|
Post by Query on Mar 27, 2016 15:24:25 GMT
Not going to mention names as not sure if I'm right! To be eligible for pretty polly status would I be right in thinking the pony couldn't be "with" a producer i.e. groomed and prepped before going in ring, and ridden by producer at same show?
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Mar 27, 2016 15:43:36 GMT
All the BSPS rules (including those covering the Pretty Polly section) are all available on their website, so you should be able to answer your own question.
Amateur rules for other societies are not necessarily the same as the Pretty Polly rules however.
|
|
|
Post by thatboythatgirl on Mar 27, 2016 17:17:51 GMT
Unless it was before the 1st March no they shouldn't
|
|
|
Post by Rules on Mar 28, 2016 8:08:23 GMT
Hi when we qualified a couple of years ago just before the final we were asked to ride a small pony for someone (home produced) at a small BSPS show as their daughter had been struggling. We rang bsps first to check and they told us if we put one foot in the stirrups we would not be eligible for the final. Whilst talking to bsps we asked another question as a producer had offered to transport my daughter and pony to a show that hubby could not make a week later but would have nothing to do with pony as i was going to go to sort pony and groom. We were told even the transporting of our pony by a producer would not make us eligible for the final.
So the answer is yes they have completely broken the rules and the matter needs reporting. These classes are hard enough to qualify at without producers flaunting the rules to suit.
|
|
|
Post by bigmama on Mar 28, 2016 14:20:38 GMT
Unless it was before the 1st March no they shouldn't The 1st March date applies to horse/ponies stabled on a producer's yard
A 1st January date applies in other circumstances
Here are the current BSPS Pretty Polly rules:
279. Animals must not have been stabled or reside in a Professional Producers/Trainers yard since 1st March in the current year. (lessons are exempt)
280. Riders must not have ridden any animals produced by a Professional Producer/Trainer at any show since 1st January in the current year.
281. Animals and Riders must not have received any help from a Professional Producer/Trainer at any show since 1st January in the current year. Animals must not be ridden at a show by a rider that has ridden for a Professional Producer/Trainer at any show since 1st January in the current year.
282. The definition of a Professional Producer/Trainer is:- A person who undertakes the preparation and/or production of ponies/horses belonging to other exhibitors for the show ring including at a show
283. Riders and leaders can only ride or lead animals owned by their immediate family. (See page 6)
Of course, these rules only apply to BSPS classes and at shows using BSPS rules to govern their classes
There are other showing societies who have their own rules and these will be found on their websites
"Query", if you feel that rules have been broken, it would be preferable for you to contact the relevant showing society to report it
Good luck to all genuinely home-produced in 2016
|
|
|
Post by thatboythatgirl on Mar 28, 2016 17:50:13 GMT
I wonder how many people query the new rules of the pony must belong to immediate family
|
|
|
Post by ponymum on Mar 28, 2016 18:52:17 GMT
I think this list should be displayed laminated in the secretaries tent at all shows with PP Qualifiers as most people DO NOT adhere to the rules.
|
|
|
Post by mcnaughty on Mar 30, 2016 8:39:19 GMT
People know the rules of Home Production and some choose to ignore them. It would not hurt though and I assume it would be very simple for on line entries to have a screen flash up with those rules above and 'click here to confirm acceptance' and if entering on the day a laminated sheet be pushed under the noses of those entering HP classes to be read prior to payment. I really dont think that it will make any difference to those who just blatantly lie about their position in this respect. A very public naming a shaming though might put them off future cheating and others from following suit too! Its not fair on those that are home produced. Some of us are very home produced with full time jobs over an hour from home with no extended family of mucker outers, lorry drivers, pony scrubbers, product appliers, lunge buddies, talented teenagers or tiny adults on hand to ease the pain! I think there should be another class for the PP mother and daughter team!!
