While BE struggles - BD thrives

[ycbm]

Smallwood is a great little course, and it is close to BE standard, but it isn't quite there, for a few reasons. Firstly, there is no frangible tech on some of the very upright 'rail-y' fences which at a BE event would now be pinned, even at 90/100 level. I have also seen events run there, albeit at low levels, on ground which is extremely firm - and were it affiliated, would have been able to benefit from BE's equipment such as the aggravator to help create less jarring conditions.

I've run many times in the past on rock hard ground BE, the aggravator kit can't be at every event in a dry summer.

I don't know any event rider, personally, who actively wants the frangible pins. For me, the fact that the fences are solid was all part of the thrill. Cross country training courses don't generally have pins, people train over fences that won't fall.

I see a thriving future for unaffiliated 80/90/100 outside BE as cost of living increases begin to bite.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

I've run many times in the past on rock hard ground BE, the aggravator kit can't be at every event in a dry summer.

I don't know any event rider, personally, who actively wants the frangible pins. For me, the fact that the fences are solid was all part of the thrill. Cross country training courses don't generally have pins, people train over fences that won't fall.

I see a thriving future for unaffiliated 80/90/100 outside BE as cost of living increases begin to bite.
.

I think unaffiliated collapses if the centre collapses - maybe it thrives for a bit, but fundamentally it can't long term.

I know lots of event riders who are very supportive of frangible technology - it is the right thing for the sport. I don't know anyone that likes having rotational falls or seeing horses and riders killed unnecessarily. At Somerford there are a number of training fences that are MIM-clipped for safety in the 80 acres.

 

[ycbm]

I think unaffiliated collapses if the centre collapses - maybe it thrives for a bit, but fundamentally it can't long term.

I think you've got this the wrong way round. Are you too young to remember competition before BE 100 was started?

The reason BE started lowering the heights was because there were so many people competing at lower heights unaffiliated and they wanted the revenues that large numbers of lower level riders would bring. A few years back, BE had all but killed the local unaffiliated XC and ODE .

I don't see any reason why unaffiliated XC and ODE would collapse if BE was to disappear, quite the reverse in fact.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

I think you've got this the wrong way round. Are you too young to remember competition before BE 100 was started?

The reason BE started lowering the heights was because there were so many people competing at lower heights unaffiliated and they wanted the revenues that large numbers of lower level riders would bring. A few years back, BE had all but killed the local unaffiliated XC and ODE .

I don't see any reason why unaffiliated XC and ODE would collapse if BE was to disappear, quite the reverse in fact.
.

I started eventing when PN was the opening level. I don't remember the 'before world' as being a good place - standards of courses were incredibly poor and we affiliated because there wasn't much good on offer outside of the affiliated calendar. In order to affiliate as an under 18 I had to go and be signed off as being safe by an accredited trainer. The local unaffiliated XC and ODE on offer was BAAAAAD! And that was in the heart of horsey Gloucestershire!

I've said it a gazillion times on various threads - you strengthen affiliated eventing by making it more inclusive for all - not by trying to reverse the clock. The world has moved on - its very easy to look at the past through rose tinted glasses.

 

[I'm Dun]

I've said it a gazillion times on various threads - you strengthen affiliated eventing by making it more inclusive for all - not by trying to reverse the clock. The world has moved on - its very easy to look at the past through rose tinted glasses.

Its also very easy for things to carry on as they are, even if they arent providing the service wanted, if there are no other alternatives. The rise in unaffiliated shows they are providing something that is wanted. Whether that be price, or date or some other factor. I don't see it as reversing the clock. Why is having good quality alternatives an issue?

 

[RachelFerd]

Its also very easy for things to carry on as they are, even if they arent providing the service wanted, if there are no other alternatives. The rise in unaffiliated shows they are providing something that is wanted. Whether that be price, or date or some other factor. I don't see it as reversing the clock. Why is having good quality alternatives an issue?

Because fundamentally unaffiliated sport is less beneficial (or more likely actively detrimental) to the infrastructure of equestrian sport. This is the same argument that I had on the dressage circle thread - in a world of sporting governing bodies, you don't need an 'alternative' - you just need a wider umbrella.

