Is this pot hunting??

[Velcrobum]

I was a volunteer at the unaffiliated Cotswold Cup competition yesterday. I was somewhat surprised to see 4* and 5* riders there on horses that have established BE records and these horses did get placings. I fully understand bringing out youngsters at unaffilliated ODE's for experience which is entirely reasonable. Thoughts.....

 

[milliepops]

hmmmm. it's a tricky one IMO because if it's permitted then there are all sorts of arguments about supporting grass roots events and getting exposure for young horses esp if they are destined for sale where the kudos of a good result would be helpful etc...

Unaff might feel like the preserve of the amateur but to me, its a bit like how dressage area festivals were seen by some as intended for amateurs but there's nothing preventing pros from entering and they're basically a free-for all for anyone eligible to ride in those sections.

I can see how an amateur or lower level rider might see it as pot hunting, but in fairness at BE you're potentially riding against olympians every day so it's not really any different is it?

 

[TGM]

Their website makes it clear that the classes are 'open to all'. And with a "£10,000 prize pot" available at the championships then it is not surprising that the top level riders are competing. The organisers had the opportunity to put entry restrictions on if they didn't want these riders to participate.

 

[AShetlandBitMeOnce]

I think it's a bit naff not to have upper level limits when there is such a big prize pot, as it does them tip the balance of fairness I think - plus with a pot like that you would think they would have plenty of appropriate level entries. Couldyou implement a BE points limit at an unaff competition?

However, I am all for Olympians etc being able to enter unaff grassroots comps on young horses, or horses they want to get out and about moving. If the prize pot isn't huge then it's just a day out for everyone, and the more entries the better to support these events.

 

[Velcrobum]

Their website makes it clear that the classes are 'open to all'. And with a "£10,000 prize pot" available at the championships then it is not surprising that the top level riders are competing. The organisers had the opportunity to put entry restrictions on if they didn't want these riders to participate.

However this is also on their website:

Hosted by an experienced team of Cotswold landowners and established event organisers, the series is designed to give back to grassroots eventing by offering something unique for unaffiliated event riders.

There were unhappy proper grassroots competitors seeing these riders there. Yes they are entitled to enter but is it morally right to do so??

 

[milliepops]

I think it's a bit naff not to have upper level limits when there is such a big prize pot, as it does them tip the balance of fairness I think - plus with a pot like that you would think they would have plenty of appropriate level entries. Couldyou implement a BE points limit at an unaff competition?

However, I am all for Olympians etc being able to enter unaff grassroots comps on young horses, or horses they want to get out and about moving. If the prize pot isn't huge then it's just a day out for everyone, and the more entries the better to support these events.

there are rules applicable to the horses, in terms of what BE points they can have. but they don't appear to have chosen to put any restrictions on the riders.

 

[ihatework]

I think it’s right they can do it, but do think it would be fairer if they put all the top level riders in one section

 

[milliepops]

There were unhappy proper grassroots competitors seeing these riders there. Yes they are entitled to enter but is it morally right to do so??

personally i think they are justified because the rules go put some limitations on who can compete there (in terms of horses). if there were no restrictions at all I'd say it would be a bit unsporting to take part in a grass roots competition without going HC. But because there ARE restrictions, and they fell within those, I think it's entirely fair.

like, i took my young horse to a local intro dressage show, unaff so I was completely within my rights to be there, as someone whose other horse was regularly competing at small tour... but I went HC cos it was clearly *not my scene*. but if I'd been there fitting in under some defined rules of eligibility I'd have felt like a totally legitimate competitor.

 

[TPO]

With a 10k prize pot I can see why anyone eligible would want to give it a go.

Perhaps if BE offered more than a hoof pick for winning an unaff event wouldn't look so appealing.

Perhaps more unaff events of this ilk are needed and its good that Pros are supporting them. The more press, attention and therefore entries the better.

Imagine a whole series of events to rival BE. Built to the same standards but with actual (decent) prize money and lower entry costs!

