I don't understand why "good" riders are so against this system.  If you can meet the requirements then there is no problem.

It doesn't matter to me if it's rider or horse that needs to earn points.  Both are ridiculous IMO.  When did I give up my right to look like a fool in front of my peers?

 Again, why should I (and others like me) be financially penalized because a handful of riders are too dense to figure out they're not good enough to ride at an upper level? 

Why should I be forced to show against "lesser" riders who are going to be annoyed, to say the least, that my overly qualified horse beat out their hard work? How is that fair to riders at lower levels--"Sorry, old chap, I have to bring my Grand Prix abilities to this L1 test.  Got to earn those points you know.  Stiff upper lip now!" 

How does THAT make sense?

Dressage is one horse, one rider and one test.  If you're not good enough, your scores will reflect it.  If you're not smart enough, you won't do anything to change it except buy a more expensive horse & trainer.  Not that that's "smart" by any means.  

Seriously, what does it hurt to have a small group of people look like fools?  No one respects them.  They get laughed at.  They don't make the international teams.   Why punish all of us for their stubborness? 

Afraid we are just coming at this issue from two different perspectives and until I know more information about what is really being suggested I am going to bow out.  I am really not a confrontational person unless I know all the facts and can discuss and not just speculate.  My ultimate goal is the healthy well being of the horses.  If there were a system holding the riders accountable for how the horses are ridden I think this could help the horses and improve their training.  Maybe it will just come down to much harsher scores on the rider on each test.  The coeffecient for the rider has already gone up. Now maybe the judges just need to really be harsh to the ones who deserve it.  It will be interesting to see how all of this pans out.

I don't disagree with you on the health & well-being of the horses, however I think it's a separate issue from earning points to show higher.  Abuse can happen anywhere at any time by anyone.

Abuse happening on the grounds needs to be reported and promptly handled by show management.  Abuse at home can be reported to the authorities (and trainers shunned for the practice!!)  Horrible riding/borerline abuse in the ring needs to be excused and harshly penalized by the judges. 

People train to what wins in the ring (ie, peanut pushers or teacup feet).  If they don't win, they'll be forced to change.

I do not think that earning points is a good way to weed out abusive riders.  Where's the accountability after they pass to L3?  "OK, I'll do what I need to on this schoolmaster then I can do what I want at the higher levels."  What's to stop them from pushing a 5 year old too hard after they pass Go and collect their $200?

Peer pressure is a system already in place to handle accountability. Unfortunately it's being used in reverse, allowing the schoolyard bullies to get away with whatever they want.  Look at what some BNT get away with as it is.  They have no accountability because we give them the power.  We need to stop being so afraid of upsetting the bullies.  Another downfall of political correctness: don't upset the apple cart!

Again, I don't understand why everyone needs to be penalized for the few that feel they must resort to abuse to win a silly ribbon or some bragging rights.  That's what I see happening with the system of earning the right to show.  Give people the benefit of the doubt and only hang those that truly deserve it.

As to why a good rider would oppose or want to skip a level, I'll give you an example.  I prefer to spend my time/money/energy currently training and then bring my horse out at 3rd.  I have spent the winter in Florida with my trainer.  It has made more sense to do this with my young horse as he's needed to be challenged.  I've ridden the other levels, and the bottom line is that my horse knows what the show ring is, and he doesn't need to go out and just show for the sake of showing.  Been there, done that. 

He's quite a nice young horse and he's a quick study, and is hovering right now between 2nd and 3rd.  If I spend the time and get his changes, then he will be ready to come out at 3rd.  If the rule were in place, I'd have to spend my time right now, to go out to shows, get points, and then move up.  I like being able to do what is best for my horse.

IF the requirement are 20 points (it was discussed that it would be less) it still will require several shows to gain the number points, which just mandates showing and money in USEF/USDF pocket (not to mention gas, stabling, more adminstration fees, etc).  Now, granted, it is a one time thing, but still--what exactly does it prove, since it does not PROVE good riding.  If this rule, as it was proposed, is supposed to increase good riding, and stop poor riding, then I don't exactly see how this computes. 

In addition, it takes the USDF quite a long time to get the show results posted on their website, so what if during the season a rider gets their required number of points?  How will this exactly work.  Will the rider have to wait for the USDF to verify, and if so, how will they expidite the process--or will the rider have to wait and if so, then be penalized because of their slow system.  And if they end up getting a system that is faster, who is going to pay for it--the membership?

How much more expensive can dressage get?  And, is it becoming more and more elitist in doing so?  My guys are really nice expressive warmbloods, but some other discussions have centered around if this is going push average horses out of the picture.

You touch on important points Mikhail.  

Mikhail:

My guys are really nice expressive warmbloods, but some other discussions have centered around if this is going push average horses out of the picture.

I was just wondering what you meant by this and how these standard negatively affect other breeds.

What I meant was that on other discussion boards, where this has been extensively discussed, on of the issues has been that people who have horses other than WB breeds are worried or are discussing the fact that because gaits DO factor into HOW tests are scored, that the "average" mover will find himself/herself having to do more shows to get the required number of shows, and this is of concern, generally in a negative sense.  People are also worried that this is making the sport more elistist.

I happen to have warmbloods now, just a statement of fact.  There are horses out there for everyone.  When we ride a good acurate test, with good acurate training, our scores are higher than the scores I had when I used to show my TB--just the way it is.   

I have mixed filling about this. It doesn't help those of us who spend more time schooling then showing, not all of us can show every weekend and have to be selective about which shows we go to. But it is also good for those riders/horses who don't belong in a certain level. I for example have to drive an hour down a mountain and then some to get to a show. Since everyone where I live rides western/gymkhana.

Last year I went to a dressage show and saw a horse/rider in Grand Prix, which certainly didn't belong there. She could hardley sit the trot and canter. She was bouncing all over the place, felt sorry for her horse who could barely piaffe/passage.

Mind you, I'm schooling First Level and plan on showing next season.