|
|
|
Post by Dipsy on Mar 30, 2016 12:09:48 GMT
People know the rules of Home Production and some choose to ignore them. It would not hurt though and I assume it would be very simple for on line entries to have a screen flash up with those rules above and 'click here to confirm acceptance' and if entering on the day a laminated sheet be pushed under the noses of those entering HP classes to be read prior to payment. I really dont think that it will make any difference to those who just blatantly lie about their position in this respect. A very public naming a shaming though might put them off future cheating and others from following suit too! Its not fair on those that are home produced. Some of us are very home produced with full time jobs over an hour from home with no extended family of mucker outers, lorry drivers, pony scrubbers, product appliers, lunge buddies, talented teenagers or tiny adults on hand to ease the pain! I think there should be another class for the PP mother and daughter team!! The idea for the online entries is good in theory, but might not always be easy to set up. Online entry systems can really vary in price and the more complicated it becames the more it costs, so might be an option for shows trying to keep costs down. When you send over an entry whether it be hard copy or online you are signing up to say that you agree with all of the T&Cs of the show including the rules of the class. I would hope that anyone who knows someone wrongly competing in PP class would approach the show organizers/societies.....
|
|
|
Post by mcnaughty on Mar 30, 2016 12:30:21 GMT
thanks cgreen76 I do understand what you mean and yes as a condition of parting with our hard earned cash we do automatically agree with the rules etc - seems like some people need those rules shoved up their noses though before they take notice of them!! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by lennycrabsticks on Mar 30, 2016 13:43:58 GMT
Mcnaughty, What you put in your post is everything I was going to put !! So feed up with people cheating , Would the Bsps pick it up ? Looked at the results and then on face book! Come on give us p produced people some sort Of chance.
|
|
|
Post by Dipsy on Mar 30, 2016 13:48:01 GMT
thanks cgreen76 I do understand what you mean and yes as a condition of parting with our hard earned cash we do automatically agree with the rules etc - seems like some people need those rules shoved up their noses though before they take notice of them!! ;-) I fully agree there! Too many people ignore the rules.... Maybe its time to take a stand against these people who "ignore" these rules, whether it be competitors, judges or show organisers. Maybe people will start listening then......
|
|
|
Post by Query on Mar 30, 2016 15:50:39 GMT
Thanks everyone for your comments. Didn't know if I was being over paranoid and am quite protective over the "pretty polly" classes! I think you're right, they're ought to be some naming and shaming of those breaking the rules, as his would also deter others from doing the same. However most of us, like myself, would not be ready for the backlash it may cause. Just need one brave person!
|
|
|
Post by Dipsy on Mar 30, 2016 18:56:24 GMT
Well I would be happy as a show secretary for someone to approach me if this was happening. Unfortunately on show day I don't really get to leave the marquee unless it's in search for a glass of wine lol
|
|
|
Post by thatboythatgirl on Mar 30, 2016 19:08:49 GMT
I don't know who this person is referring too. I must say I was suprised by one pony that's got its ticket as I've always known it to be produced for the people who have it
|
|
|
Post by Im not bitter on Apr 1, 2016 11:20:30 GMT
What about being led on lead rein by someone who works for a producer in one class then going into PP class with its owner and child?
|
|
|
Post by not right? is it on Apr 1, 2016 12:30:47 GMT
hi i too was surprised in a m and m lr pp class that a pony was led by someone else in the opens but mum led in pp i wasn't in the class but was surprised
|
|
|
Post by sjw87 on Apr 1, 2016 13:15:10 GMT
Unless it was before the 1st March no they shouldn't The 1st March date applies to horse/ponies stabled on a producer's yard
A 1st January date applies in other circumstances
Here are the current BSPS Pretty Polly rules:
279. Animals must not have been stabled or reside in a Professional Producers/Trainers yard since 1st March in the current year. (lessons are exempt)
280. Riders must not have ridden any animals produced by a Professional Producer/Trainer at any show since 1st January in the current year.
281. Animals and Riders must not have received any help from a Professional Producer/Trainer at any show since 1st January in the current year. Animals must not be ridden at a show by a rider that has ridden for a Professional Producer/Trainer at any show since 1st January in the current year.