 

[Velcrobum]

My personal feeling is that morally they should have entered HC to allow the genuine grassroots competitors to have their competition but at the same time supporting said competition.

 

[Velcrobum]

With a 10k prize pot I can see why anyone eligible would want to give it a go.

Perhaps if BE offered more than a hoof pick for winning an unaff event wouldn't look so appealing.

Perhaps more unaff events of this ilk are needed and its good that Pros are supporting them. The more press, attention and therefore entries the better.

Imagine a whole series of events to rival BE. Built to the same standards but with actual (decent) prize money and lower entry costs!

Entries were high extra sections were put on on both days. Cost of entering these is only marginally cheaper than BE.

 

[ihatework]

Entries were high extra sections were put on on both days. Cost of entering these is only marginally cheaper than BE.

Yes but for owners with horses ridden by pros these inexperienced horses have to work around the experienced horses schedules. Also transport costs are high with these huge wagons. So if you can run a load of youngsters locally then it works out cheaper.

 

[Red-1]

I reckon, if the rules allow them to enter, then why not?

I was faced with a situation a while back, when I had been competing at a fair level with my horse, but we had done nothing but hack over winter and I wanted to go to a small unaffiliated intro dressage (canter would still have been rather explosive, hence intro). I checked, and the rules allowed it.

We won, yay, as the horse wasn't going at their best, but didn't explode and her schooling was right and proper. Some people said I should have gone HC.

Only, it would have seemed strange to go HC, despite being eligible, as it would kind of been saying, "hey, I think I'm better than all of you, even though we have done nothing but hack for 4 months." I am sure that the people who criticised me for competing would also have been the ones saying I was big headed, if I had gone HC.

I think it is up to the organisers to decide who can enter. It never bothers me if I am in a section, or before the rules changed a BD competition, or a SJ class, with professional riders. It makes me up my game. Just occasionally, we beat them, yay.

I don't know the competition you are speaking of, but I would be surprised if an up and ready 5* winner had gone and done the 100. I suspect some very nice horses would have gone, with perhaps a patchy history, who want to compete without messing their record up. Or youngsters, gaining experience. If the money was significant, why shouldn't anyone eligible be able to try to win the prize.

I don't subscribe to the 'everyone should win a prize' thinking that seems so prevalent.

I also dislike the phrase 'pot hunting' as many people enter competitions in the hope of winning a prize. It is generally used as a derogatory term by someone who would like to be as successful, but who is not. Seems a bit stampy foot to me.

 

[ihatework]

I reckon, if the rules allow them to enter, then why not?

I was faced with a situation a while back, when I had been competing at a fair level with my horse, but we had done nothing but hack over winter and I wanted to go to a small unaffiliated intro dressage (canter would still have been rather explosive, hence intro). I checked, and the rules allowed it.

We won, yay, as the horse wasn't going at their best, but didn't explode and her schooling was right and proper. Some people said I should have gone HC.

Only, it would have seemed strange to go HC, despite being eligible, as it would kind of been saying, "hey, I think I'm better than all of you, even though we have done nothing but hack for 4 months." I am sure that the people who criticised me for competing would also have been the ones saying I was big headed, if I had gone HC.

I think it is up to the organisers to decide who can enter. It never bothers me if I am in a section, or before the rules changed a BD competition, or a SJ class, with professional riders. It makes me up my game. Just occasionally, we beat them, yay.

I don't know the competition you are speaking of, but I would be surprised if an up and ready 5* winner had gone and done the 100. I suspect some very nice horses would have gone, with perhaps a patchy history, who want to compete without messing their record up. Or youngsters, gaining experience. If the money was significant, why shouldn't anyone eligible be able to try to win the prize.

I don't subscribe to the 'everyone should win a prize' thinking that seems so prevalent.

I also dislike the phrase 'pot hunting' as many people enter competitions in the hope of winning a prize. It is generally used as a derogatory term by someone who would like to be as successful, but who is not. Seems a bit stampy foot to me.