 

[SilverLinings]

What would happen is what was happening before BE introduced BE80/90/100.

There would be a raft of unaffiliated competition like there used to be, and like we seem to be moving back to.
.

I think the last time I evented was when PN was the lowest level of affiliated competition. There were loads of unaff events in the (several) areas of the country I lived in then: every hunt, PC and RC ran ODEs and hunter trials, whereas very few seem to do so now (PCs being the most likely). In the area I lived in when I last evented there were 8 good x-country courses within a 10 mile radius, and they each held at least 1 ODE, 2 HTs and numerous schooling days per year. Only one of those unaffiliated courses still exists and the others haven't been replaced.

I struggle to see how UA is responsible for 'threatening' BE? UA used to be the training ground for BE (maximum height tended to be 3'6''ish so at that point riders would be progressing to BE), it was only when BE made the choice to hold lower height classes that they started sharing the same 'market'. You could actually argue that BE doing this contributed to the death of a lot of UA courses because it was seen as more prestigious to go BE than UA once the courses were the same height (although I am aware that there were some other factors such as insurance that played a role).

For riders who don't have the ambition/ability/horse to progress beyond 90/100cm (or in some cases 80cm) there is not much benefit to pay to go BE if you have UA options available to you, and BE need to accept this. As others have said, with the cost of living increases I don't think many competitors at the lower end of the scale will be able to justify BE costs in the next few months/years.

I am actually not sure that continuing to spend money on the lower levels of competition (possibly excluding training) is necessarily the best financial model for BE going forwards. If they started at 100cm, or higher, then they would reduce the costs of administrating the large grassroots membership, and the costs of maintaining multiple courses. It would make BE prestigious again, and enable UA courses at lower heights to flourish. From a safety POV UA courses have to meet insurance requirements so they aren't a complete free-for-all, and they can still benefit from BE's knowledge (as they do currently).

These are just my musings though, and I'm no longer directly involved in eventing (botched MSK surgery forced me to the dark side- dressage!). I do desperately want to see both BE and the UA scene continue and flourish though, as I think they both have a valuable part to play in this wonderful sport.

 

[I'm Dun]

Because fundamentally unaffiliated sport is less beneficial (or more likely actively detrimental) to the infrastructure of equestrian sport. This is the same argument that I had on the dressage circle thread - in a world of sporting governing bodies, you don't need an 'alternative' - you just need a wider umbrella.

But without competition whats the driver to improve? BE are now apparently making big changes but that's only following the mass defection to unaffiliated. If that hadn't happened I cant imagine they would be doing this.

 

[RachelFerd]

But without competition whats the driver to improve? BE are now apparently making big changes but that's only following the mass defection to unaffiliated. If that hadn't happened I cant imagine they would be doing this.

They're a governing body, NOT the event providers. You don't want competing governance - that's just confusing.

People have decided to participate in events that are run without governance because they are cheaper. Within the bounds of affiliated competition the events are competing with each other to attract entries.

BTW Pony Club and Riding Club events are NOT unaffiliated - they are affiliated to those bodies and have their own rulebooks.

What rules do you think unaffiliated competitions are run under?

Friend of mine who events in France thinks it is complete madness that any of the unaffiliated sector exists. What is it for? Who does it actually benefit? Why do insurance companies even agree to cover it? It doesn't make any sense!

 

[ycbm]

They're a governing body, NOT the event providers. You don't want competing governance - that's just confusing.

They are both. Effectively the venues are a franchise holder of BE. A Costa is still a Costa if it's franchised and not actually owned or run by Costa, and if Costa was the only coffee chain you could bet your life prices would rise and innovation would cease until someone else opened another chain of coffee shops.
.

 

[ycbm]

Friend of mine who events in France thinks it is complete madness that any of the unaffiliated sector exists. What is it for? Who does it actually benefit? Why do insurance companies even agree to cover it? It doesn't make any sense!

It seems to make a great deal of sense to the thousands of people entering the events.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

They are both. Effectively the venues are a franchise holder of BE. A Costa is still a Costa if it's franchised and not actually owned or run by Costa, and if Costa was the only coffee chain you could bet your life prices would rise and innovation would cease until someone else opened another chain of coffee shops.
.

