So what has British Eventing done wrong?

[humblepie]

Grief. I’m glad I show. I just rock up to whatever arena or field or hill the show is being held at . It does look seriously complicated. Is a shame re Barbury but agree that other than sponsored rides over their land there was nothing unaffiliated there historically

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Aswers to those questions, RF:

1. Do you think that the decisions which have led to a rise in commercial unaffiliated sport, taken by directors of BE who then started running unaffiliated competitions themselves, are totally sound?

Probably not, but we are where we are and need to move on from there.

2. What role do you think unaffiliated sport should be playing? If it is meant to be a pathway into affiliated participation, how would you ensure that it does that?7

Unaffiliated sport is a great gateway to affiliated competition, giving competitors a positive introduction to the sport. Whether people then transfer to affiliated or not is up to BE. If they offer something attractive to grassroots competitors, then they will transition across or combine the 2. If they don’t, they won’t.

3.Does the SEEL (South East Eventing League) appeal to you as a means of giving structure and recognition to a local area eventing series? And if not, why does an unaffiliated series appeal more?

Never heard of it. I live in the North West. If there was a points league under BE near me, I’d take part in it.

4. Under what rules should unaffiliated sport run?

Under whatever rules they choose, as long as they satisfy the many other layers of governance that affect anyone putting on any kinf of event.

5. If British Eventing was to fold, and a new national governing body had to form, in what way would you see them working differently?

Accept reality: they need to work collaboratively with venues who will be doing unregulated events throughout the year. Scrap the website and start again. Sell the value and importance of BE from Page 1. Simplify membership options. Ditch GOBE which is a rubbish idea. Might as well call it ‘pretend eventing but you don’t actually count’. Simplify and speed up joining. State the benefits clearly on the website and also via a year round comms strategy. Take the NT as an example: “Why Join the NT? To gain access to more than 500 places. And to help protect nature, beauty and history – for everyone, forever.” Could not be simpler or clearer. Ensure the sport is welcoming to allcomers, with appealing, interesting events and training opportunities at all levels. Eg replicate the U18s structure (which is fab) for other age ranges. There are lots of different ways you could do it, but they need to compete/collaborate with UA, not punish UA. Eg they could Dove-Tail with UA comps. Encouarge people to do Eland UA early in the season, 'to prepare to affiliate at Eland 2'. They could highlight venues that are an ideal practice ground to get ready to affiliate. Then come up with good reasons why you should want to affiliate. That's a marketing question, really. They are not very good at that. They seem very complacent and seem to think they needn't bother.

6. Why would the original force behind the Cotswold Cup have stopped running their events as part of the series and moved them back under the affiliated banner?

No idea.

7. Should a governing body have the right to try to shape the regional distribution and availability of events?

They have the right to try and influence this. If they are skilful and strategic, they will have significant influence. But they can’t just strong arm people and p1ss everyone off. Well, they can. But it’s not a very good strategy.

8. In an unregulated unaffiliated structure, does it concern you that unpopular rules that have been introduced for safety and welfare reasons could be removed or ignored in order to increase the number of entries?

Not really. I am the founder member of, and ran, High Peak Tri Club for years. We developed and ran a new road-based triathlon: The Hathersage Hilly. We were not affiliated to British Triathlon but still had a gazillion requirements to satisfy: Risk assessments had to be signed off by police, council, Highways Agency, insurers and god knows who else. I don’t think the UK is lacking in regulation to make sure people aren’t being put at undue risk. And some rules make sense in affiliated competition but not necessarily unaff – like the requirement to immediately do the walk of shame if you are eliminated BE, but you can carry on UA. That links to point 5 really. They need to sell the idea that UA is practice eventing (albeit with better prizes!) BE is REAL eventing. But they don't get that message across at all.

9. Do you think an NGB has a duty of care just for sport taking place under affiliated agreements, or do they have a duty of care for the whole population of people training and participating in that sport?

They are 100% responsible for affiliated comps. They can offer guidance, advice and expertise to allcomers. It’s not all or nothing. Fundamentally, BE is not responsible for a small venue that never has and never will affiliate, but that puts on a variety of fun events. Such as an ODE.