Tom McEwen took 3 to AuW, 2 of which have been running BE!
No judgement from me, they were eligible to go and would have had their reasons

 

[milliepops]

Only, it would have seemed strange to go HC, despite being eligible, as it would kind of been saying, "hey, I think I'm better than all of you, even though we have done nothing but hack for 4 months." I am sure that the people who criticised me for competing would also have been the ones saying I was big headed, if I had gone HC.

chuckling to myself at this, I do understand that feeling i went HC because I didn't want to stop anyone else winning a frilly of any colour, because it would mean a lot to them and nothing to me. i was taking my horse for the experience not for the competition. we finished well down the placings as the horse was so green he couldn't really cope but still would have taken a rosette home otherwise so I felt I'd made the right choice.

 

[LEC]

Tom McEwen took 3 to AuW, 2 of which have been running BE!
No judgement from me, they were eligible to go and would have had their reasons

Maybe if the BE calendar wasn't so crap there would not be the need? I went to AUW over choosing BE as exactly what I wanted - lovely flowing track. The BE this time of year is rubbish. I have had several BE events I wanted to go to now cancelled (Howick, Monmouth, Bricky etc) so the 100 horse will hopefully pick up its last Q for Bicton 3 day next week and then will stay doing unaff as I am so uninspired by the aff. I don't want to go to West Wilts or Pontispool for the millionth time. I will be off to Calmsden in a few weeks for the Horse Events champs where they are running over a longer and more tech course - brilliant! Exactly what I want before heading to Bicton.

I saw loads of pros there - they make up a fair whack of entries and I just don't see the issue as normally on young horses. I have often seen Harry Meade at my local RC ODEs so its always happened that way. I think Dani Evans made up top 4 at a unaff ODE round here once. If eligible to enter then, no issues.

On another note, the unaff now is incredibly good. I took an experienced friend with me yesterday who had preconceptions about what unaff is like and was blown away by the quality. As she said to me, why would you do BE now?

 

[Season’s Bleatings]

I can see how an amateur or lower level rider might see it as pot hunting, but in fairness at BE you're potentially riding against olympians every day so it's not really any different is it?

A wee bit off topic, in BE are all competitors grouped together by class height (assuming eligibility etc), regardless of whether they are pro/amateur etc?

 

[Velcrobum]

A wee bit off topic, in BE are all competitors grouped together by class height (assuming eligibility etc), regardless of whether they are pro/amateur etc?

Yes

 

[RachelFerd]

It isn't morally wrong... although I've been saying for ages (most unpopularly) that it is fundamentally wrong that unaffiliated eventing competition exists in any guise other than at PC and RC competition. Hear me out on this one, i'll dig out something that I wrote to BE on it...

 

[Season’s Bleatings]

Yes

Good to know. EI has separate sections for amateurs but no idea if that affects prizes. As have never won anything ? but does mean you don’t have to compete against Olympians, unless you want to!

 

[Season’s Bleatings]

It isn't morally wrong... although I've been saying for ages (most unpopularly) that it is fundamentally wrong that unaffiliated eventing competition exists in any guise other than at PC and RC competition. Hear me out on this one, i'll dig out something that I wrote to BE on it...

I’m intrigued to read!!

 

[RachelFerd]

Some thoughts on unaffiliated eventing - which probably merits its own thread at some point....

___________

I am really worried by the trends in the unaffiliated eventing space. British Eventing needs to ask itself whether it is the national governing body for the sport of eventing, or the national governing body for affiliated eventing?

I personally value what British Eventing does to deliver safe and fair sport. I understand that what I am paying for as a member funds a bigger infrastructure of regulation and sport development -including (but not limited to):

• Upholding rules about banned substances, with an occasional testing regime.
• Application of MERs and the continued performance rules, with requirement to downgrade to lower levels for safety reasons as part of performance management.
• Development of officials and stewards who ensure that objections are handled fairly - I appreciate that there is a TA who can sensitively handle situations of inappropriate riding or behaviour and help educate people.
• Development and evolution of course design - well-designed courses, built by fantastic course designers that help educate horses and are appropriate for the level.
• Analysis of safety data relating to horse and rider falls, in order to shape decisions around performance requirements and course design.
• Controlling who can take part in the sport - making sure that people who are not morally fit to participate cannot do so.
• Influencing the direction and decision making of British Equestrian and the FEI
• Ensuring that child protection and equality principles are in place
• Creating a clear development path within the sport - from 80cm all the way up to 4* and 5* events, European, World and Olympic championships.

