Is this pot hunting??

[RachelFerd]

Cost to compete BE is much higher. Some people cannot afford it.

Why should anyone be forced to pay affiliation fees for the administrative overhead of running BE?

It's nobody's business but the owner/rider if they've been eliminated twice and don't want to step down a height. There are plenty of reasons (fear of going into water, silly run outs at a skinny, rider error that only happens under pressure of competition etc) where a run at the same height is the right thing to do.

There are lots of horses happily doing a day's hunting or an unaffiliated 80 who need a sachet of bute a day. I'm slightly conflicted about this one but I can absolutely see the advantages to both horse and rider of a slightly creaky older horse with mileage on the clock giving experience to a more novice rider.

The cheap French fees you refer to are, I think, a result of significant subsidy by the French taxpayer to the equestrian industry? This does not seem fair on the taxpayer to me.

I also understand that my lovely little mongrel whose parentage is unknown but who is a cracking little horse, would be unable to compete at all under the French system. If I'm right about that, it seems just daft.
.

This bin

Cost to compete BE is much higher. Some people cannot afford it.

Why should anyone be forced to pay affiliation fees for the administrative overhead of running BE?

It's nobody's business but the owner/rider if they've been eliminated twice and don't want to step down a height. There are plenty of reasons (fear of going into water, silly run outs at a skinny, rider error that only happens under pressure of competition etc) where a run at the same height is the right thing to do.

There are lots of horses happily doing a day's hunting or an unaffiliated 80 who need a sachet of bute a day. I'm slightly conflicted about this one but I can absolutely see the advantages to both horse and rider of a slightly creaky older horse with mileage on the clock giving experience to a more novice rider.

The cheap French fees you refer to are, I think, a result of significant subsidy by the French taxpayer to the equestrian industry? This does not seem fair on the taxpayer to me.

I also understand that my lovely little mongrel whose parentage is unknown but who is a cracking little horse, would be unable to compete at all under the French system. If I'm right about that, it seems just daft.
.

I think I disagree fairly strongly with pretty much every one of your points ? (save the taxpayer funding, if true) ...

 

[Red-1]

Right, anyway, back to the original question slightly... I've just taken a look at some of the results for the 100 at Crown Farm the other day, and clearly there are lots of horses competing under their stable names (https://www.eventingscores.co.uk/Events/event.php?eventid=1108#Q) Otis, Billy, Finley, Bertie, Wuff, Milo, Lily, Jimmy, Lance, Jonny, Joey.... none of us would have any idea if these horses had BE records or points in a current or previous life. I'm fairly certain there will be no passport identification/confirmation going on. I suspect that most of the use of stable names will be because people don't want a traceable record on their horse... but it would be equally possible to do a bit of hardcore pot-hunting without being found out.

(edited to add - rules do state "Horses must be entered in their full passport name." but i'm not finding the entries totally plausible in that respect...)



That's one of the reasons why I'm deeply uncomfortable about the idea of a series like this, without necessary regulatory structures, offering the kind of prize pot which isn't seen at anything other than the highest levels of FEI competition (where my horse will be vet checked, microchip scanned, national and international registrations in place and everything shipshape!)

The horse ID is easily sorted, if the rules said to be entered under passport name. Just check the passport! Even RC shows do this now, to check vaccinations.

 

[ycbm]

This bin


I think I disagree fairly strongly with pretty much every one of your points ? (save the taxpayer funding, if true) ...

Why would you not want my tough, strong, resilient mongrel to compete? I am far from impressed with what selective breeding of warmbloods has achieved.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

Why would you not want my tough, strong, resilient mongrel to compete? I am far from impressed with what selective breeding of warmbloods has achieved.
.

4 point of that rule is that breeding is recorded and if breeding is a recorded discourages totally negligent breeding of horses with no record of parentage. You'd have to phase the ruling over a long period of time but it makes no sense to have people breeding horses at random. I don't think it's any coincidence that that French breeding absolutely dominated the eventing at the Olympics and had a pretty strong showing in the show jumping too.

 

[ycbm]

4 point of that rule is that breeding is recorded and if breeding is a recorded discourages totally negligent breeding of horses with no record of parentage. You'd have to phase the ruling over a long period of time but it makes no sense to have people breeding horses at random. I don't think it's any coincidence that that French breeding absolutely dominated the eventing at the Olympics and had a pretty strong showing in the show jumping too.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the level of selective breeding and the throwaway rate it creates. I personally think it's no coincidence that the French have a very healthy market for horse meat.

