So what has British Eventing done wrong?

[Ample Prosecco]

I read that Frickley have gotten around it by also using it as a riding club event so technically still under affiliation...

Oh that's interesting. And I'm glad Frickey will survive as I really feel for those competitors at that level, losing so many opportuniues. But it also makes the BE position even more inconsistent/illogical which will annoy venues even more!

 

[ycbm]

BE never understood that the vast majority of 80/90/100/novice riders just want a lovely day out less than 2 hours drive from home. When they dropped the heights to grab those entry fees and drive up their revenues they thought they were going to wipe UA off the map. Indeed they managed to do that for a while until people got sick of the ever increasing cost. Throw in a cost of living squeeze and for most competitors BE simply don't add enough value to compete with UA over similar courses. Punishing venues for running UA is driving nails into the coffin. This was all SO predictable when BE decided to increase its revenues by filching Riding Club competitors 25 years ago.
.

 

[teapot]

BE are assuming events put on by PC or BRC are better run and safer than an unaffiliated put on by an experienced team that knows how to run BE, which is a hell of a thing to assume

 

[Ample Prosecco]

BE are assuming events put on by PC or BRC are better run and safer than an unaffiliated put on by an experienced team that knows how to run BE, which is a hell of a thing to assume

Which is why it is obviously an excuse. They don't truly believe that events like Barbury are going to run their Cotswold Cup qualifier in an unsafe way. Nor that this will have any impact on 'social licence'. And they know they can't ban all venues from running UA alongside BE, or they will kill BE stone-dead overnight. So they are using their muscle to push venues around, by withholding prestigious events, while pretending it is about 'social licence' and 'horse/rider welfare'. Their true motivation is so blindingly obvious that I am almost more annoyed by their cynical posturing than by the decisiosn themselves! I cannot stand people who defend decisions by spouting BS. If they feel UA is a threat to them, so they will remove some BE events from UA venues, say so. And maybe even explain why BE is undermined by UA, and that - in the long run - this will ubndermine all eventing.

Persuade, compete, collaborate. Don't just push people around, while pretending it is about safety and social licence. People get anoyed and tell them to get stuffed. As they are discovering.

 

[ahml100]

BE have turned off comments on their post. I believe they may have gathered that it would not be a popular one

 

[Dexter]

The statement is clear. They tried to blackmail Barbury and they called their bluff and now the international has been pulled. Its disgraceful and makes even less likely to ever fork out for BE membership now!

 

[RachelFerd]

The statement is clear - the future of equestrian sport has to be more closely regulated, not less, with the pressures of social license and increasing scrutiny. It is not unreasonable to expect all eventing sport at international venues to be run under the auspices of a governing body that is part of the British Equestrian umbrella. That is the umbrella organisation which is operating to ensure compliance with FEI rules and also linked through to the IOC. So the governing body could be BE, RC or PC - but not an unregulated body with no rulebook or official structure. The event had a perfectly valid ability to use the GoBE classes to fulfill the unaffiliated role, but they have chosen not to. They could also have partnered with a local PC or RC, as Frickley have done for the Brigante cup.

 

[teapot]

The statement is clear - the future of equestrian sport has to be more closely regulated, not less, with the pressures of social license and increasing scrutiny. It is not unreasonable to expect all eventing sport at international venues to be run under the auspices of a governing body that is part of the British Equestrian umbrella. That is the umbrella organisation which is operating to ensure compliance with FEI rules and also linked through to the IOC. So the governing body could be BE, RC or PC - but not an unregulated body with no rulebook or official structure. The event had a perfectly valid ability to use the GoBE classes to fulfill the unaffiliated role, but they have chosen not to. They could also have partnered with a local PC or RC, as Frickley have done for the Brigante cup.

BE are going to need to be squeaky clean about welfare though if they're starting to quote social licence as a reason. Unfit riders and horses flopping their way round affiliated 90s spring to mind...

 

[Ample Prosecco]

The statement is clear - the future of equestrian sport has to be more closely regulated, not less, with the pressures of social license and increasing scrutiny. It is not unreasonable to expect all eventing sport at international venues to be run under the auspices of a governing body that is part of the British Equestrian umbrella. That is the umbrella organisation which is operating to ensure compliance with FEI rules and also linked through to the IOC. So the governing body could be BE, RC or PC - but not an unregulated body with no rulebook or official structure. The event had a perfectly valid ability to use the GoBE classes to fulfill the unaffiliated role, but they have chosen not to. They could also have partnered with a local PC or RC, as Frickley have done for the Brigante cup.