As people access unaffiliated eventing, they benefit from the availability of excellent courses and brilliant organisers and their knowledge. I am not saying that unaffiliated events are badly run - quite the opposite. But they are not helping to fund the sport, and they risk developing an entirely parallel sport, which functions cheaply but without any of the overarching safeguards that our extremely high-risk sport needs. British Eventing can't access data about falls and safety nor control who should or shouldn’t take part. British Eventing can’t monitor use of banned substances and can’t apply continued performance measures, designed to help people to stay safe. British Eventing also doesn't have ultimate control over the safety of the courses, the questions asked and the use of frangible safety devices.

There is an ever-present risk that a high profile incident could happen at an unaffiliated event, which could have been prevented were the event happening under the auspices of the wider control and regulation of the national governing body. We know full well that our sport can be really dangerous when things go wrong, and the potential for significant negative media coverage and reputational damage for the sport grows increasingly higher as more unstructured, unaffiliated competition takes place.

The benefits of affiliation I listed earlier don't make going to a BE event more fun or desirable than going to an unaffiliated event, but they are essential to delivering a safe and fair sport. And whilst it seems absolutely fine for knowledge and skills to filter down into unaffiliated competition, what you’re not getting is money or other rewards filtering back up. It seems like there is no incentive for people to join British Eventing at grassroots level, because they can access everything they want, without paying extra for it. British Eventing needs to be able to explain the benefits of joining, for the entire sport, at all levels.

My personal view is that British Eventing probably needs to do more to dissuade organisers from running unaffiliated competition, whilst simultaneously making affiliated competition more affordable and attractive to new participants. I think that BE should be aiming to bring in all of the current unaffiliated participants into the fold of affiliated, regulated sport, by providing what they want, and when they want it. This means providing cheaper membership to grassroots riders, free horse registration for horses below novice, more regional leagues and championships and more competition opportunities to effectively replace the unaffiliated calendar (clearly the fixture list would need a massive overhaul to accommodate this). I would also suggest that a non-competitive/training section at 80 and 90 level in which results are not publicly recorded would provide people who are nervous about spoiling horse’s records and giving horses a first educational outing would be well supported (and is the primary reason why many professional riders are also using unaffiliated competitions).

I also think that affiliated Riding Club and Pony Club eventing should continue to exist – but it would make more sense to align them more closely to British Eventing in order to be able to apply continued performance requirements and cross-reference MERs. Through PC and RC eventing it would be possible to deliver the genuinely grassroots activity below 80cm and tailored to people who are really learning the ropes.. ready to progress into BE.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't enter an unaffiliated event myself - but I do worry about the long term future of the sport given current trends.

 

[ihatework]

Spot on RachelFerd

 

[LEC]

Some thoughts on unaffiliated eventing - which probably merits its own thread at some point....

___________

I am really worried by the trends in the unaffiliated eventing space. British Eventing needs to ask itself whether it is the national governing body for the sport of eventing, or the national governing body for affiliated eventing?

PC and RC no longer have the desire to run ODEs like they used to because they are really expensive to hold and a huge time consuming commitment. All the ODEs I used to attend in the past (40 years of living in the same area and 35 years of eventing locally) have disappeared from being held by RC and PC. I just think your point about RC and PC are slightly obsolete because they have fundamentally changed in the last 10 years. Committees quite often do not have experienced enough people to take on such an undertaking especially at RC. In our area the same RC runs the qualifier because they are super experienced and have 2 very experienced people at the helm. No other RC out of 16 in our area would be able to do it and we would risk not having a qualifier. At PC level there are similar issues. PC when I was growing up used to only have area qualifiers at novice level. Now the 1.10m is direct entry for the championship. In our area there is enough enthusiasm to run both PC and RC qualifiers for championships and that's about it. The entries for Area 15 PC qualifiers were pretty low at 80/90/100.

