BE are getting rid of balloting

Ambers Echo

Ambers Echo

Still wittering on
Joined
13 October 2017
Messages
11,949
Visit site
I’m sure opinion will be divided but I’m very pleased about that. The ballot system did my head in.

Also entries will no longer be via BE website from 2024 which I think is in recognition that the website is totally shite! Helen West commented something along the lines of - BE is not an IT service and should not try to be. Quite.
 
Ok. Nice about the balloting

the website is sh*te - but I really appreciate all the info for fixtures, classes and then entries in one place. I don’t suppose you know any more than that?

Really could do without having to convolute the whole procedure more.
 
The article on it is on HHO - I’ve run out of free articles so can’t link to it. But there’s lots of info. I’m feeling quite optimistic x
 
I expect organisers will hide the number of entries as their prerogative.

No issues for me though used to love filling out my paper form, adding my sticker and sending off my SAE ? that was a long time ago.

I have moaned about the calendar in the SW for years so interested to see.
 
It was to also interesting to read that venues hosting BE will not be able to host UA events within two weeks of the BE one. Wonder how this will affect UA fixtures such as Brigante Cup next year. PC not affected though.
 
There was a really good equiratings podcast with the BE chairman a couple of weeks ago where he spoke about why they were getting rid of balloting and trying to sort the fixtures calendar.

I find it odd that people worry so much about losing the ballot system and yet the lack of it is cited as a good point of the UA events and the struggle this year has been to get enough entries to run events rather than people not being able to enter.
 
I think it is a good move. I hope it is administered a lot more fairly that the ballot system.

When I started, I somehow thought ballot meant like a lucky dip, fair to each person. After a few years, I had a friend who was much better connected than me. It soon became apparent that they could have entry where they liked, at short notice, and they were NEVER balloted.

I only realised the extent of the old boy's system when I was balloted from an event, their event was cancelled, and they switched plans and got a late entry to the one I was on the wait list for. Sticks in your throat!

At least they told me what to put on my entry form to reduce balloting, but how unfair! To me, an UA event runs its own rules. If the organiser of a privately run event wants friends in, they heck, it is their party and they can invite who they like. If people don't like it, they can choose to enter elsewhere. They are beholden to no-one.

But, with a national FEI organisation, that should be fair. It is funded as it is an Olympic sport and they are the people who do the qualifications for the national system. It is not some backyard organisation, or at least it should not be. A ballot system should be done by computer, random draw. I don't mind the rules whereby only X amount of entries each person until everyone with a priority entry is in etc, that seems equitable, but then that must be stuck to. I had a priority turned down at ballot when some riders had 5 entries in at a popular event. Blatant rule breaking.

I also hated the slow return of money when balloted. It was a substantial sum of money that I may have needed to try to get an entry elsewhere.

However, I have little faith that the new first come, first served system will be fair either. If it becomes an open to view entry system, that would be to the good.
 
There are lots of positive changes at BE, but I'm not sure removing the ballot system is one of them. I personally think it should remain in place for events with a history of being over subscribed. It is fundamentally fairer than a FCFS system - particularly for people with concerns about cashflow, and as a decision making date for horses where we have concerns about little niggles or fitness which are best decided with more information nearer the time.

Edited to add - I think there's logic in removing it from events that historically haven't been oversubscribed. It's wrong that it was a barrier to people entering.

Other changes suggested sound good. Good on the commitment to not run unaff in 2 weeks prior/after unless PC etc. People can enter "Go BE" now - events should be encouraging people to enter these classes as their stepping stone unaff/aff option.
 
Last edited:
Great decision, I much prefer knowing that once I enter and hand over my money I definitely have a run.
Absolutely bizarre that an event could hold your money for weeks and weeks, decide you aren't getting a run, and then take further weeks to refund you.
If they could sort out a single, transparent, waitlist policy alongside then this would be perfect!

I also really support this proactive and bold approach to management and challenging the status quo, I hope it pays off for BE.
 
The problem will come with the very popular oversubscribed events.

That said, things change and on balance I’m glad BE are trying out different ways.

Time will tell

They will also need to sort out the withdrawals/refunds
 
millitiger said:
Great decision, I much prefer knowing that once I enter and hand over my money I definitely have a run.
Absolutely bizarre that an event could hold your money for weeks and weeks, decide you aren't getting a run, and then take further weeks to refund you.
If they could sort out a single, transparent, waitlist policy alongside then this would be perfect!

I also really support this proactive and bold approach to management and challenging the status quo, I hope it pays off for BE.
Click to expand...

I’m not a BE competitor but this sounds right to me. I never realised that the ballot wasn’t just a random selection, and that there was some subjectivity going on (reds post)!
 
It has always been clearly stated in the rules that organizers can accept entries who they specially want to accept, though they do have to follow the protocol as it's not the first criteria. It's generally used to reward those who volunteer/ provide volunteers but I'm sure there are other credible reasons
 
Bernster said:
I’m not a BE competitor but this sounds right to me. I never realised that the ballot wasn’t just a random selection, and that there was some subjectivity going on (reds post)!
Click to expand...

Yes, an organiser could prioritise somebody who helps an event for example. But there was also a formal order of ballot, Which prioritised full members and also allowed people to specify what they're absolute must do events were by using a super ballot sticker. Having been a member for 20 years and originally entered on paper with physical ballot stickers, I have always found the system to be good. In fact I've only ever been balleted once! But perhaps I'm just a dinosaur...
 
I liked the acknowledgement that "the rise of the unaffiliated market is the biggest wake-up call that we can have and it’s never going away".

Accepting reality and then working out how to move on from there, rather than blaming the public for making different choices has always seemed to me to be a much better starting point for reform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top