How Are The Evaluaters At Futurity Or Gradings Evaluated?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She will get back to you and tell you, contrary to what some posts on this thread have implied <sigh>.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who wonders what problem there is with publicising a list of judges on a website with details of them? It seems the BEF are not doing themselves any favours skirting round this issue.

You are putting on an event to hopefully be of benefit to British Breeding, and your breeders are asking for what seems very simple information. The voices of those people you are trying to encourage to attend your events are being ignored, and it seems your sarcasm does not help to put out the flames.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK what I suggest (following a conversation with Jan this morning) is that you contact Jan -- ask her the questions raised by the OP (which were not actually the ones asked by the person who said they asked them last year as they only asked who would be present -- and was given a probably answer which actually turned out to be at least 50% wrong becuase of illness etc and no question was asked about training or CVs) and then report back to the forum what she says as this is obviously the only way the small group that keep posting about this (compared to the probably 800 that will take part I mean) can satisfy their conspiracy theories. Or what is acutally totally certain have them compleetly dashed by her responses of course.

So its up to you, if that is how strongly you feel about it as you all have Jan's contact details and she does return calls even when very busy. But then that probably fractures your world picture of the Futuirty too, so I am pretty sure you will not try it. OTOH if you don't I am sure that someone else who is new to the system will them, probably someone who does not have some sort of obscure alternative agenda to follow and has been genuinely worried by your posts and therefore possibly delayed entering until the answer was known, thus possibly actually loosing a space they would have been able to claim if they had entered earlier. Now that could be an alternative agends of course, cause distrust so there are more spaces for your own late entries, if it is how sad <sigh>

So we all await your report of the conversation, not that it will put your mind at ease (or those that you have deliberately unsettled) as that never happens for conspiracy theorists.

So what about letting this thread drift for a bit until you get her official BEF answers and then report them, instead of surmising why you haven;t had them Seems a much more reasonable way to progress if you ask me.
 
I did not have Jan's email so sent it via the BEF website for queries. As it went from my home PC I wont know if there has been a reply or not until tonight. If I get a reply I will post unless someone else gets there 1st. I basically copied the post (so as not to get anything incorrect!!) & then added a bit about how you go about getting training.
 
Gosh Ciss I hope you dont believe anyone is questioning the evaluator's credentials and futurity idea, I'm sorry you read that into the posts.

As an outsider to the futurity (never had anything to enter), I have read all the posts and think it is reasonable that if evaluator names are known then a short bio would be appropriate and not too much to ask.

Agree with you probably not the place to discuss on a forum and should be directed to BEF directly.

Just one comment, I did watch at one futurity and as an outsider agreed with all the evaluator comments. Was pleased I was looking and seeing the right things. I thought it was a great event and one day I will have something to enter.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have read as many of the threads as I can and would like to say that I have been informed by BEF that they cannot guarantee that the assessors down for each venue will be the same on the day. This is a problem for me as I wouldn't go under some of the assessors listed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well as none of us can totally predict the future even the bEf cannot guarentee who will be at whcih one almsot alwasy becuase of emergency illness (nb the Scottish one last year and I dropped out of a couple following my Sunnybank injury) so to think that it is some major conspiracy to get your youngster evaluated by someone who doesn't like you/ your horse / your breeding programme is rather a strange reason for not attending. But thej the choice is yours and if you have been frightened off by the posts of others ratehr than accept the fact that things change / people get sick etc then that is very sad. But there is nothing anyone can do about it I feel.

[ QUOTE ]
I also cannot understand how they can evaluate a yearling upwards against breeding type - knowing the sire - when they would have no idea what the mare looks like (despite her breeding).

[/ QUOTE ]

Come to an evaluator training day (totally transparent) and learn how it is done then.