I personally have welcomed the professional unaff organisers into the space held by RC and PC. The difference has been exceptional. You have to ask why Charles Etherington-Smith is running such high quality unaff and not BE. That is a family who is steeped in British Eventing history and knowledge. Why did Great Tew come back to run unaff but dumped its BE? Why do Musketeer and BEDE step up and run at amazing venues. If running unaff at a location like Barbary helps pay the bills then I am happy to see it run for 3 days to support the 3/4*.

For me, moving aside from the whole safety issue which I do understand your point on, the BE calendar is BORING. I do not want to run at Aston 7 times. I do not understand why people keep going back 4x in a year, yet an event on tougher terrain will struggle to get entries and as such will never last as long. I have welcomed the locations for unaff which have been a breath of fresh air.

My entry for Gatcombe was £87 for 100. My entry for Launceston 100 was £103. There will be no difference in quality and in fact the unaff will have a fairer cancellation policy. Unaff isn't a much cheaper option now but every £16 and not paying £250 in membership adds up.

For me BE has the following issues:
Prizes are dreadful. Unaff makes a far better effort.
Qualifying for the champs at unaff are really clear. I hate leagues as I do not run that often but it has made a difference for entries.
The withdrawal refunds are much fairer at unaff
The BE calendar is seriously boring. Its so political about events but I honestly think they should start again with riders being involved. Just because something isn't broken, it doesn't mean it shouldn't change.
BE is too expensive at Grassroots.
One off events should be prioritised because they are fundamentally more expensive to run and they bring the interest to the calendar.

Finally on safety, its just not a concern of the average competitor at 80-100. Its a boring subject that you will never get the majority of competitors to see an advantage in.

 

[RachelFerd]

PC and RC no longer have the desire to run ODEs like they used to because they are really expensive to hold and a huge time consuming commitment. All the ODEs I used to attend in the past (40 years of living in the same area and 35 years of eventing locally) have disappeared from being held by RC and PC. I just think your point about RC and PC are slightly obsolete because they have fundamentally changed in the last 10 years. Committees quite often do not have experienced enough people to take on such an undertaking especially at RC. In our area the same RC runs the qualifier because they are super experienced and have 2 very experienced people at the helm. No other RC out of 16 in our area would be able to do it and we would risk not having a qualifier. At PC level there are similar issues. PC when I was growing up used to only have area qualifiers at novice level. Now the 1.10m is direct entry for the championship. In our area there is enough enthusiasm to run both PC and RC qualifiers for championships and that's about it. The entries for Area 15 PC qualifiers were pretty low at 80/90/100.

I personally have welcomed the professional unaff organisers into the space held by RC and PC. The difference has been exceptional. You have to ask why Charles Etherington-Smith is running such high quality unaff and not BE. That is a family who is steeped in British Eventing history and knowledge. Why did Great Tew come back to run unaff but dumped its BE? Why do Musketeer and BEDE step up and run at amazing venues. If running unaff at a location like Barbary helps pay the bills then I am happy to see it run for 3 days to support the 3/4*.

For me, moving aside from the whole safety issue which I do understand your point on, the BE calendar is BORING. I do not want to run at Aston 7 times. I do not understand why people keep going back 4x in a year, yet an event on tougher terrain will struggle to get entries and as such will never last as long. I have welcomed the locations for unaff which have been a breath of fresh air.

My entry for Gatcombe was £87 for 100. My entry for Launceston 100 was £103. There will be no difference in quality and in fact the unaff will have a fairer cancellation policy. Unaff isn't a much cheaper option now but every £16 and not paying £250 in membership adds up.