PS people who see my 3 year old would not recognise the term "negligent breeding". He's a really useful mongrel. I personally know 3 studs in the UK currently breeding papered offspring from the broken mares sold them by acquaintances of mine in 2020, and another stud and one individual. Papering is no safeguard against negligent breeding.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the level of selective breeding and the throwaway rate it creates. I personally think it's no coincidence that the French have a very healthy market for horse meat.

PS people who see my 3 year old would not recognise the term "negligent breeding". He's a really useful mongrel. I personally know 3 studs in the UK currently breeding papered offspring from the broken mares sold them by acquaintances of mine in 2020, and another stud and one individual. Papering is no safeguard against negligent breeding.
.

I think being able to keep accurate records of breeding is at least a start!

 

[ycbm]

I think being able to keep accurate records of breeding is at least a start!

But it isn't, is it? Because there is no record of why the mares stopped competing or never competed other than pregnancy.

So many broken down mares with papers are being bred from. I know the full history of one currently being hyped as "our lead mare" by a warmblood stud. She's a premium graded mare. From 4 to 12 she did an absolute minimum of work. She showed consistent signs of ulcers during that time. By 12 she was treated for hock arthritis which was unsuccessful. She's now carrying a "top quality" warmblood foetus. A foetus which under your rules will be allowed to compete when my mongrel won't. It makes no sense.

And she is FAR from the only example I know of breeding papered offspring from temperamentally or physically proven broken mares.


ETA and that's before you add in breeding for in individual characteristics like movement or colour and the problems that creates.
.

 

[tristar]

the french system excludes very good horses, who are fully reg within their own stud books, and are great for outcrossing, and has not much idea about cross breeding, so as far as i`m concerned is a no go, i want to choose myself not be told i can`t, because even if its equine royalty they can refuse to allow it to compete

nature will out good uns as she sees fit, with and without papers, many purpose bred horses are a disaster, breeding good horses is a talent one is born with, its having a sense and an eye that cannot be taught, to ``see`` is a gift


one of the main ideas about the papers conforming is so they can track the results through the breeding

 

[ycbm]

one of the main ideas about the papers conforming is so they can track the results through the breeding

I'd be happy about that if they also tracked the ones that break down or fail and the reason why. But if you just eat the failures and track the successes, it doesn't work..
.

 

[Wishfilly]

FWIW, I think the Endurance GB model is pretty good. You can enter unlimited pleasure rides and two graded rides on a free membership, and then upgrade as you need to as you progress through the levels. There is a discounted membership for RC/PC/RDA members too which allows them to compete up to a certain level.

Pleasure rides are non-competitive and enable people to "have a go" or introduce a horse to the endurance environment without data being recorded (at most events I believe the vets will even do a mock vetting for you) and you have to achieve a certain level of competence before doing race rides.

Obviously, you could say that fun rides etc are sort of like unaffiliated endurance, but if you want to long distance race ride competitively, I believe EGB is basically the only way to go about it (within GB, obviously).

I don't quite know how this would translate to eventing- obviously most people would probably not want to do several non-competitive levels before getting to compete, but some kind of eventing equivalent of a pleasure ride could work well for those just wanting to have a go, or introduce new horses to the competition environment. And I do think the "levels of membership" idea works well.

 

[Snowfilly]

But it isn't, is it? Because there is no record of why the mares stopped competing or never competed other than pregnancy.

So many broken down mares with papers are being bred from. I know the full history of one currently being hyped as "our lead mare" by a warmblood stud. She's a premium graded mare. From 4 to 12 she did an absolute minimum of work. She showed consistent signs of ulcers during that time. By 12 she was treated for hock arthritis which was unsuccessful. She's now carrying a "top quality" warmblood foetus. A foetus which under your rules will be allowed to compete when my mongrel won't. It makes no sense.

And she is FAR from the only example I know of breeding papered offspring from temperamentally or physically proven broken mares.


ETA and that's before you add in breeding for in individual characteristics like movement or colour and the problems that creates.
.

So much this. The best, soundest, most competitive horse I ever sat on and jumped had no papers, no history except the fact he’d come on a ferry from Ireland and was therefore probably somewhat Connie bred. There wasn’t a fence he couldn’t jump or a distance he couldn’t hack and come back looking for more.