[ QUOTE ]
I watched one evaluation and marks changed when the breeding was known

[/ QUOTE ]
As the evaluators know the breeding in advance this will not have been the reason any scores changed (and how do you know they did, if you overheard a discussion on the marks whilst you were holding the horse it was them coming to a decsion not changing the marks), it could well have been something in the movement that only became apparent after they had shown all three paces etc.

As i say to everyone, if you wnat to find out how it works, ask Jan if you can come to a training day.
 
[ QUOTE ]
. Now that could be an alternative agends of course, cause distrust so there are more spaces for your own late entries, if it is how sad <sigh>



[/ QUOTE ]


Lol, well that counts me out of your conspiracy theory then, <sigh>

This thread has proved beyond doubt that I am not alone in my questions and not just muck stirring as you insist; that couldn't be further from the truth in spite of you trying to tar me as such; they were legitimate questions with certainly no need for your cloak and dagger responses.
I thought the answers should have been in the public domain somewhere long before this but just hidden under a mountain I couldn't find because I am so computer illiterate. How wrong I was, lol!
It must be said though that it is a shame that the evaluators that actually use this forum haven't felt able to help either as they must know at least some of the answers, as I expected you to, seeing as it was originally your 'baby' and you still have a large input to it.

Magic, thank you for doing that; my friends will be pleased to get answers from somebody at last; perhaps we should take a breather until then.
 
I've followed this thread with total disbelief, surely The futurity system is supposed to be helping the breeding industry work together not splitting it!
I can see no reason whatsoever a list of "possible" evaluators can't become public knowledge, if you have as you say total confidence in their training and ability it's making them look as if they have something to hide.
If you are representing the organisation sarcasm and an aura of world weariness when questions are asked is not appropriate I feel.
I think the idea of evaluation is excellent, but it must not degenerate into some sort of secret society where anyone interested in being part of it (and I really was until this secrecy nonsense started)
is put off by the tone of many of your responses.
I'm sorry if replying to queries is difficult for you at a time when you are carrying an injury, but if that is affecting the manner in which you respond perhaps step sideways and allow someone else to do it until you feel better.
I honestly feel the original questions were not malicious, just genuinely interested ones, and there is no underhand aim at all.
A fair end to this thread would be a list of possible evaluators then anyone can make their own minds up whether to attend or not.
 
Its VERY STRANGE indeed, I had to do a double take..............maybe Ciss is right and there are strange goings on in the undergrowth....
grin.gif
. I mean if somebody is going to delete something from my post they could have at least either deleted the whole thing, or made it make sense....LOL.
grin.gif


Edited to say I deleted the post myself because it made no sense at all!!

My very much shortened version is - there are no conspiracy theories, just some simple questions (and I will forward again my comments to Jan). I think a simple profile of each evaluator give participants informed information, which in the long run will be of benefit to the Futurity and its transparency.

From what I can see there are no derogatory remarks at all about the actual Futurity, its process or Evaluators. Very sadly I found Ciss to be quite condescending and belittling in her comments of others, which was uncalled for, and I cannot see how that helps a situation at all (whether that was your intention or not).

Now if this post is doctored in any way I aint posting again....LOL.
 
I will risk deletion by Admin by saying-

I too have no axe to grind with the Futurity and no immediate vested interest in as much as I have no youngstock of an age to go forward; I did not cover last year.

However in the long term as a breeder I DO have a vested interest; I have seen the Futurity grow in importance and inject real enthusiasm into breeders, especially small breeders who do not have a shopwindow for their stock or access to expert advice and opinion.

I may be wrong but I think it is the only event, short of the competition arena itself which has managed to bring together the fragmented and varied aspects of British breeding and compare young sportshorses across the whole range of stud books and breeding policies.

It has grown and is still growing and developing as it grows. I believe it has now gone beyond being the private idea of a group of cognoscenti and has become public property; which is why it now needs transparency and a publicised structure for evaluation, managemant, training, finance, in line with ANY ORGANISATION WITH A DUTY TO ITS PUBLIC AND THIS DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE. It needs this both for its own sake - "ask Jan" is not enough- whilst the personal touch is nice, how is Jan going to cope with - how many hundred entrants? ringing up to ask who is evaluating? AND TO MAINTAIN ITS CREDIBILITY as it expands and grows. The need is a measure of its own success.