For me BE has the following issues:
Prizes are dreadful. Unaff makes a far better effort.
Qualifying for the champs at unaff are really clear. I hate leagues as I do not run that often but it has made a difference for entries.
The withdrawal refunds are much fairer at unaff
The BE calendar is seriously boring. Its so political about events but I honestly think they should start again with riders being involved. Just because something isn't broken, it doesn't mean it shouldn't change.
BE is too expensive at Grassroots.
One off events should be prioritised because they are fundamentally more expensive to run and they bring the interest to the calendar.

Finally on safety, its just not a concern of the average competitor at 80-100. Its a boring subject that you will never get the majority of competitors to see an advantage in.

I don't disagree with your points - but I think there's an opportunity to influence change now with Helen at the helm. There's no reason why any of the benefits of unaff shouldn't incorporated into the BE calendar. Much like the Brexit question, it is one about whether you want to influence wider change from within, or whether you want to go off and do your own thing, without much care for the big picture.

I know you'll struggle to get the average competitor interested in safety and regulation - which is why I think BE has to do much more to successfully step into that space and limit the potential for imminent disaster.

 

[ester]

See it would strange to me that unaffiliated eventing be singled out when we have easily available unaffiliated everything else for those of us with lowly expectations. Don't the points made kind of apply to other equestrian disciplines?

Ditto the RC/PC running one day events, I was at one point heavily involved in RC event organisation and at that time we'd have needed about 10 clubs to get the man power to run one which just wouldn't ever happen beyond the 1 area competition held annually- which you can't expect people to be prepared for if it's only a once a year occasion.
I'd actually think it is much safer having professional outfits who know exactly what they are doing an than RC/PC members trying to do it on the smallest number of volunteers they can rally to do so.

I come from nearby Lec, I think when I was 'competing' so 15 ish years ago the only unaffiliated events were a PC one at pontispool (I want to guess silverton)? and stockland lovell running there one in september. And as lec says, now there are none and there's been an awful lot of BE south west cancellations this year.

 

[LEC]

I don't disagree with your points - but I think there's an opportunity to influence change now with Helen at the helm. There's no reason why any of the benefits of unaff shouldn't incorporated into the BE calendar. Much like the Brexit question, it is one about whether you want to influence wider change from within, or whether you want to go off and do your own thing, without much care for the big picture.

I know you'll struggle to get the average competitor interested in safety and regulation - which is why I think BE has to do much more to successfully step into that space and limit the potential for imminent disaster.

One of the issues is that BE has its hands tied over the monopolies ruling made in the courts and which was also challenged at FEI level over international Sjing. Its an interesting one as effectively they have to share their intellectual property which is investment in people over this because BE does not directly employ them. If BE employed stewards etc as professional members of staff, then a lot of the 'control' over safety would immediately be minimised but of course for a small membership organisation its impossible.

BE made a very stupid decision several years ago to have public access for its tests and this is where BD has been far more canny. BD is renumerated for every single unaff dr test held in the UK if using BD tests. Yesterday BE could have profited by around £100 from the unaff for doing nothing but providing test sheets. BE did try and restrict use of its tests this year but have since capitulated.

 

[milliepops]

i think the boring topic of safety is the one that separates BE from the other affiliated disciplines. I'm unlikely to get injured by taking my horse into a GP test before she's ready. BD keep a record to ensure I'm eligible to do that level, but the consequences if that fails or if I by-pass it and go unaff are pretty teeny. (mainly i would just look like an idiot).

I thought BD did a bit of a funny thing during the lockdowns where they banned online dressage outfits from using their tests unless they were officially signed off. i suppose they were wanting some mark of consistent quality so from that POV it makes sense. but at the lower levels its not difficult to knock together a dressage test outside of the BD system.

 

[ester]

Yeah, get that but then we are going to have to include hunter trialling/team chasing (don't think they have any MERS though obv have ruling body) etc. My own worse incidents have been SJ.

But then I am rooted in unaffiliated, I wouldn't want it to disappear. I had a BD winter membership once, and did some SJ on free tickets when they did them.

 

[Season’s Bleatings]

Does BE have anything like the ERQI system we have over this side of the Irish Sea? What’s the consensus on that?