to shove more regulations down people's throats.  The world is too rule-crazy as it is.

JMHO!!

I agree with you WiMorabs. If you (as a horse-rider team) capable of doing 3rd, 4th, grand prix etc. there's no point in requiring them to start out at training and require them to earn points so that they'll go to first, second etc.. till they treach their true level. This system punishes the good while attempting to control the bad. I've known experienced horsemen doing this their whole lives but do not compete. If they wanted to compete it would be unfair to start them from the beggining.

I think though that if a rider consistently gets low points at her current level, she should be banned from that level and moved to a lower level. And those that abuse the horse during the process should - well their actions should have greater consequences - such as being banned for 6 months, a year etc..

But there is no current rule saying if you consistently score poorly at this level you HAVE to move down and show at a lower level.  Currently if you are receiving low scores at 2nd level you can just slap in a double bridle and move up to 3rd.   This is why they are trying to come up with a system to hold riders accountable.  Maybe what you are suggesting could be turned in to a viable option but something needs to be implemented. 

No one is answering my main question either:  does the rider need to earn the points or the horse and rider team?  I don't think each horse should have to move up through the ranks I however don't have an issue with a rider needing to prove their abilities.  This system is not attempting to punish the good.  If you have already received the scores at the lower levels you will be grandfathered in to the system.

Also they realize that the system needs to be reworked as it is organized right now.  That's why it has been tabled for work currently.  I don't understand why "good" riders are so against this system.  If you can meet the requirements then there is no problem.

The system is based on the assumption that "good" riders are also showing. I was just looking at it from the perspective of a good, advanced rider that hasn't shown. And the burden that they would face to compete at their true level of skill. But maybe I'm missing something here?