I suspect this whole thread has arisen because of a rumour doing the rounds that an inappropriate and in no sense qualified person had effectively "bought" their way in to the ranks of the selectors. The rumour was (apparently) started by the person concerned and (apparently) later negated; it is history and will not happen.

However, that this rumour could take root at all shows how vulnerable the credibility of the Futurity is to mischief of this kind. It is TOO VALUABLE TO BE DAMAGED IN THIS WAY, and the calls for more transparency and a clear structure to evaluator choices are NOT a criticism of the people in power at present; rather the opposite; they are a compliment to the Futurity's success- and its coming of age.
 
See, when I go showing I have a judges name in the schedule before I make the decision to go. Yes, they then might be ill, or unable to go, but that is a chance everyone takes.

I can look the person up, ask friends etc and feel I will be putting my animals under knowledgeable eyes - the person has met a criteria, and I can see the criteria.

With the Futurity, although we are being assuered the evaluators are good, we haven't seen their criteria. Also, it wouldn't be impossible to have a page of the Futurity website dedicated to the evaluators - with an Evaluaton Panel page, detailing a bit about the evaluators. OK so you might not be able to be 100% who goes where, but we can all see what leve they are on, and that anyone going to any venue will have an evlauator that reaches the specified level. Theres no point in having different levels if you can't say why one person is there and another is not.

As for being treated with sarcasm and as HH put it "a world weary tone", please don't insult the intellegence of those who are putting animals forwards for evaluation, long hard decisions have been made to get that animal where it is, that doesn't come without a mediocum of intellegence.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect this whole thread has arisen because of a rumour doing the rounds that an inappropriate and in no sense qualified person had effectively "bought" their way in to the ranks of the selectors. The rumour was (apparently) started by the person concerned and (apparently) later negated; it is history and will not happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we do get to the real knub of it <ROFL> . I was told about this rumour -- and the statement that Jan and I had been schmoozed by the peron concerned into allowing them (I think we all know who we are talking about :-)) onto the List. Apart from the fact that I know they fell about laughing when they heard about it and are well know for having absolutely no wish to judge / evaluate (although actually as they have a degree in sports biomechanics probably have a considerable level of natural skill in that field compared to some sport horse breeders) the bizarre idea that this could be anywhere near the truth does give me concern about the grasp some people have of reality.

[ QUOTE ]
However, that this rumour could take root at all shows how vulnerable the credibility of the Futurity is to mischief of this kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is rather more shocking is that someone not involved probably started this rumour and that it was deliberately fanned without anyone (apart from one particular person whio texted me) having the gumption or courtesy to check with anyone involved the truth of the situation as any good journalist would do, but sadly not those posting on forums generally). Actually Jan never knew anything about it until I told her and she found it very funny but a bit disheartening that a couple of you were so gullible too.

[ QUOTE ]
It is TOO VALUABLE TO BE DAMAGED IN THIS WAY, and the calls for more transparency and a clear structure to evaluator choices are NOT a criticism of the people in power at present; rather the opposite; they are a compliment to the Futurity's success- and its coming of age.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you chose to go about trying to 'expose' the truth in the way you did -- rather than by asking (even if it was on the public forum in the format) of something like 'Is it really true that X has been schmoozing up to people in order to join the evaluators list?' -- is surely more of a problem to the Futuirty than any of the posts on the thread. However, personnaly I did find the post that accused BEF evaluators of being involved in what was obviously a rather poorly run grading (MFH's second post) and the OP's unwillingness to admit that -- for undisclosed reasons -- he/she had combined the two entrely different events a bit difficult to take. I may have been a bit touchy in some of my responses -- and yes I am bound by a code of conduct that limits my input on the how/ why/ what and who of evaluators that you all find so obsessive, but whilst I do know what my responsibilities are as far as evaluator dveelopment I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF ANY GRADING PANEL UNLESS I AM A MEMBER OF IT.