Can you answer some of mine then:

1) Should Eland be stripped of BE comps. If not, how can BE justify their support of this when Eland runs under non BE rules. Eg

- Competitors can carry on after elimination
- You can ride younger than the ages given by BE
- The unaff fences are not always BE legal at the level (they are harder)

2) If UA competition is banned on sites that run BE, how do you see BE surviving, given that only a handful of places run only BE. Most run a mixture.

3) If UA is NOT banned on sites that run BE, how can they claim that they are stripping other sites of fixtures on horse/rider welfare and social licence grounds. Do those things only matter to elite riders? Also, how can they justify workarounds, which seem to allow BC champs to be at Frickley, while not allowing CC qualifiers at Burbury. The presence of PC/RC at Frickley does not change the fact that BC is unregulated.

4) Do you think that it is reasonable for BE to require a venue like Pontispool to move a long-established date?

5) Do you believe that stripping them of their date as a result of their refusal to do so, is a price worth paying?

6) Does it concern you that so many venues have walked away, citing unreasonable requirements of BE?

To be honest, I think we need to agree to differ, really. And it will all come out in the wash.....

Meantime I am going to go and ride Lottie. One handed and one-legged

 

[Tiddlypom]

ETA: a quick youtube search shows that there is a 37 minute webinar for the FJ Briefing 2022 - so that exists. Even better if repeated regularly live with the opportunity to ask questions though. And in-person (saw Kelsall had a BE volunteers training day recently, so I guess those are happening, if people have the free time, energy and inclination to get to them)

I've just watched that 2022 FJ briefing webinar - it's actually pretty good and goes into much more detail into just what is/isn't 20 penalties than any real life pre event briefing that I've been to. I've not FJ'd since Covid, so that must be new.

I did the all day FJ training at Kelsall a few years back, it was very good. Though I treble checked with the TD as to whether if a horse grinds to a halt in front of a ditch, does it matter how it stays there before it jumps if it doesn't step back, and he assured me there no time limit. As long as it hasn't stepped back, if it does eventually jump its clear.

Then at the next event when we duly gave 0 penalties to a horse which stopped for maybe 20 seconds at a ditch, didn't do a step back then jumped it, we got glared at by the event TD . Make your minds up, chaps.

 

[RachelFerd]

Can you answer some of mine then:

1) Should Eland be stripped of BE comps. If not, how can BE justify their support of this when Eland runs under non BE rules. Eg

- Competitors can carry on after elimination
- You can ride younger than the ages given by BE
- The unaff fences are not always BE legal at the level (they are harder)

2) If UA competition is banned on sites that run BE, how do you see BE surviving, given that only a handful of places run only BE. Most run a mixture.

3) If UA is NOT banned on sites that run BE, how can they claim that they are stripping other sites of fixtures on horse/rider welfare and social licence grounds. Do those things only matter to elite riders? Also, how can they justify workarounds, which seem to allow BC champs to be at Frickley, while not allowing CC qualifiers at Burbury. The presence of PC/RC at Frickley does not change the fact that BC is unregulated.

4) Do you think that it is reasonable for BE to require a venue like Pontispool to move a long-established date?

5) Do you believe that stripping them of their date as a result of their refusal to do so, is a price worth paying?

6) Does it concern you that so many venues have walked away, citing unreasonable requirements of BE?

To be honest, I think we need to agree to differ, really. And it will all come out in the wash.....

Meantime I am going to go and ride Lottie. One handed and one-legged

Thanks for answering. I think my final question, re. scope of responsibility of an NGB is where my point of view is fundamentally different to yours - I think an NGB has a whole-sport responsibility.