A friend had a full papered registered KWPN at the same time, broke at four and shot at ten. She bred a foal at nine because ‘she’s so well bred,’ the foal was a wobbler and pts before it was ever ridden. The mare Hardly did a season’s competition in her life.

I know which was the better horse, despite the lack of breeding! And which one, if he hadn’t been gelded as a weanling, would have added far more to the gene pool.

 

[milliepops]

but we wouldn't have to copy the french model exactly, you could set it up so cross breeds/mongrels were still permitted, if it was introduced with a grace period of 10 years or so, so a foal bred now at least had to have dam and sire recorded that would be a step forward that would be achieveable for all except the bogofs.

 

[ycbm]

I just don't see the point of insisting on a record of either parent to compete, unless you track failure as well as success, unless one doesn't care how many are thrown on the scrap heap/eaten to produce one good one.
.

 

[milliepops]

I'd turn it around and say the need to capture breeding information would become more desirable and therefore potentially add value to horses with recorded breeding, with the spin off effect of reducing the value of non-registered *in some way shape or form* horses. a lever to tighten up the breeding of horses.

I have some that would be discounted by the french system but who were great amateur's horses, which is why i would support it with a grace period to allow ones like that to have a competitive career and then a light touch 1 gen record would be achievable for 4yos coming through in 5 years time.

 

[ycbm]

I just don't see the point of insisting on knowing the parentage of horses before they can compete without also recording the failures and reason for failure.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

I just don't see the point of insisting on a record of either parent to compete, unless you track failure as well as success, unless one doesn't care how many are thrown on the scrap heap/eaten to produce one good one.
.

I'd turn it around and say the need to capture breeding information would become more desirable and therefore potentially add value to horses with recorded breeding, with the spin off effect of reducing the value of non-registered *in some way shape or form* horses. a lever to tighten up the breeding of horses.

I have some that would be discounted by the french system but who were great amateur's horses, which is why i would support it with a grace period to allow ones like that to have a competitive career and then a light touch 1 gen record would be achievable for 4yos coming through in 5 years time.

I agree with that milliepops - no need to exactly replicate the French system. With a bit of ambition, we could improve it

I'd like to offer up my egalitarian and wonderful data-driven, uber-affiliated regime:

- we phase in the requirement to have recorded breeding
- we also phase in the requirement to record career-ending injury, or specific reason horse moves into breeding without having a performance record
- we also keep competition records across all disciplines at all levels (so nothing exists as total unaffiliated/unrecorded)
- we then have data driven knowledge to understand which horses perform well at all levels, and can take an evidence based approach to buying and breeding horses for all types of competition and all standards of rider (INCLUDING understanding what makes a fab horse for an amateur novicey rider with awesome longevity and soundness), whilst improving the overarching quality of horses that are bred in this country
- and because everyone is feeding into the same system, with a single IT system sitting behind it all, we streamline the amount of money spent on administration of the sporting governing bodies, and registration becomes cheap/free - leading to a super-connected sporting world, with enhanced safety and safeguarding for riders of all ages, and better welfare standards for our horses.

See, easily solved with a glass of wine in hand...

 

[ycbm]

- we also phase in the requirement to record career-ending injury, or specific reason horse moves into breeding without having a performance record

Good luck with that. We can't even trust every vet who does a PPE.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

FWIW, I think the Endurance GB model is pretty good. You can enter unlimited pleasure rides and two graded rides on a free membership, and then upgrade as you need to as you progress through the levels. There is a discounted membership for RC/PC/RDA members too which allows them to compete up to a certain level.

Pleasure rides are non-competitive and enable people to "have a go" or introduce a horse to the endurance environment without data being recorded (at most events I believe the vets will even do a mock vetting for you) and you have to achieve a certain level of competence before doing race rides.

Obviously, you could say that fun rides etc are sort of like unaffiliated endurance, but if you want to long distance race ride competitively, I believe EGB is basically the only way to go about it (within GB, obviously).

I don't quite know how this would translate to eventing- obviously most people would probably not want to do several non-competitive levels before getting to compete, but some kind of eventing equivalent of a pleasure ride could work well for those just wanting to have a go, or introduce new horses to the competition environment. And I do think the "levels of membership" idea works well.

This sounds like a really good example Wishfilly. I think BE sort of tried this with the 80T, back when the T meant that there was training available in all of the warm-up areas as part of the competition. What didn't quite work about that was that for a lot of people, 80 was the pinaccle of where they were headed, so they trained a lot to get TO that stage, and that then the on-the-day training felt unneccessary, because they'd already done a bunch of unaff 80s without any training or support.