Meanwhile let's just see what Majic's e-mail brings.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I may have been a bit touchy in some of my responses

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me Johan Knapp or Manfred Schäfer any day of the week. For what seems to be a "high standing" member of an organisation to publically act in this way, all I can say is you are either brave or stupid.
 
I am overwhelmed about the number of posts but it seems to me that all we are asking for is a list of evaluators at each venue (whether guaranteed or not)...just as you would find in any normal show/grading schedule.....is this really too much to ask? Although I am know of some of them there are undoubtedly those that are known to none!!
I am amazed at how many words are being written and so little information coming back in response. Names please!
 
[ QUOTE ]
However, personnaly I did find the post that accused BEF evaluators of being involved in what was obviously a rather poorly run grading (MFH's second post) and the OP's unwillingness to admit that -- for undisclosed reasons -- he/she had combined the two entrely different events a bit difficult to take.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ciss, I apologise personally if that post caused you distress, that was not my intention but purely a way to query decisions taken at a grading some time ago. The Futurity was not mentioned and as you later, rightly said, it does not hold ridden sections - which most people know, so was not implied in that post at all; it was the way you chose to take it.

As far as I am concerned and you will cringe at this, I can see you shuddering, lol!, but a Futurity and a Grading are alike in that the animal is graded according to some earlier set out criteria. It is virtually the same process but with a different name. If it is the same for me, having been on here for so long how confusing must it be for newcomers to it all which is another good reason for BEF to become more transparent and willing to listen to requests for the same from their paying public.
 


[/ QUOTE ]
OK what I suggest (following a conversation with Jan this morning) is that you contact Jan -- ask her the questions raised by the OP (which were not actually the ones asked by the person who said they asked them last year as they only asked who would be present -- and was given a probably answer which actually turned out to be at least 50% wrong becuase of illness etc and no question was asked about training or CVs) and then report back to the forum what she says as this is obviously the only way the small group that keep posting about this (compared to the probably 800 that will take part I mean) can satisfy their conspiracy theories. Or what is acutally totally certain have them compleetly dashed by her responses of course.

So its up to you, if that is how strongly you feel about it as you all have Jan's contact details and she does return calls even when very busy. But then that probably fractures your world picture of the Futuirty too, so I am pretty sure you will not try it. OTOH if you don't I am sure that someone else who is new to the system will them, probably someone who does not have some sort of obscure alternative agenda to follow and has been genuinely worried by your posts and therefore possibly delayed entering until the answer was known, thus possibly actually loosing a space they would have been able to claim if they had entered earlier. Now that could be an alternative agends of course, cause distrust so there are more spaces for your own late entries, if it is how sad <sigh>

So we all await your report of the conversation, not that it will put your mind at ease (or those that you have deliberately unsettled) as that never happens for conspiracy theorists.

So what about letting this thread drift for a bit until you get her official BEF answers and then report them, instead of surmising why you haven;t had them Seems a much more reasonable way to progress if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

______________________________________

I have stayed out of this thread so far but sorry, this is getting ruddy ridiculous. The original post was asking for a list of evaluators and a brief CV of who they are and their experience. This is a professional body no? Then WHAT is the problem in providing that to your paying public? Why have you got so upset over this, throwing sarcasm and accusations in. There are no accusations coming in about people NOT being up to the job, merely questions asking WHY they are up to the job.

I assess people to do a specific task for a living, when I visit those people, some ask me what my credentials are to do so. I tell them willingly and without sarcasm, or questioning why they want to know. I am really failing to see what the problem is here and why you think it is an attack, when actually it is not.