It isn't a franchise. It's a sporting governing body. In this weird example, they're the council authority allowing the Costa shops to trade with a food business registration licence, making sure that Costa abide by basic rules of food safety and hygiene.

An unaffiliated event is a coffee shop operating without a local authority licence and not paying their tax, but we're all confident that they are practising good food safety despite being unlicensed and we're happy because the coffee is cheaper.

 

[RachelFerd]

Useful info about the role of an NGB here - https://www.sportengland.org/how-we...erning-bodies?section=the_recognition_process

and here - http://www.sportni.net/performance/governing-bodies/what-is-a-governing-body/

The only recognised NGB is the umbrella organisation British Equestrian, under which the member bodies (inc. BE, BD, BS, Pony Club, BHS inc. Riding Club) operate.

Note expectations that an NGB should -

• Encourage and grow participation.
• Develop coaches, athletes, officials and participants.

Which seems to be where BD is doing well, and BE needs to catch-up. And its why doing things like scrapping the lower levels would be going against the role that an NGB should be playing.

 

[ycbm]

It isn't a franchise. It's a sporting governing body. In this weird example, they're the council authority allowing the Costa shops to trade with a food business registration licence, making sure that Costa abide by basic rules of food safety and hygiene.

An unaffiliated event is a coffee shop operating without a local authority licence and not paying their tax, but we're all confident that they are practising good food safety despite being unlicensed and we're happy because the coffee is cheaper.

BE is also a brand. It sells a product from which it takes revenues. It has no authority over anything but sales of its own branded product. It fails to treat its buyers as customers, and unaffiliated suppliers are doing a better job of that and succeeding.

You want to exert greater control over the whole of horse sport in the UK, to restrict competition between suppliers, to restrict people's choice and to prevent horses with unrecorded parentage from competing. I don't think the majority of horse people in this country want any of that. I'm for choice.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

BE is also a brand. It sells a product from which it takes revenues. It has no authority over anything but sales of its own branded product. It fails to treat its buyers as customers, and unaffiliated suppliers are doing a better job of that and succeeding.

You want to exert greater control over the whole of horse sport in the UK, to restrict competition between suppliers, to restrict people's choice and to prevent horses with unrecorded parentage from competing. I don't think the majority of horse people in this country want any of that. I'm for choice.
.

I'm also for choice, but BE is not primarily there to sell a product. It regulates and governs a sport at a national level.

Now, there are lots of problems, historically, with how it has done that - but fundamentally, BE has a governance structure which members can influence through board elections to shape what the sport looks like and develop it for the future. It has structure which allow people to raise issues which can ultimately be addressed through ongoing changes and improvements to the rules, and to competition structures. It might not have always been run as democratically as it should be, but the structures are transparent and people's failure to engage with those processes is a bit of a shame.

The BE calendar seems to beat the heart of the problem - BE has/had lots of willing event suppliers who wanted to run BE events, but were told they couldn't, because of the fixtures process. The fixtures process has failed to do the things it was meant to do (which was, supposedly, to support a calendar which worked fairly for riders AND organisers). Fixing the fixtures process is a big job, but it is resolvable. BE should not be aiming to have a purely open competition between suppliers, because actually, it SHOULD have a role in protecting some of the more vulnerable areas calendar-wise from losing fixtures, and making sure that single events (eg. Aston) don't dominate the calendar to the detriment of everyone else.

So the solution that I'd propose to this, is letting events just run at grassroots level on a much more open basis - supplying the sporting opportunities, but keeping them under the bigger umbrella of affiliated competition.

It isn't about restricting competition or about reducing choice - it's about creating a safe, fair, well regulated environment for horses and people. And you do that through working together across organisations with a shared vision for the sport's strategy.

...The unrecorded parentage thing is an entirely separate topic I've written about before - no intention to go into it again here.

 

[teapot]

I think the regulated/unregulated divide industry is probably one of the biggest issues as a whole.

It starts with riding schools - anyone can open one, not everyone goes the BHS route which is the rs version of BE as a sporting body. Unless the sport tightens up as a whole it'll never change imho.

 

[I'm Dun]

I'm also for choice, but BE is not primarily there to sell a product. It regulates and governs a sport at a national level.