282. The definition of a Professional Producer/Trainer is:- A person who undertakes the preparation and/or production of ponies/horses belonging to other exhibitors for the show ring including at a show
283. Riders and leaders can only ride or lead animals owned by their immediate family. (See page 6)
Of course, these rules only apply to BSPS classes and at shows using BSPS rules to govern their classes
There are other showing societies who have their own rules and these will be found on their websites
"Query", if you feel that rules have been broken, it would be preferable for you to contact the relevant showing society to report it
Good luck to all genuinely home-produced in 2016
I don't compete under BSPS rules but just a bit bemused by the above rules. Why is it that a pony can have been in a producer's yard until 1st March but all the other rules are from 1st Jan? Seems to me that being stabled with a producer would give someone more of an advantage than if the rider has ridden a pony for someone else so just can't get my head around the difference in dates! Sent from my SM-A300FU using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Team Fenton on Apr 1, 2016 16:30:50 GMT
A pony can be stabled in a producers yard upto 1st march for schooling or breaking services but not attend a show with them.
Or pony can be on a producers yard and attend shows straight after rihs if doing rihs pp classes upto 1st jan the next year then must go home if you want to do pp in the next show season.
|
|
|
Post by chloesmum on Apr 1, 2016 17:03:59 GMT
Totally agree sjw I have always found PP rules to be a minefield and however hard BSPS try each year to clarify they seem to end up becoming more complicated! We have never done them but I have always found it odd that a pony could be on a producers yard for half the year if you planned it carefully and still do the PP! Whereas a pony who is 100% home produced, never put a hoof in a producers yard but you have another pony who is produced cannot ever do PP - or if the jockey rides a produced pony for someone even if only once! But you can have lessons with a producer! Whole can of worms I think and also seems to cause the most complaints each year!!
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Apr 2, 2016 8:11:00 GMT
I "think" the 1st March date was changed from the old 1st January to allow HP families to buy a pony during the winter & not be excluded from HP classes for that year.
However the only way these classes can really be policed is by the other competitors. If you feel the rules have been broken then you need to contact the BSPS.
|
|
|
Post by bigmama on Apr 2, 2016 15:25:15 GMT
"Home-Produced" and Pretty Polly rules could be VERY simple:
1. Horse/pony to have been continuously stabled at the owner's home since 1st January of that year (I hear the DIY livery peeps groaning now!)
2. Horse/pony never to have been ridden, handled, led, trained or transported by a professional since 1st Jan; same rules for lead rein leader (although the ridden and handled bit might offend some!)
3. Rider not to have ridden or led for or been led by a professional/producer/trainer and/or ridden a professionally produced pony since 1st Jan
Yes, it is a competitor's responsibility to report any obvious rule-breakers to the show secretary on show day
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Apr 2, 2016 15:54:56 GMT
bigmama - despite it seeming to be the first port of call, I can see no real benefit of reporting matters to the show secretary on the day, unless it is the BSPS Winter Championships.
Show secretaries do not know who is eligible for classes - that stipulation is in the schedule & the exhibitor signs the entry form saying that they agree to abide by the rules & therefore is stating they are eligible.
Many show secretaries are not conversant with any rules, indeed some of them are actually only administrative & not even horsey - so what could they/should they do on the actual day?
If you feel rules have been broken then it is the society governing the classes (in this case BSPS) that need to be made aware.
Probably before your time, but the rule did used to state "owner's home" or words to that effect & was changed to include DIY as members complained that most people did not own their own land & stables but relied on DIY
If someone wishes to cheat, no amount of rules will stop them until they are reported for it.
I prefer to believe that most people are honest, but the few spoil things for the majority - but only if the majority let them.
|
|
|
Post by chloesmum on Apr 2, 2016 15:55:06 GMT
Agree bigmama nice and simple!! However I would allow DIY. Many PP people in our Area are not fortunate enough to have facilities at home, land in the South is hard to come by particularly as we are close to London. So I do think people who are genuinely DIY should still be included. As I said we never have and are never likely to do PP so nothing personal here but people we are trying to encourage locally to join our shows and area would fall into the DIY category. To me keep it simple is always the best way forward but it does seem to always throw up 'loop holes!' Edited to add having read Janet's reply - I agree complaining to the Show Secretary on the day might not be helpful but making them aware of any future complaint might. Show Secretary's have such a hard time keeping on top of marks/results etc and would not be in a position to make a decision that of course has to be the society who will then investigate and decide. I also agree that we should rely on people's honesty and integrity I do wonder what people really gain from 'cheating' - yes a ticket to the RIHS but the best ponies also seem to qualify in the Open classes as well so is it really worth it?