Sorry, but I just cannot see the issue.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Now we do get to the real knub of it <ROFL> . I was told about this rumour

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we may be talking about different rumours; rather worrying, but perhaps not surprising that there are two. However I doubt that you would actually know the person I cited well enough to be aware of their educational background- and if you did, I fear it would throw doubts on your own credibility if you found them potentially more competent than most breeders. (ROFL!) With hindsight, the rumour was, indeed, nonsense, but took a hold because THE CORRECT INFORMATION WAS NOT WHERE IT SHOULD BE, IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

However:
[ QUOTE ]
What is rather more shocking is that someone not involved probably started this rumour and that it was deliberately fanned without anyone (apart from one particular person whio texted me) having the gumption or courtesy to check with anyone involved the truth of the situation as any good journalist would do

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest that the shocking thing in this case is that your clientele, including those willingly paying £50 apiece to have their horses evaluated, should be expected to turn journalist in order to find out such basic facts as who is going to do the evaluation.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Jan never knew anything about it until I told her and she found it very funny but a bit disheartening that a couple of you were so gullible too

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly your clientele are less amused.

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that you chose to go about trying to 'expose' the truth in the way you did -- rather than by asking (even if it was on the public forum in the format) of something like 'Is it really true that X has been schmoozing up to people in order to join the evaluators list?' -- is surely more of a problem to the Futuirty than any of the posts on the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see an attempt at an "exposure" in the original post; just some fair and easily answered questions, perhaps less controversial than the question which you suggest; a request for information and possibly some reassurrance as a result of this.

Sorry Ciss, but IMO the damaging aspect is the ongoing lack of transparency, and the surprising inability of those who have had the skill and vision to set up this really worthwhile series, to realise that this transparency is necessary for its ongoing credibility and the next phase of its growth.
 
Right I cant do the pretty colours & change of text etc to hope the following makes sense;

Thank you for contacting the Futurity team today with your queries. I am pleased to supply the answers below in blue.

Very best wishes
Jan


1. Who evaluated the first evaluators and how was it done?

BEF’s British Breeding invited the head of the Swedish young horse evaluation programme to the UK in the early 2000s to train the original team of evaluators for its Young Horse Evaluations Series. Further training sessions followed with what are now Team GBR Captains or Managers and individuals from the competitive disciplines’ own young horse panels were invited to join the evaluator list. Many of these evaluators remain with the Futurity and now comply with our current Futurity Evaluator Selection and Training process, details of which are attached.

2. What qualifications, whether on paper or experience, did the original evaluators have to make those decisions?

The above process outlines this.


3. What qualifications, whether on paper or experience do those now qualified as evaluators have?

The attached Evaluator Selection and Training process outlines this.

4. Who set the criteria they are looking for in the first place and how is that adjusted to take into consideration of the different types in the UK?

The evaluation criteria for equines in each discipline were drafted by the central BEF office using research from evaluation processes worldwide. The scoresheets (now Factsheets 4 – for which there are individual ones for each discipline were then approved by Team GBR Captains or Managers Yogi Breisner, Derek Ricketts and Richard Davison).

5. Why is there not a CV type list of all those approved to evaluator status that is available before people make their entries? It stands to reason that some people will not like your type of horse, that's human nature however good the horse is, so it would be helpful to know you'll not be in front of one of those people. I'm not talking about chasing judges at all but why waste money to be evaluated by people that do not like your type of horse; what advantage is that?

The Factsheets 4 (there is one for each discipline) set out the physical and temperamental attributes of the equines to be evaluated. How the scores are to be allocated are also defined. Evaluators evaluate in teams of 4 (unless circumstances are exceptional) so there is a balance in views across the panel.

6. Why are the evaluators allowed full details of the horse in front of them on the day? Surely the evaluators should be experienced enough for the horse to be judged on its merits on the day and the breeding or connections details should not have any bearing on that assessment. To outsiders and otherwise, that system seems very unfair on unfamiliar breeding/breeders or owners. Whether it is or not is beside the point, it is the appearance of giving everyone the same fairest chance that matters.