Now, there are lots of problems, historically, with how it has done that - but fundamentally, BE has a governance structure which members can influence through board elections to shape what the sport looks like and develop it for the future. It has structure which allow people to raise issues which can ultimately be addressed through ongoing changes and improvements to the rules, and to competition structures. It might not have always been run as democratically as it should be, but the structures are transparent and people's failure to engage with those processes is a bit of a shame.

The BE calendar seems to beat the heart of the problem - BE has/had lots of willing event suppliers who wanted to run BE events, but were told they couldn't, because of the fixtures process. The fixtures process has failed to do the things it was meant to do (which was, supposedly, to support a calendar which worked fairly for riders AND organisers). Fixing the fixtures process is a big job, but it is resolvable. BE should not be aiming to have a purely open competition between suppliers, because actually, it SHOULD have a role in protecting some of the more vulnerable areas calendar-wise from losing fixtures, and making sure that single events (eg. Aston) don't dominate the calendar to the detriment of everyone else.

So the solution that I'd propose to this, is letting events just run at grassroots level on a much more open basis - supplying the sporting opportunities, but keeping them under the bigger umbrella of affiliated competition.

It isn't about restricting competition or about reducing choice - it's about creating a safe, fair, well regulated environment for horses and people. And you do that through working together across organisations with a shared vision for the sport's strategy.

...The unrecorded parentage thing is an entirely separate topic I've written about before - no intention to go into it again here.

You want everything running under BE. Your solution is to allow unaffiliated events to continue but under BE. There is no choice that way.

You say fixing what you see is the issue as being a big job, but clearly it isn't, as unaffiliated have fixed it themselves with minimum fuss and effort. In the process they have produced an alternative product which is better priced and better run. People are voting with their feet. It was only then that BE looked up and decided it probably had to do something. They have known there's issues for years and done nothing. They would have continued to do nothing had it not all come to a head with unaffiliated suddenly being more popular.

If there was one overall governing body running things well I might agree with some of what you say, but there isn't, and BE has made some spectacular and very expensive cocks up. I absolutely wouldn't want them to be the only option to event. I think the majority would agree with that based on this thread and others here and on other forms of social media. The grass roots eventers are just not feeling the love for BE now.

 

[RachelFerd]

I think the regulated/unregulated divide industry is probably one of the biggest issues as a whole.

It starts with riding schools - anyone can open one, not everyone goes the BHS route which is the rs version of BE as a sporting body. Unless the sport tightens up as a whole it'll never change imho.

Yup. It's a big steaming mess!

 

[RachelFerd]

You want everything running under BE. Your solution is to allow unaffiliated events to continue but under BE. There is no choice that way.

You say fixing what you see is the issue as being a big job, but clearly it isn't, as unaffiliated have fixed it themselves with minimum fuss and effort. In the process they have produced an alternative product which is better priced and better run. People are voting with their feet. It was only then that BE looked up and decided it probably had to do something. They have known there's issues for years and done nothing. They would have continued to do nothing had it not all come to a head with unaffiliated suddenly being more popular.

If there was one overall governing body running things well I might agree with some of what you say, but there isn't, and BE has made some spectacular and very expensive cocks up. I absolutely wouldn't want them to be the only option to event. I think the majority would agree with that based on this thread and others here and on other forms of social media. The grass roots eventers are just not feeling the love for BE now.

I'll ask the question again - what rules are unaffiliated events run under? Where is the rulebook?

 

[SilverLinings]

There have always been a lot of people who compete at UA events who have never been BE members, don't want to affiliate and have no interest in competing at a BE event. This will be for a variety of reasons, but it's a fact and I don't think they would want to be 'forced' to compete BE if that were the only option. Lots of competitors at the lower classes at UA events only compete once or twice a year (or less) for fun at their local event, so paying to be a member of BE in order do so would be an expensive option for what is for many people just a fun day out.

A lot of us here are very competitive/ambitious/driven, but we are not the majority in the horse-owning world. People who aren't like that are unlikely to bother with their annual fun pootle around an event if it becomes expensive and more complicated (in paperwork/membership terms), so they would just be pushed out of eventing if UA disappeared. Aside from the loss of revenue and support, that would also mean that some of them might miss out on having the passion and competitiveness ignited in them that we may feel for the sport.

