Letter In H&H RE Competing HC...

C

chester1234

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 May 2008
Messages
2,242
Location
S. Lincs.
www.lkequestrian.com
I have to say I was quite shocked at the response from the eventing editor. She seems to have completely missed the point of the letter...

"Putting mileage on a youngster or getting to know a new horse at these events."

Surely if it's a pro, they don't need to get to know a horse at Intro dressage and 65cm SJ?
confused.gif
I would hope they were a little more competent than that with new rides if they're "pro". The original writer of the letter also mentions that both were "competing regularly at novice and one had recently completed an intermediate event." [her class was PN DR and 85cm SJ]. Surely that's not putting mileage on a youngster?

Also, Eventing Editor says "perhaps these riders wanted to sell the horses and a couple of unaffiliated wins would help that?" - I'm sorry but if a horse has completed an INT what value is winning an 85cm SJ class adding to it? And the same for competing at novice - surely that's putting enough value on it without it winning at the most basic level of unaffiliated? I have seen shaggy ponies with tiny tots win at 65cm - by this effect those ponies should be worth a mint
crazy.gif


Anybody else think that the editor's response totally missed the point? If you're getting to know a new horse or putting mileage on a youngster, there's no reason not to run HC. If you're getting more value by adding unaff wins, it should be a baby or a novice - not and INT eventer.

Thoughts? Or am I way off mark? [Please tell me if I am
blush.gif
]
 
I completely agree with you, I read the response and tbh I too felt it completely and utterly missed the point.

Have a feeling that the original letter was sent in by someone on here and good on them imo.

It isn't hard for the organiser just to simply add a couple of lines to the rules stating that if the horse or combination have competed at an affiliated competition at a higher level in the past 18 months then they must run HC. If they genuinely need the confidence or similar then they wouldn't hesitate from doing so.

Ideally they shouldn't need these rules and the competitor should voluntarily opt to compete HC when they are aware it wouldn't be appropriate (probs not the best word but it's getting late and can't think of another any more suitable
blush.gif
) to run competitively but at the end of the day if it isn't compulsory then few will.
 
It would annoy me no end that you work hard all week in a job that you would rather not do in order to pay for a horse to go to a local run event and that happens. The lady that wrote that letter posted on here first.

I feel the eventing editor has missed the point but then again the blame should be on the show centre for not being stricter on the rules. By having it open it really does mean a 4* horse could open if no restrictions.
 
looking at the letter though, read between the lines-the horse had competed with a different rider.
I'm taking a pony quite capable of a 1m out at 60cm this weekend, as it's a derby and he's not good with ditches and I feel with my big weight on him, it's not fair to ask him to have to do too much jumping. Pot hunting?
Couldn't care less if we win, but I'm not running HC (I compete up to Novice eventing, so similar really!)
 
[ QUOTE ]
looking at the letter though, read between the lines-the horse had competed with a different rider.
I'm taking a pony quite capable of a 1m out at 60cm this weekend, as it's a derby and he's not good with ditches and I feel with my big weight on him, it's not fair to ask him to have to do too much jumping. Pot hunting?
Couldn't care less if we win, but I'm not running HC (I compete up to Novice eventing, so similar really!)

[/ QUOTE ]

There were at least 3 horses running - the one in the 3rd paragraph ["one of the horses entered in the first class"] yes with a different rider, but the two in PN class were not new rides....
 
the response was bizarre, as an unaffiliated win at that level is not going to help an established BE horse!! I was third in this class, on a novice horse (ex point to pointer), his second competition at this level. He IS for sale! and whilst it would have been nice to have a 1st to add to his previous 3rd at this level for advertising reasons ... it was a pleasure to watch the winning partnership. If you go HC, that means no prize money and they still have the same entry fees and travelling costs..... no easy answer.
 
Do you know the worse thing about all this?

The competition was advertised as 'INTRODUCTORY COMBINED TRAINING'

She came 1st and 2nd in the 65cm class and 1st and 2nd in the 85cm class. How much value will that put on a horse?
 
The horse that WON the PN DR & 85cm SJ was 2nd in the Nov @ Withington, with a D/C and a 25 DR....
The one that was 2nd in the same class WON the Novice at Pontispool on a DR of 29.5. - and if I remember correctly was advertised for 20k a while back.
 
knowing who the jockey and horses were it is ridiculous she was even in the classes let alone competitively!

when i bought my grey boy he had competed at PN level- 3 days after buying him i went and did a 3'3ft combined training to get to know him... before having him i had only jumped 2'6ft!
so i am pretty sure a pro rider doesn't need to jump so small on established horses to get to know them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
She came 1st and 2nd in the 65cm class

[/ QUOTE ] I'm hopeless at this metric lark so had to look at a converter before I realised 65cm is a smidgeon over 2'!
shocked.gif
 
I was very taken aback by the response! I had been privy to the letter before it was sent in and was very glad to see it published, but yes, I agree that the point was completely missed by the eventing editor.
 
I thought the reply by the editor was meally mouthed rubbish.
Yes the rules allow anyone to compete but that is absolutely not the point.
I wonder if she would defend the MP's expenses claims which are allegedly within the rules!
I hope she reads this thread and realises that people feel strongly about this.
I don't know who the competitor concerned was but she should be named, it is not libelous to state a fact.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I was very taken aback by the response! I had been privy to the letter before it was sent in and was very glad to see it published, but yes, I agree that the point was completely missed by the eventing editor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks - I'm glad its not just me who thought the editor missed the point of my letter! I've posted the unedited version in new lounge which hopefully gets my point across better! Weezy - you will see my friend persuaded me (reluctantly) to remove references to pot hunting from the version you kindly looked at for me
laugh.gif


ETA - I have already e-mailed the editor to express my views on her comments
laugh.gif
 
Me to

i would also like to say i know someone who was in the same class as her and she went to warm up for the sj after GS and had to put all the fences down as GS had been jumping at least 3ft 3 with huge spreads - didnt think you were allowed to jump any higher than the class and then not putting the fences down when she has grooms there to do it when the average hobby rider is there on their own i think is completely inconsiderate for others!!!!
 
I totally agree - the editor TOTALLY missed the point. Intermediate BE horses do not need to compete in a 2'9 combined training class.

Fiona
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top