By public demand, it is our policy to make information on British bred equines available for everyone, to inform breeding decisions. The answer to Q5 covers equitability.

That's me for now but I'm sure people who use the Futurity and other society gradings will have other questions too as it seems so hard to find these answers.
Seems that despite being asked no one has been forthcoming with a reasonable reply. Also is it possible to explain how someone goes about getting the training to become a panel member? I can't believe it is some sort of secret that can't be shared.
This information has been promptly supplied whenever requested directly to the BEF Futurity team. It is included in the attached Evaluator Selection and Training document.



Many thanks for your time

Thank you for asking

Anyway all I can say is Jan replied straight back & I am sure she is more then happy to answer any other questions or clarify for anyone still not happy. I agree 100% in a very valid post. What I am interested to know though is why has no one every questioned if before now? Gradings have been going on for donkeys years & the BEF Fururity has been going on long enough now for someone to have raised these queries. Anyway I am sure this still wont appease some people.p
 
Good for you, Magic.

Question: [ QUOTE ]
5. Why is there not a CV type list of all those approved to evaluator status that is available before people make their entries?


[/ QUOTE ]


Answer:
[ QUOTE ]
The Factsheets 4 (there is one for each discipline) set out the physical and temperamental attributes of the equines to be evaluated. How the scores are to be allocated are also defined. Evaluators evaluate in teams of 4 (unless circumstances are exceptional) so there is a balance in views across the panel.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? How difficult is this?
 
[ QUOTE ]
What I am interested to know though is why has no one every questioned if before now? Gradings have been going on for donkeys years & the BEF Fururity has been going on long enough now for someone to have raised these queries.

[/ QUOTE ]

CVs/resumes have been requested for several years running and have been refused every single time. Every time, the answer is that evaluators might change at the last minute.
 
Thanks for that Magic and it was good of Jan to answer some of those questions so thoroughly and quickly, I'll certainly give her that.

However, as you can see yourself, question 5 relating to a CV, profile, call it what you will, of evaluators is still not answered at all, probably in the hope we won't notice. The answer to Q6 also was bypassed; nobody has ever questioned why the public have a copy of breeding in front of them.

As to why hadn't these questions been asked before, I am totally bemused that they haven't to be honest - or, perhaps more correctly, that the hierarchy of BEF have seen fit not to answer. If I was investing that much money into an assessment, I sure as hell would want to know who was going to have such an impact on my horse's future.
 
Oops old age is catching up forgot the attachment!!

British Equestrian Federation (BEF) Futurity
Evaluator Selection and Training Process


What is the Futurity?

A series of evaluations for potential sport horses and ponies from foals to three years destined for careers as dressage horses, showjumpers, eventers and endurance horses and ponies. The Futurity seeks to identify elite horses for the World Class Equine Pathway as well as helping breeders to impartially evaluate the youngstock they are producing. The Futurity is an evaluation, as distinct from a show. Horses are scored on how they meet set criteria for the discipline they are bred for – in other words, their performance potential.

The Futurity partly fulfils Aim 8, of The Strategy for the Horse Industry in England and Wales (2005), to “improve the quality and breeding of our horses and ponies”.

Challenge

In order for the Futurity process to develop as system which has the confidence of its participants and the confidence of World Class Equine Pathway selectors, it needs to have transparency, clarity and integrity. We would like to develop a system and processes which have the confidence of the industry and can be shared with any organisation which wishes to evaluate young horses and ponies.

The BEF is committed to continuous development of the Futurity so that it serves the purpose of identifying not only elite horses of the future but of providing constructive, objective and encouraging feedback to breeders of performance sports horses and ponies, whatever market they are aimed at.

The Futurity will continually use objective research methods to evaluate the system’s ability to identify performance horses of the future and adapt its processes where necessary.

Part of the integrity of the Futurity lies in the selection and training process for evaluators.