I think you could easily have eventing 'clear round' type days, under the vague jurisdiction of BE, but without all of the added infrastructure. Run over the course of a day, at 60/70/80 with training provided, completion and double clear rosettes, but no formal results recorded. Lower pressure genuinely educational outings that prep people to go out at a competitive BE80 (for which there should be no registration costs, at least for the first few runs...)

 

[RachelFerd]

Good luck with that. We can't even trust every vet who does a PPE.
.

If you're just fatalistic about everything, nothing improves, ever

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

Right, anyway, back to the original question slightly... I've just taken a look at some of the results for the 100 at Crown Farm the other day, and clearly there are lots of horses competing under their stable names (https://www.eventingscores.co.uk/Events/event.php?eventid=1108#Q) Otis, Billy, Finley, Bertie, Wuff, Milo, Lily, Jimmy, Lance, Jonny, Joey.... none of us would have any idea if these horses had BE records or points in a current or previous life. I'm fairly certain there will be no passport identification/confirmation going on. I suspect that most of the use of stable names will be because people don't want a traceable record on their horse... but it would be equally possible to do a bit of hardcore pot-hunting without being found out.

(edited to add - rules do state "Horses must be entered in their full passport name." but i'm not finding the entries totally plausible in that respect...)



That's one of the reasons why I'm deeply uncomfortable about the idea of a series like this, without necessary regulatory structures, offering the kind of prize pot which isn't seen at anything other than the highest levels of FEI competition (where my horse will be vet checked, microchip scanned, national and international registrations in place and everything shipshape!)

I have B Fuzzy on the My Riding life and similar entry portals twice over.

It's far easier to book in for xc schooling, camp or a low key RC training event etc as 'B Fuzzy'.
If it's an important event, then I use the Bleepety B Bleepety long name with full breeding info.
Much easier all round, no rules to say I cannot and nobody gives a jot, not even her breeder as the B Fuzzy long name isnt going to mean anything at training or unaff stuff, just a long name...
Passport still checked on arrival even if copy submitted on line.

Unless the entry systems are tightened up from the top to the absolute bottom, not a lot will change.

 

[ycbm]

If you're just fatalistic about everything, nothing improves, ever

If you're in your 60's and seen it all before, that's how the cookie crumbles. In my lifetime, unsound horses seem to have become more numerous while known parentage increases, not less. If you can give me a foolproof way of making sure unsound horses aren't bred from and breeding for particular characteristics does not increase wastage rates, then I will 100% back your belief that only horses whose parentage is known should be allowed to compete.

Meanwhile .....

 

[RachelFerd]

If you're in your 60's and seen it all before, that's how the cookie crumbles. In my lifetime, unsound horses seem to have become more numerous while known parentage increases, not less. If you can give me a foolproof way of making sure unsound horses aren't bred from and breeding for particular characteristics does not increase wastage rates, then I will 100% back your belief that only horses whose parentage is known should be allowed to compete.

Meanwhile .....

But you don't have any data to back up your anecdotal claim, because there isn't any. So let's get some data!

 

[ycbm]

But you don't have any data to back up your anecdotal claim, because there isn't any. So let's get some data!

We can agree on that, but how are you proposing to get breeders to be honest about their broken down brood mares or slaughtered offspring in order to collect the data?

NB I didn't make any claim, I said "seem", and it does seem, to me.
.

 

[DabDab]

I agree with that milliepops - no need to exactly replicate the French system. With a bit of ambition, we could improve it

I'd like to offer up my egalitarian and wonderful data-driven, uber-affiliated regime:

- we phase in the requirement to have recorded breeding
- we also phase in the requirement to record career-ending injury, or specific reason horse moves into breeding without having a performance record
- we also keep competition records across all disciplines at all levels (so nothing exists as total unaffiliated/unrecorded)
- we then have data driven knowledge to understand which horses perform well at all levels, and can take an evidence based approach to buying and breeding horses for all types of competition and all standards of rider (INCLUDING understanding what makes a fab horse for an amateur novicey rider with awesome longevity and soundness), whilst improving the overarching quality of horses that are bred in this country
- and because everyone is feeding into the same system, with a single IT system sitting behind it all, we streamline the amount of money spent on administration of the sporting governing bodies, and registration becomes cheap/free - leading to a super-connected sporting world, with enhanced safety and safeguarding for riders of all ages, and better welfare standards for our horses.