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Apr 2, 2016 16:08:46 GMT
bigmama - how would you actually prove that even your simple rules were not being broken? You could probably prove "ownership" of the said animal - but some sales/loans etc might not be in the true spirit even though on paper they appeared above board.
How would you prove that the animals had resided at the owners home exclusively even if you could provide proof that said owner had land & stables attached to the property?
These might seem quite far fetched points, but they would still rely on policing by other competitors.
|
|
|
Post by bigmama on Apr 2, 2016 17:57:32 GMT
Sorry, Janet, I disagree ... should a matter concerning home-produced be brought to the attention of the show secretary, he/she could at the very least approach the alleged offender and ask if they truly are home-produced ... many people, when confronted, will actually admit or say "Oh, I didn't know" .. if everyone buries their heads in the sand because it isn't PR to approach and ask the question, where will that get us?
Re. a secretary being non-horsey, how on earth did that non-horsey person put together a show schedule with all the ins and outs of classes and show rules to include? Surely the secretary would have a BSPS rule book to hand on show day?
I distinctly recall @ Equifest some years ago, a complaint being made to show secretary Betsy Branyon about open ponies being in a restricted m|&m class at the Peterborough show, upon which she and her officials hot-footed it over to the ring in question, halted the class and reminded all competitors that this was a restricted class and that any ponies in the restricted class who competed RI/Hoys/Olympia the previous year should not be in there and asked them to leave the ring without further ado .. several ponies left the ring = dealt with, promptly, efficiently and effectively
I know that the BSPS is a different society but very often, unless your name means something in BSPS circles, nothing usually comes of ringing them up with a complaint
|
|
|
Post by GaynorStones on Apr 2, 2016 18:12:45 GMT
I am disappointed about the new immediate family rule. Rachel and I couldn't be more home produced but because we are not related we can no longer do Pretty Polly classes
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Apr 2, 2016 18:19:28 GMT
I think you might be surprised about show secretaries bigmama & don't forget the wording, rules etc are supplied in a standard form by the various societies & can even be cut & pasted from the various websites in some cases - plus once done most schedules are simply updated year on year, but not really the point I was trying to make. I still don't think it is the place of the show secretary although chloesmum's suggestion of informing them that a complaint was being made seems a good compromise.
Regarding equidistant & the restricted problem, this is not really the same as BSPS keep records of animals winnings so is easy to actually prove & who is to say that if someone had gone to BSPS office at the winter champs then the same thing might not have happened.
There are correct complaints procedures to be followed but I have to disagree that your name needs to mean something. Members need to read the rule books & stick to the rules
Sorry it should say equfest! Blooming predictive text
|
|
|
Post by ponymad79 on Apr 2, 2016 18:48:07 GMT
Well if a show the size of Equifest can do it so can others , sadly If it is not addressed on the day it does another child out of their placing and the excitement of winning or qualifying . Societies need to step up to the plate and be pro active when they know full well what is happening . They make the rules after all .
|
|
|
Post by pinkypie2 on Apr 2, 2016 19:02:23 GMT
I am disappointed about the new immediate family rule. Rachel and I couldn't be more home produced but because we are not related we can no longer do Pretty Polly classes I'm surprised that you can't GaynorStones, reading the BSPS's definition of immediate family, it includes so many combinations it appears that even the postman would qualify by association.
I can't believe that each year, the amended rules are more unworkable than the year before and largely unenforceable. If you raise an objection, what happens is largely dependent on who you are. A couple of years ago, a friend of mine complained about a family (coincidentally BSPS sponsors), that did the home produced classes. Their trainer who was also a judge, transported the ponies to the show rode them in before the PP classes at the RI. I watched in utter amazement at the blatant disregard for the rules. When an objection was raised, she was told that the mother couldn't be expected to do the ponies on her own and nothing happened. Absolutely true! I think at the end of the day, you just have to enter in the spirit of the class - win or lose, knowing you aren't a cheat and you got there fair and square has to be a reward in itself. I know this isn't a solution but it is as good as it gets.
|
|