Alongside the selection and training process for evaluators will lie a training programme for selected sport horse vets which will be run in conjunction with the British Equine Veterinary Association as part of their Continuous Professional Development system. This is currently under development.

Evaluator categories

Futurity evaluators are categorised into three lists.

List 1 comprises individuals with considerable experience of and a culture of working with BEF on its former Young Horse Evaluations and on the current Futurity. List 1 evaluators have been invited by the BEF to feature here because of their proven experience of working with and/or evaluating potential performance sport horses. List 1 judges who assess show jumping or dressage horses must attend at least one stallion grading or young horse championship per year which must be with a World Breeding Federation for Sport Horses (WBFSH) member studbook which features in the top 10 of the annual WBFSH rankings and/or attend the WBFSH annual General Assembly (in particular its judging and evaluating seminars) and/or or the relevant WBFSH World Championships for Young Horses in either Dressage or Showjumping. This is mandatory in order that these evaluators keep in touch with the changing trends in the modern sport horse such that they have the capability of assessing where talent lies and do not relying upon assessing horses purely for conformational ‘correctness’ which, although important, is not a defining factor in assessing performance potential.
List 1 judges who assess eventers must have either competed in eventing to an advanced level themselves or have a proven record of breeding and producing young horses to a national level and they must ensure that they work closely with the BEF World Class Equine Pathway process. Attendance at senior championships from time to time is necessary and attendance at Team GBR training sessions for eventers is a necessity. BEF provides contacts and details.
All List 1 evaluators are asked to contribute to the development of the Lead Body for British Performance Sport Horses and Ponies (PSHP).

List 2 comprises experienced individuals who are less familiar with evaluation process because they have not, usually through pressures of work and/or other professional equestrian commitments, been able to work with us as often as evaluators on List 1. List 2 judges must always work with two List 1 judges. Once the BEF has deemed that a List 2 has sufficient experience, they may be moved to List 1. Likewise, if a List 1 judge is not able to fulfil the terms of List 1, they may be moved to List 2. A List review is carried out once per year, in October.

List 3 comprises individuals who are accepted to be apprentice evaluators following an established process. This process is as follows. Potential List 3 evaluators must:

1. Apply in writing to the BEF to be on List 3, stating their reasons for wishing to be an evaluator and their experience in the equestrian sector (CV). It is preferred that List 3 applicants have not only a knowledge of breeding and bloodlines and have bred horses that have been successful in competition but have also kept and produced/competed horses themselves.

2. Supply a 500 word written piece describing what the modern sport horse and pony is. Their written piece must cover, in brief, how the sports of dressage, eventing and show jumping have evolved recently, how breeding needs to evolve to keep pace with the demands of the sports, whether or not ‘perfect’ or ‘textbook’ conformation is required in the elite equine athlete and why, and how they believe the Futurity contributes to the development of the performance sport horse and pony sector. In cases of candidates who may not wish to write, the 500 word written piece may be replaced by a 15 minute presentation on the same subject matter, made in person to the selectors at an agreed time and place.

3. If accepted on to List 3, evaluators must evaluate as apprentices at three separate evaluations over two years and be signed off as competent by five different List 1 evaluators during that period in order to be considered for List 2. No scores allocated by a List 3 evaluator will be taken into account in the Futurity evaluation process though they can and will be involved in the discussion relating to the awarding of scores in order that they can learn the process. If a List 3 evaluator is not signed off as competent, they will be asked to evaluate as apprentices for a further three separate evaluations over two years. If, after a second period of evaluating as an apprentice a List 3 evaluator is not signed off as competent, they will be asked to complete the application process again in its entirety.

In exceptional circumstances and at the discretion of the central BEF office a new evaluator may be fast-tracked to List 2 or, if only if they have considerable appropriate experience, from List 2 to List 1.

Annually, the BEF or the BEF in conjunction with other organisations, will organise events in the UK to which all evaluators on all Lists will be invited. Repeated non attendance at these events may mean that, at the disecretion of central BEF, evaluators are moved to a lower List.

