How Are The Evaluaters At Futurity Or Gradings Evaluated?

[Law]

q/r
Apologies for going slightly OT but is there anywhere detailing who assessed last year at any venues? I would like to know who was evaluating at Sunnybank last year, purely out of curiosity. I am considering entering this year and would just like to see who it was last year or in previous years?
Someone posted earlier saying it wasn't difficult to find out past evaluators- or something to that effect

ETS: I have looked on the Futurity site and at the factsheets

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]
q/r
Apologies for going slightly OT but is there anywhere detailing who assessed last year at any venues? I would like to know who was evaluating at Sunnybank last year, purely out of curiosity. I am considering entering this year and would just like to see who it was last year or in previous years?
Someone posted earlier saying it wasn't difficult to find out past evaluators- or something to that effect

ETS: I have looked on the Futurity site and at the factsheets

[/ QUOTE ]

Evaluators were myslef (until the 3 year old filly ran me over!), Bridget Parker and Mark Shaw. I think the vet was John Gilliver.

But evaluators and vets are usually moved around each year -- and can of course change at the last minute as well, so best check directly with Jan for this year's line up.

 

[Partoow]

All the evaluators are very aware of the anatomy and physiology of the equines they are assesing.
Much of the training involves looking at specific areas and relates it to development and the relevance in future performance.I find the phrase 'rather than assesors who know fcuk about horse anatomy' offensive and totally incorrect. I suggest if you wish to make contributions to this post you make them in a more rational and constructive manner.
Not only that but many of the evaluators, as you will see from the BEF post, the list 1's, for example are actively involved in breeding as well as having strong and prolonged activity in the assesment and grading of horses.
Many of the assesors are or have been international riders and trainers.One particular lady is an ex olympian who is now breeding horses that themselves have gone on to international/advanced level, that is the kind of calibre and knowledge there assessing the young stock
Much of the knowledge contained is not in the form of formal qualification but vast experience and passion in the long term development of sound horses in sport bred in britain and hopefully joined up in the long term with British riders.
As Cruiseliner said earlier, those more dressage orientated amongst us are very used to being judged by the judge we see on the day and have to take it as that. This includes championships.Maybe thats why it does not raise such concerns as we believe we understand the judge training and selection process , it is not much different from the assesors development path.The information on which you have been given
I think the fact that the BEF has a clear dirrective and understanding of what criteria they have for their assesors should help in developing confidence in the team of assesors that look at the youngstock, it will never be just one persons predudice or preference. All the assesors bring something to the table and they become valuable as a whole rather than the 'sum of their parts' if you see what i mean.
There is not one assesor that does not totally understand the importance of what they are doing and from the first horse to the last they seein the day they give 100% honesty.
Having the breeding information is just that , information and becomes interesting when looking at patterns and traits it does not colour the end result. Every horse is judged as seen on the day, the clothes the handlers are wearing,who they are, etc are all irrelevant and all that is required is that the youngsters infront of the panel are well presented so that the best possible representation is made by the animal under inspection.
It is only possible to judge what is seen and if they dont stand up, walk freely in hand or know what to do when loose then that is not the fault of the assesors.
I am sure your veiws are being taken into account and are being thought about .It will certainly be discussed at the upcoming training day!!

 

[Ciss]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apology accepted, it was just the word evaluators (the performance and quality of whom I do hold some degree of responsibility for) being used instead of grading judges (for whom I have none) in an account of what would appear to have been a someone woeful event did rather concern me, and I was worried that it might confuse others for just the reasons you describe.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Why should I cring? Many evaluators (myself included) are also experienced and regular grading judges and I completly agree that in a well run grading assessment is very much against a specific set of criteria as is the case with the Futurity. Many of the criteria are the same in general terms -- although of course the Futuirty is much more discipline specific -- but the real difference comes in the fact that the Futurity evaluation assesses the animal as an end product of a specific mating based upon its sports horse / pony qualities whereas a studbook grading assesses the animal not only as a sportshorse / pony but as part of an on-going programme of genetic improvement. This slight but significant difference in emphasis is indicated by:

1 The end classification (premium) of animal coming forward for the Futurity will not be affected by any lack of pedigree (although effectively at most only about 25% is missing even in the most major cases) but it will significantly affect the animals eligibility for grading into the highest studbooks, and often in the case of a stallion its entry for grading in the first place
2 Becuase a animal forward for the Futurity is not being presented as a potential breeding animal no score is given for masculinity or femininity, which are often major scoring areas in studbook foal inspections and certainly in gradings themselves.