See, easily solved with a glass of wine in hand...

I don't think I would bother to compete any more, and I'm sure lots would feel the same (exactly the sort of people who dot in and out of various affiliations so the gov bodies would lose out).

Unaffiliated exists because for a variety of reasons at a particular point in time people don't feel included in the affiliated system. So if you want rid of it you either go the EGB type route of giving easier to access, more inclusive options, or you devise a system that kills all the easy access options to try to force people into affiliation. ['you' in this para means 'one']

I think the latter of those two would be a shame personally, not least because amateurs involved mainly in unaffiliated competition are a key customer base for a number of equestrian trades and businesses.

 

[RachelFerd]

I don't think I would bother to compete any more, and I'm sure lots would feel the same (exactly the sort of people who dot in and out of various affiliations so the gov bodies would lose out).

Unaffiliated exists because for a variety of reasons at a particular point in time people don't feel included in the affiliated system. So if you want rid of it you either go the EGB type route of giving easier to access, more inclusive options, or you devise a system that kills all the easy access options to try to force people into affiliation. ['you' in this para means 'one']

I think the latter of those two would be a shame personally, not least because amateurs involved mainly in unaffiliated competition are a key customer base for a number of equestrian trades and businesses.

I think you're misunderstanding how my dream world works. But that's ok - it is just a dream world.

In the dream world, you can compete. Your horse was probably registered at birth and their ID is already fully linked to the entry systems. You can randomly enter the into dressage or the 70cm jumping on an ad-hoc basis, but it is 'affiliated' automatically - you just haven't had to pay a big registration fee, because you aren't competing at a high level or regularly. What would be so wrong with that?!

 

[DabDab]

I think you're misunderstanding how my dream world works. But that's ok - it is just a dream world.

In the dream world, you can compete. Your horse was probably registered at birth and their ID is already fully linked to the entry systems. You can randomly enter the into dressage or the 70cm jumping on an ad-hoc basis, but it is 'affiliated' automatically - you just haven't had to pay a big registration fee, because you aren't competing at a high level or regularly. What would be so wrong with that?!

?No I understand.

I think the central database registering all horses is a good idea, just unrealistic, particularly coming from the starting point that the UK would be.

The 100% record keeping of all competitive efforts would put a lot of people off. Particularly when you also throw in linking of vet records. That was the bit I was responding to.

 

[shortstuff99]

This only competing horses with recorded breeding would rather kill the cob market, especially for a certain group ?.

Unaffiliated filled the gap between affiliated that started at Novice BE or Elementary dressage and was run usually by RC, PC or Hunts. Now venues that run affiliated events use it to help fund the venues which is fair I guess. I'm sure I read somewhere that venues are liable to create and maintain the XC courses themselves. They have to fund that somehow.

RC does have safety rules and will discipline riders for drug failures etc, unaffiliated is not necessarily a free for all.

 

[RachelFerd]

This only competing horses with recorded breeding would rather kill the cob market, especially for a certain group ?.

Unaffiliated filled the gap between affiliated that started at Novice BE or Elementary dressage and was run usually by RC, PC or Hunts. Now venues that run affiliated events use it to help fund the venues which is fair I guess. I'm sure I read somewhere that venues are liable to create and maintain the XC courses themselves. They have to fund that somehow.

RC does have safety rules and will discipline riders for drug failures etc, unaffiliated is not necessarily a free for all.

RC isn't unaffiliated though - it is affiliated to British Riding Clubs!

 

[shortstuff99]

RC isn't unaffiliated though - it is affiliated to British Riding Clubs!

Well yes, but most riders wouldn't class it as affiliated. It only costs £20 to be a member.

 

[SOS]

I can’t get annoyed about U/A events whilst BE continues to run a nonsense calendar (repeated bad weather events cancelled as on certain ground at beginning/end of season, multiple events on at the same time in a region then nothing for months) and charges large entry fees for little prize money. The money doesn’t seem to go back into competition - Burghley couldn’t run this year as no money along with various other events.

U/A have stepped their game up and are no longer the ropey, hunter trial-esque XC courses. The fulfill a demand for the grassroots occasional rider and the inexperienced horse.

IF U/A started offering novice and above level courses I would be more concerned. But all taking unaffiliated away does is isolate the keen grassroots leisure rider - which lets be honest is the majority of the UK riding scene.