BE depends on estate owners, venue organisers and members. All are condemning the current direction of travel and the recent decisions. They, and a few supporters, can defend those decisions tilll they are blue in the face. But if BE don't take those 3 groups with them, they are doomed.

The arrogance is palpable: riders should know better than to ride unaff, events should have chosen one of THEIR events - other people are doing it wrong. No! It is up to BE to make themselves attractive and to be persuasive. Not just to keep expressing their disappointment at how wrong headed everyone else is.

 

[RachelFerd]

BE are going to need to be squeaky clean about welfare though if they're starting to quote social licence as a reason. Unfit riders and horses flopping their way round affiliated 90s spring to mind...

No, but they have a structure that allows them to do something to improve that - whereas unaffiliated/CC absolutely doesn't.

 

[RachelFerd]

BE depends on estate owners, venue organisers and members. All are condemning the current direction of travel and the recent decisions. They, and a few supporters, can defend those decisions tilll they are blue in the face. But if BE don't take those 3 groups with them, they are doomed.

Well, it seems the person that started the CC is back on board with BE and not involved with the CC any more... So, clearly some people are being won back and others aren't. The unhappy ones are most vocal - as is always the case.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

No, but they have a structure that allows them to do something to improve that - whereas unaffiliated/CC absolutely doesn't.

Of course they do. Any venue can instruct fence judges to pull up tired horses. And Eland does. Plus a local SJ venue DQs competitors for overuse of the whip far more readly than I have seen in BS

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Well, it seems the person that started the CC is back on board with BE and not involved with the CC any more... So, clearly some people are being won back and others aren't. The unhappy ones are most vocal - as is always the case.

I am not looking our for it, but I have not seen much BE bashing. All I have seen are the statements from venues when events are pulled. These cite problems with BE as the reason, which is not unreasonable. After all, it's true. It is not empty ranting about BE. It is pointing out that their events are no longer viable because of BE. That is not being vocally unhappy but just honest. GOBE was one day. They could not make 1 day GOBE a viable alternative to the 3 days unaff they had planned. So blaming them is just venue bashing again.

 

[Tiddlypom]

BE rules for FJs don't permit a FJ to pull up an exhausted combination off their own bat. You are required to radio control with your concerns, and then they decide whether to get the combination flagged down.

Though I absolutely would have stopped a dangerously tired combination if confronted with one, rather than let them stumble on over another fence or two. Didn't ever need to, but would have.

 

[RachelFerd]

Of course they do. Any venue can instruct fence judges to pull up tired horses. And Eland does. Plus a local SJ venue DQs competitors for overuse of the whip far more readly than I have seen in BS

They don't have the ability to set consistent rules, refer decisions to a board or to officials or to exclude people from participating more widely. They aren't actually operating any kind of rulebook at all - so if there was a major disagreement on a result or decision, they effectively have no leg to stand on.

 

[ycbm]

if there was a major disagreement on a result or decision, they effectively have no leg to stand on.

There aren't any major disagreements. The point you continually miss is that people at that level are mostly only out for a fun day out. UA ran locally at the lower heights without BE and we all understood the rules well enough to enjoy ourselves.

The decisions and rules are made by the venue, if you don't like them, you go home.
.

 

[teapot]

They don't have the ability to set consistent rules, refer decisions to a board or to officials or to exclude people from participating more widely. They aren't actually operating any kind of rulebook at all - so if there was a major disagreement on a result or decision, they effectively have no leg to stand on.

Yet most events across dressage, sj or eventing are publicly happy to say 'we're running under BD/BS/BE rules' and those who enter are obviously happy with that. As @Ambers Echo says, some places probably are tougher unaffiliated than they are affiliated.

 

[RachelFerd]

There aren't any major disagreements. The point you continually miss is that people at that level are mostly only out for a fun day out. UA ran locally at the lower heights without BE and we all understood the rules well enough to enjoy ourselves.

The decisions and rules are made by the venue, if you don't like them, you go home.
.

There was a pretty major disagreement at Kelsall UA last year when someone did the dressage wearing a headset attached to their trainer. and got very angry when disqualified.