What this means in effect is that a plain looking, correct, good moving, athletic sports horse type filly (could be confused with a gelding at first sight) and a pretty colt of the same type lacking in masculinity (ie one that looks like a gelding but has not had the op yet) could quite likely do far better at the Futurity than they would at a studbok grading becuase they at the Futurity they are being viewed a sports horses / ponies end products and not being assessed for their potential ability to pass on their genes.

Many evaluators are also graders (but hopefully none of them were present at the debacle you decribed ) and I know they could flip from one system to another at the drop of a hat. They don't of course, but when evaluating they do recognise that they are not grading and vice versa.

 

[magic104]

Heck Magic! How many more bits of paper have you got up your sleeve, lol?! - That is the last, I was tired & just missed the attachment

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? - LOL no I dont have that but Jan will be more then happy to provide any info. I am wondering what her in-box is like this morning!

 

[Law]

[ QUOTE ]

Evaluators were myslef (until the 3 year old filly ran me over!), Bridget Parker and Mark Shaw. I think the vet was John Gilliver.

But evaluators and vets are usually moved around each year -- and can of course change at the last minute as well, so best check directly with Jan for this year's line up.

[/ QUOTE ]

many thanks for that

 

[jeanette10]

Nice to see that Jan has sent further information about the selection process for evaluators. So will that mean that the "List" of each judge will be known, I am presuming so, since its obvious that the people are not going to get what they ask for regarding some details on each evaluator?

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Found the above very interesting, considering one individual seems to have broken several aspects of them. Although noticably they seem to have calmed down since yesterday.

 

[magic104]

Found the above very interesting, considering one individual seems to have broken several aspects of them. Although noticably they seem to have calmed down since yesterday.

There was no need for that comment. If you are not happy take it up with the BEF. All this sniping at one another is tedious.

 

[alleycat]

Fair comment, though, Magic. As the target myself of some of the unnecessary sniping perhaps you would allow me to go as far as to say the irony of that code is not lost on me.

I take it no one has had the evaluator's list or any concrete information re. background or experience yet?

 

[Emily99]

If county shows up and down the country can release judges names months in advance (as entries for some do close ridiculously early!) surely the BEF can? We all know that illness/accidents do happen so last minute judges changes can occur, but surely what harm is there in releasing the names?

 

[magic104]

Ask them, Head of Equine Development: Jan Rogers
T 07725 332595 E janrogersequine@aol.com

 

[Maggie2]

I am sure that last minute changes can be advised, with emails. Many a time I have had a letter from a show advising a change of judge, and mostly haven't minded.

But modern communications mean that changes other than such as happened last year when Ciss was injured on the day (if I am right there) can be advised in good time.

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]
But modern communications mean that changes other than such as happened last year when Ciss was injured on the day (if I am right there) can be advised in good time.

[/ QUOTE ]

<ROFL> That almost sounds as though Jan was able to predict my accident was going to happen . Pity they don't possess these amazing powers as otherwise they could have warned me in advance and saved a lot of trouble by sending someone else.

I know that is not exactly what you meant from my point of view it did read like a lesson from the school of hard knocks

 

[Maesfen]

It seems to me, after all the dust is dying down, that the one thing and almost the most important thing, which still has not been displayed for public awareness; namely the Evaluator's CV/profile IS still missing.

Surely BEF do have such a list, otherwise how would they have been able to approve the people that applied or were invited to become evaluators if they didn't know of their experience and capability?

Being told to contact Jan for it is not really good enough in spite of what else has been made available and if she was able to supply those other details when why not the CV list too. Sadly, it does seem to be a sticking point and one has to ask why.