My answers:

1) Should Eland be stripped of BE comps. If not, how can BE justify their support of this when Eland runs under non BE rules. Eg

- Competitors can carry on after elimination
- You can ride younger than the ages given by BE
- The unaff fences are not always BE legal at the level (they are harder)

Nope. No need for Eland to be stripped of BE comps - so long as the competitions do not purport to be running under BE rules (because they aren't). I'm surprised that Eland is able to obtain insurance for the younger age groups or allow people to continue post-elimination - but if they have it, then so be it. In my experience the courses have been near-identical between BE and Unaff at Eland, but if they were harder that's the choice of the competitor in accepting what they want to take part in. No regulation = no assurance of consistency. I am content enough that the unaffiliated events that EL runs are not part of a wider series with likelihood of disrupting the broader affiliated calendar. The national hunter trials series is a different offering and isn't directly trying to compete with any eventing series. There is no significant prize money being given out at the events, and therefore the risks around corruption and welfare breaches are minimal.

2) If UA competition is banned on sites that run BE, how do you see BE surviving, given that only a handful of places run only BE. Most run a mixture.

UA competition being run on BE sites is not a long-term position. I've flicked through my old BE results, and the majority of venues I was competing at until about 2014 never ran unaffiliated, with a small handful running PC/RC. I firmly believe that venues working in partnership with local PCs and RCs could generate healthy introductory grassroots eventing scenes, which would often use grassroots BE tracks, whilst also contributing to the wider equine infrastructure, linked through to also generating local training opportunities and developing communities through those clubs. I also believe that a better symbiotic relationship between unaffiliated 'training' events and 'REAL eventing' (as you labelled it - because I think I'd get slated for calling it that!) would be developed by making the training/unaff stuff a different offering, not a copycat offering. I've got zero issues with Aston Le Walls running their training event this weekend - it's super popular and no-doubt generating lots of income, but it isn't trying to compete directly with their core offering.

3) If UA is NOT banned on sites that run BE, how can they claim that they are stripping other sites of fixtures on horse/rider welfare and social licence grounds. Do those things only matter to elite riders? Also, how can they justify workarounds, which seem to allow BC champs to be at Frickley, while not allowing CC qualifiers at Burbury. The presence of PC/RC at Frickley does not change the fact that BC is unregulated.

Complicated question so will try and answer all the parts.

- FEI rules about unsanctioned events have been around for a long time (this article dates back to 2012) - the FEI essentially are letting NGBs decide whether they want to turn a blind eye to unaffiliated/unrecognised/unregulated sport - but they are also absolutely not keen on NGBs ignoring it. It has caused a load of headaches over many years, but it isn't new.
- It does therefore make some sense for BE to tighten up rules at events that have been granted FEI fixtures first and foremost, as suspect there is some pressure from the FEI to do so. Both BE and FEI are at risk if a serious accident or incident happens at a venue being used for unaff too - and where there are no controls around MERs, doctors certs to return after an accident, continued performance requirements, horse identity checks, drug testing etc. those risks are increased, albeit minimally.
- The CC could have run at Barbury if it wanted to partner with a local RC or PC, and if the CC was willing to work in partnership in that way. It would no longer be unaffiliated, and would be part of an established infrastructure, with an overarching governance. The BC has evidenced that it is possible to set up partnerships in this way.
- The BC is much less of an overall threat to BE than the CC because it is not advertising a £10k prize pot. This also reduces the likelihood of corruption/deliberate welfare breaches.
- There is nothing to stop local 'unregulated' leagues (like the SEEL) taking place within the BE affiliated calendar. As far as I can see, there would have been nothing stopping the CC from using the GoBE option to run a CC points scoring league date. I would suggest that there were a large number of flexibilities available to creating a more joined-up relationship between CC and BE which haven't been used - I do not know whether that failure entirely sits with CC, BE or a bit of both.
- That said, the £10k prize pot being advertised by the CC does constitute a threat to eventing's integrity, and I could understand a position where the FEI would support BE in stating that it is 'unsanctioned' rather than just something that can be quietly ignored.

4) Do you think that it is reasonable for BE to require a venue like Pontispool to move a long-established date?

- this does sound like a bit of an own goal. Would have been right to give Pontispool the option of moving to a different date because of the Bicton date being granted. But to enforce them having to move when they were different audiences does seem a bit silly.

5) Do you believe that stripping them of their date as a result of their refusal to do so, is a price worth paying?

- as above - think this was an own goal.

6) Does it concern you that so many venues have walked away, citing unreasonable requirements of BE?