BE started holding lower-height classes because they saw how popular the UA ones were, so they can't be surprised that they now have to compete in that market.

BD benefited from the fact that many UA events with untrained judges were often seen as a bit hit and miss regarding marking, so anyone who wanted to keep track of whether they were improving or have an honest shot at a rosette might consider joining BD. This depends a bit on what your area of the country is like (some centres use BD judges for UA), but as BD isn't as expensive as BE (I understand the reasons for the cost differences) many people were also happy to pay that little bit extra for the prestige of competing affiliated. BE can never be that 'cheap' so needs to decide what market it is aiming at.

 

[ycbm]

fundamentally, BE has a governance structure which members can influence through board elections to shape what the sport looks like and develop it for the future. It has structure which allow people to raise issues which can ultimately be addressed through ongoing changes and improvements to the rules, and to competition structures. It might not have always been run as democratically as it should be, but the structures are transparent and people's failure to engage with those processes is a bit of a shame.

I think we have very different views of what the vast majority of grass roots riders actually want, and of the influence that a grass roots member can actually have on the sport.
.

 

[I'm Dun]

I'll ask the question again - what rules are unaffiliated events run under? Where is the rulebook?

How does this mean that everything should be run by BE and there should be no unaffiliated?

 

[ycbm]

I'll ask the question again - what rules are unaffiliated events run under? Where is the rulebook?

Well probably before you were born I was competing ODEs, XC and hunter trials where there were either no rules or the rules were 3 refusals at any one fence and move on.

And I don't recall it being any issue whatsoever and a lot of people had a lot of fun.

In 1992, my first season in Cheshire, I could do probably 10 ODE and 20 XC in a season over without travelling more than an hour from home. The Bristol area I moved from was pretty good too. I'm sure that increasing insurance costs and red tape was responsible for some of the demise, but the real crash came when BE introduced 90, then 80.

Just because it's quick and easy for unaffiliated venues to say "rules are as per BE" doesn't mean that the world would fall apart if BE was no longer there to write a rule book.

 

[ycbm]

Rachel can I turn this around the other way. Why do you think everyone, even someone who wants only one run a year, should pay affiliation fees for themselves and their horse when there are venues who can offer what they want for no additional cost and a lower entry fee?

ETA your answers so far seem to be very much about what you want to see happen to the sport you love and nothing much about what grass roots competitors want.
.

 

[milliepops]

or look at it the other way, if all eventing competition came under a loose umbrella of BE, the fees might be able to be reduced for everyone. so everyone could benefit fairly and fully from the support, expertise, training, safety developments etc but there may be potential for economies of scale.

It wouldn't necessarily have to look like it does now, you could have the unaff dates slightly organised and with some sort of accreditation of standards etc (I remember ye olden days of really effing weird XC courses with awful trappy fences and then enormous things ) without it necessarily needing the current BE model... you could think outside the box a bit if there was a will do to this.

 

[RachelFerd]

or look at it the other way, if all eventing competition came under a loose umbrella of BE, the fees might be able to be reduced for everyone. so everyone could benefit fairly and fully from the support, expertise, training, safety developments etc but there may be potential for economies of scale.

It wouldn't necessarily have to look like it does now, you could have the unaff dates slightly organised and with some sort of accreditation of standards etc (I remember ye olden days of really effing weird XC courses with awful trappy fences and then enormous things ) without it necessarily needing the current BE model... you could think outside the box a bit if there was a will do to this.

This 100% - and thank you for managing to say what I'm trying to and failing to articulate!

 

[ycbm]

or look at it the other way, if all eventing competition came under a loose umbrella of BE, the fees might be able to be reduced for everyone

I think that might be the first time in the history of economics that a monopoly supplier resulted in reduced prices.
.

 

[milliepops]

I don't see it as a monopoly though, BE don't own the courses or run the events?

 

[ycbm]

I don't see it as a monopoly though, BE don't own the courses or run the events?

They set the affiliation fees and, I think, mandate the entry fees.
.

 

[ycbm]

Deleted