The BEF also asks that it may provide its evaluator lists to its member bodies, and to other interested parties both inside and outside the UK should those organisations wish to make use of the particular skills of BEF evaluators.

Code of Conduct for Evaluators

Futurity evaluators shall at all times:

1. Share impartial and factual information as required with any individual or group who enquires about the progress, aims and functions of the Futurity
2. Discuss any concerns about the running of the Futurity with BEF staff before speaking to others in any way or form
3. Rectify any factual inaccuracies other individuals may believe to be true regarding the Futurity in a courteous manner
4. Refrain from giving personal opinion regarding any aspect of the setup of Futurity unless it is clearly stated or written that anything which may be said or written is that individual’s opinion and not that of Futurity or BEF
5. Refrain from commenting in any inappropriate manner regarding any Futurity evaluator or participant
6. Discuss any matters relating to the Futurity with BEF staff, and secure their agreement, before imparting any information in writing through any media whatsoever
7. Respect the rights, dignity and worth of every breeder and stud book/breed society representative
8. Have the welfare of the horse and the safety of participants as a priority
9. Consistently display high standards of conduct and presentation and be courteous to all Futurity participants at all times
10. Ensure that they conduct themselves in a way that will not bring the Futurity or BEF into disrepute
11. Ensure that they do not seek to derive any personal gain, financial or otherwise, from their position as a Futurity evaluator
12. Be supportive of and aware of the contribution our sponsors, Baileys Horse Feeds, make to the running of Futurity events

Once on any List, evaluators may themselves present horses at the Futurity in the same year, but not at the venue where they are evaluating. If an evaluator has any interest whatsoever, however tenuous, in any horse presented for evaluation at any venue at which they are evaluating, they must declare an interest and step outside the ring for the entire period during which that horse is being evaluated. Failure to declare an interest may result in the removal of that evaluator from all Lists.

Supplementary information

A considerable amount of commissioned research carried out by five Masters students from the Royal Agricultural College has been considered to inform the structure of this process.

Students have looked at judge and evaluator training systems throughout the world and special work has been commissioned into the existence of bias in evaluation and judging and suggested processes to minimise its influence, some of which are included here, and some of which may be included in future revisions of this document.

There is almost always a perception amongst participants or competitors that bias exists. Perception is often greater than reality, and we have taken the trouble to develop transparent systems which minimise likelihood that bias can have an impact on our evaluations, reassuring customers and building the reputation of our processes.

We will be delighted to share our processes with any organisation which seeks to evaluate horses and ponies to improve quality.

Further information

Jan Rogers
E: janrogersequine@aol.com
T: 07725 332595
 
Heck Magic! How many more bits of paper have you got up your sleeve, lol?!

That's pretty comprehensive although I can think of a couple of their rules that have been a bit bent in this thread!

Do we get the names and CV's next out of your magic hat or is that it?! Are you sure you're not a dentist, lol?
 
[ QUOTE ]
The BEF also asks that it may provide its evaluator lists to its member bodies, and to other interested parties both inside and outside the UK should those organisations wish to make use of the particular skills of BEF evaluators.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely persons presenting their horses, though not organisations, are by definition interested parties wishing to make use of the evaluator's skills?
The most important people, in fact; being direct clients?

So where IS the problem with making this information available from the beginning? Or even- dare I say it- now, with a little information on each evaluator's particular skills?
 
I would much prefer if the evaluators actually had credentials worthy of providing opinions on foals and young stock. IMHO it would be far more preferable to me for the evaulators to actually know about horse anatomy and physiology. Why aren't Chartered Equine Physiotherapist's involved in the futurity rather than some of the evaluators who know fcuk all about horse anatomy?! In addition, why are some of the vets not true equine veterinary surgeons? A general vet, IMO, don't know enough regarding horses, to provide a true evaulation and constructive feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top