 

[ycbm]

There was a pretty major disagreement at Kelsall UA last year when someone did the dressage wearing a headset attached to their trainer. and got very angry when disqualified.

It was dealt with, it didn't need BE to tell Eland what to do!
.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Popele kick off anywhere and anytime over lots of things. UA or affiliated. I have no idea what point you are making. The rider remained DQed. Events organisers deal with complaints perfectly competently, all the time. Oli was pretty unimpressed by his dressage marks: didn't he describe the judges as 3 people in garden sheds!

 

[ycbm]

Reading some of these posts it's a wonder I ever threw a competitor out of the ring at a riding club event for a 2 point chin strap. She was furious, tough luck, the rules said mounted competitors had to be wearing a 3 or 4 point harness.
.

 

[Red-1]

I have fence judged under BE, can't say I was that well trained. First time I did it, I had finished early and offered my services. I was sent to relieve a fence judge, had a 5 minute explanation and was then left with whistle, flags, stopwatch and form... on my own.

Not that I minded, but I think I would have been as well trained if judging for an UA event.

I have had more rigorous training at other BE events, although at others it was more about the bacon sandwich...

I have competed BE and UA over BE courses, sometimes from the previous day. I can't say as I noticed a difference.

 

[RachelFerd]

Popele kick off anywhere and anytime over lots of things. UA or affiliated. I have no idea what point you are making. The rider remained DQed. Events organisers deal with complaints perfectly competently, all the time. Oli was pretty unimpressed by his dressage marks: didn't he describe the judges as 3 people in garden sheds!

The rider in question claimed that they should be allowed to use it because it was a "friendly unaffiliated" and proceeded to put it all over her social media which has a large following. Onus was entirely on venue to resolve, whereas if it had been a BE event, the rules would have been clear, the venue and organiser would not have to have been involved and the online mud flinging wouldn't have happened.

 

[ycbm]

I've been given 20 penalties at an affiliated event for circling between two separately numbered fences, so I'm not convinced the training is necessarily that brilliant.

 

[RachelFerd]

Reading some of these posts it's a wonder I ever threw a competitor out of the ring at a riding club event for a 2 point chin strap. She was furious, tough luck, the rules said mounted competitors had to be wearing a 3 or 4 point harness.
.

It's no wonder at all, because it was an affiliated riding club event, with rules

 

[ycbm]

The rider in question claimed that they should be allowed to use it because it was a "friendly unaffiliated" and proceeded to put it all over her social media which has a large following. Onus was entirely on venue to resolve, whereas if it had been a BE event, the rules would have been clear, the venue and organiser would not have to have been involved and the online mud flinging wouldn't have happened.

People kick off about BE and BD and BS and have done in the past on this forum. .

 

[ycbm]

It's no wonder at all, because it was an affiliated riding club event, with rules

You have no idea whether it was affiliated or not! Not all Riding Clubs are and one I belonged to at the time wasn't.

Rachel I'm sorry but you come across as dreadfully elitist whenever these discussions happen. Not everyone wants what you do from competition.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

You have no idea whether it was affiliated or not! Not all Riding Clubs are and one I belonged to at the time wasn't.

Rachel I'm sorry but you come across as dreadfully elitist whenever these discussions happen. Not everyone wants what you do from competition.
.

With the nicest of meanings - I am going to set you to ignore on these forums. I disagree so inherently with you on so many things I think it's probably not good for me! I'm actually pretty nice in real life

 

[ycbm]

To add, the Riding Club that wasn't affiliated decided to affiliate so it could do team competitions. I argued against it, said it would completely change the club, but senior people wanted to do team competitions and they won. In the subsequent years the club focused on teams which most people were either not interested in or didn't have the horse for. The membership shrank and shrank and the calendar now has probably 1/4 of the dates that it used to have and the remaining dates are "open" in order to get enough entries to run.
.

 

[ycbm]

With the nicest of meanings - I am going to set you to ignore on these forums. I disagree so inherently with you on so many things I think it's probably not good for me! I'm actually pretty nice in real life

Well you won't be able to hear this now but putting your hands over your ears is very much what BE are doing to the average, not very competitive, rider.

I'm absolutely sure you are a very nice person, I don't think people aren't nice just because I disagree with them.
.