- yes, of course it does. I care more about eventing than is healthy for me. But I still have faith that a huge amount of positive change is being enacted at the centre - and that they are listening. But nothing makes everyone happy and for every person you please, you piss someone else off.

I also believe that necessary changes are going to be quite painful. Hence my analogy about tax - no-one likes paying tax. We do accept that paying tax is essential to have basic services. Services might survive for a while without tax, but after a while infrastructure crumbles. Things are getting crumbly because tax avoidance was advocated for by people involved at the centre in the 2005-2015 period and we're now having to retrospectively go back and patch things up.

 

[quizzie]

On the subject of own goals and website problems...

I evented for over 40 years, but stopped a few years ago when I retired my last eventer. I have recently bought a new youngster, and was contemplating having a play with him if he schools on well....so I go to the website to check the current rules, to see what I would be eligible to enter, given my previous record...only to find the rule book is only available if you are a member.....Talk about putting people off!

I appreciate associate membership is free, but why should I have to register to see the rules?

...and below the new registration box is a line that says " why become a member"....clicking on it leads nowhere....

Result...I really can't be bothered to pursue my idea

 

[ester]

So GOBE has been completely balloted from moreton. Understandably members have priority but that is going to cause complications if they're trying to encourage people to do it rather than UA

 

[shortstuff99]

So GOBE has been completely balloted from moreton. Understandably members have priority but that is going to cause complications if they're trying to encourage people to do it rather than UA

I saw that and thought what an own goal .

 

[teapot]

So GOBE has been completely balloted from moreton. Understandably members have priority but that is going to cause complications if they're trying to encourage people to do it rather than UA

That’s spectacular

 

[Ample Prosecco]

So GOBE has been completely balloted from moreton. Understandably members have priority but that is going to cause complications if they're trying to encourage people to do it rather than UA

 

[Squeak]

Quick question, if people can't answer it I'll start another thread or contact BE but I was sure that they'd said something about changing from balloting to first come first serve kind of thing to help organisers know what entries they were going to get instead of people doing it on ballot day or later.

Have I got completely the wrong end of the stick and it's still the same as before or has there been a change? I've seen posts on FB of people nervously waiting for the events to open and then the website crashing with so much traffic so I'd thought this was to do with it now being first come first served but reading the rule book it seems not?

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I am sure I read they were doing away with balloting so I am confused now too. I get that if they do need to ballot, of course members should take priority over GOBE. But really makes me feel GOBE is just misconceived as an idea. I mean anyone who does not want a record, MERS, or to be a member should ride UA! Where they are totally welcome, rather than a 'you don't actually really count' rider.

And I think balloting is hugely problematic as you often find out too late to plan something new. First come, first served feels better, maybe with full members being invited to enter a week before PAYG and another week before it opens to GOBE?

 

[ihatework]

I am sure I read they were doing away with balloting so I am confused now too. I get that if they do need to ballot, of course members should take priority over GOBE. But really makes me feel GOBE is just misconceived as an idea. I mean anyone who does not want a record, MERS, or to be a member should ride UA! Where they are totally welcome, rather than a 'you don't actually really count' rider.

Whilst you are welcome to your own views on GOBE and are completely within your own rights to choose not to participate I do think you are starting to come across not particularly well when you start to indicate other people shouldnt enter and should go UA instead because they aren’t welcome.

 

[conniegirl]

Whilst you are welcome to your own views on GOBE and are completely within your own rights to choose not to participate I do think you are starting to come across not particularly well when you start to indicate other people shouldnt enter and should go UA instead because they aren’t welcome.

i think you are blind to BE’s problems. It certainly feels like people are not welcome. I personally feel that if i ever got the courage to do an ODE then I’d rather go UA where im the same as everyone else and appreciated as such rather than there to make up the numbers and not really counted.

 

[honetpot]

Whilst you are welcome to your own views on GOBE and are completely within your own rights to choose not to participate I do think you are starting to come across not particularly well when you start to indicate other people shouldnt enter and should go UA instead because they aren’t welcome.

I think they need to be clear what they are selling, and what's in the small print exclusions.

GO BE

No Membership Needed and Unpublished Results makes British Eventing accessible for all!

www.britisheventing.com

 

[ycbm]

I do think you are starting to come across not particularly well

.

 

[ihatework]

i think you are blind to BE’s problems. It certainly feels like people are not welcome. I personally feel that if i ever got the courage to do an ODE then I’d rather go UA where im the same as everyone else and appreciated as such rather than there to make up the numbers and not really counted.

Why are they not welcome?
It is completely normal to expect balloting in oversubscribed events, which often happens at the early season ones.
BE always ballot lower classes out first.
Certsinly non registered classes should go before registered ones when oversubscribed- it’s not because they aren’t welcome, it’s because they unfortunately cannot be accommodated.

Not unlike the novice national classes at Chatsworth which are frequently balloted for the international.

 

[ihatework]

i think you are blind to BE’s problems. It certainly feels like people are not welcome. I personally feel that if i ever got the courage to do an ODE then I’d rather go UA where im the same as everyone else and appreciated as such rather than there to make up the numbers and not really counted.

And of course you should go UA if you prefer. But maybe others would rather choose GOBE

 

[ycbm]

And of course you should go UA if you prefer. But maybe others would rather choose GOBE

They can't if they can't get any entry

 

[Squeak]

I am a bit disappointed if they haven’t moved away from balloting. It separates PAYG and GO BE from members and does make UA more logical for them if they can’t guarantee a run. It’s enough of an issue for members but it would be worse being at the bottom of the priority list.

It does seem like one of those where actions speak louder than words and they’re saying one thing but doing another.

On another point I’m not sure it is correct that the lower level classes should be balloted instead of the higher ones, it makes it clear that the GR aren’t as important to BE and if that’s the case then why not go UA where the GR are their priority. Or BE should just make it clear that the higher levels are their priority and make it clear why GR riders should compete BE over UA and what it is that they’d get out of it.

 

[TheMule]

I am a bit disappointed if they haven’t moved away from balloting. It separates PAYG and GO BE from members and does make UA more logical for them if they can’t guarantee a run. It’s enough of an issue for members but it would be worse being at the bottom of the priority list.

It does seem like one of those where actions speak louder than words and they’re saying one thing but doing another.

On another point I’m not sure it is correct that the lower level classes should be balloted instead of the higher ones, it makes it clear that the GR aren’t as important to BE and if that’s the case then why not go UA where the GR are their priority. Or BE should just make it clear that the higher levels are their priority and make it clear why GR riders should compete BE over UA and what it is that they’d get out of it.

It IS more important that the higher level horses get runs- if you miss a 90 or 2 then there's no real consequence to that. If you miss an OI run en route to Badminton then that's potentially a serious safety/ fitness/ preparation issue.
And BE are very clear about that, it's very obviously stated in the balloting rules

 

[conniegirl]

Why are they not welcome?
It is completely normal to expect balloting in oversubscribed events, which often happens at the early season ones.
BE always ballot lower classes out first.
Certsinly non registered classes should go before registered ones when oversubscribed- it’s not because they aren’t welcome, it’s because they unfortunately cannot be accommodated.

Not unlike the novice national classes at Chatsworth which are frequently balloted for the international.

The we need your money to provide better riders a good service, but you peons on the bottom levels can fend for yourself and we’ll get rid of you first attitude.

why not just do like every other equine discipline does including UA eventing, first come first served.
set a class limit for each and thats it. No messing about with “you may or may not get a run” which definitely feels like an admission that they have no interest what so ever in the lower levels.
People have gone through all the hassle of registering with GoBE, wading their way through the quagmire that is the website and entry process only to be left with nothing to show for it and no time to organise anything else.

 

[conniegirl]

It IS more important that the higher level horses get runs- if you miss a 90 or 2 then there's no real consequence to that. If you miss an OI run en route to Badminton then that's potentially a serious safety/ fitness/ preparation issue.
And BE are very clear about that, it's very obviously stated in the balloting rules

In that case what advantage doe GoBE, PAYG or even membership have over UA for the lowest level of riders? those that are the financial back bone of the organisation seem to be getting a very rough deal

 

[shortstuff99]

Why are they not welcome?
It is completely normal to expect balloting in oversubscribed events, which often happens at the early season ones.
BE always ballot lower classes out first.
Certsinly non registered classes should go before registered ones when oversubscribed- it’s not because they aren’t welcome, it’s because they unfortunately cannot be accommodated.

Not unlike the novice national classes at Chatsworth which are frequently balloted for the international.

It is a bit illogical when BE is making a massive push to not have UA events, entice members with GOBE and then ballot them all out. Surely that's going to make more riders go UA as they will be guaranteed a run rather than a you might get a run but probably not situation.

 

[ihatework]

We are back to the pyramid.
As you go up the pyramid the opportunities to get a run at the level are fewer and further apart. Therefore those events take priority or the horses would never get qualified. There are so many GR courses/venues so whilst annoying if you get balloted there are always other options.

Let’s get this in proportion- Moreton balloted ?28 GOBE entries. They also ballotted or waitlisted a number of BE members. They are running in excess of 250 far as I’m concerned this is great - in times of turbulence for BE an oversubscribed event is positive. It means BE is being supported.

Meanwhile in other events you can get BEGO runs if you so wish. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You can enter GOBE. You can pay for membership. You can go unaff.

 

[ihatework]

It is a bit illogical when BE is making a massive push to not have UA events, entice members with GOBE and then ballot them all out. Surely that's going to make more riders go UA as they will be guaranteed a run rather than a you might get a run but probably not situation.

Can you imagine the uproar if members at 80/90/100 who have paid membership and fully support BE got bumped in favour of an unaffiliated competitor?????

I get your point and I suspect GOBE may fall by the wayside. But later in the year when events aren’t fully subscribed- then if someone wants a training run and is happy to just make up the numbers there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I am passionately committed to grassroots eventing, (all eventing actually but without grassroots there would be nothing else). I want to to get more people eventing. Last year I sponsored a team to enter an event - encouraging people who had never evented before to join, paying their entry and organising and paying for XC training for them to prepare.

But I think that that the way GOBE has been marketed, versus the experiences of any inexperienced rider who entered on that basis (ie giving eventing a try) is likely to lead to THEM feeling unwelcome.

GOBE strikes me as very useful for experienced eventers with young horses to get them out without a record in case it goes wrong, and at a lower cost. It makes perfect sense for that. But I work with riders many of whom worry about feeling out of place BE, as it is. I regularly promoted BE80T classes as a great option for them - and still think it is. The course walks, the help warming up etc.

It is certaintly not the case that I think BE intends anyone to feel unwelcome. I apologise if that is how my post came across. It is for those GOBE riders to feedback whther they do or they don't. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how I think I would have felt n that situation. Personally I'd scrap GOBE. And focus more on the T element of BE80T.

I am glad events are over-subscribed though. That is very positive.

 

[honetpot]

We are back to the pyramid.
As you go up the pyramid the opportunities to get a run at the level are fewer and further apart. Therefore those events take priority or the horses would never get qualified. There are so many GR courses/venues so whilst annoying if you get balloted there are always other options.

Let’s get this in proportion- Moreton balloted ?28 GOBE entries. They also ballotted or waitlisted a number of BE members. They are running in excess ifAs far as I’m concerned this is great - in times of turbulence for BE an oversubscribed event is positive. It means BE is being supported.

Meanwhile in other events you can get BEGO runs if you so wish. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You can enter GOBE. You can pay for membership. You can go unaff.

Your right no one is forcing anyone to join, but they BE are taking fees and I suppose people will join on the basis they will get a chance to enter. If they allocated a %, of entries GOBE, and once they're gone they're gone, everyone knows what they are paying for.

 

[teapot]

Can someone explain why Poplar didn't ballot its GOBE entries, all 17 of them, whereas Moreton has had to ballot the 28 ones they had?

I know there limits to how many run in total per day, so what's the cause of one balloting over another not? Both events are running across two days.

 

[ihatework]

 

[humblepie]

GoBE looks like unaffiliated to me if no membership and no points?