|
Post by forester on Apr 21, 2016 9:43:46 GMT
I agree why haven't they contacted Bsps to complain
I hope they don't do anyway with them people just need to stop breaking the rules lol
With regards to auntie/uncle they won't be able to police that as anyone can say their related by marriage etc
|
|
|
Post by chloesmum on Apr 21, 2016 10:12:44 GMT
Which is exactly my point! There seems to be no 'fair' solution which can be policed, totally agree with sarahp and Phillipa. If we want to retain these classes I guess the real answer does rest with competitors honesty and integrity, if in doubt check with BSPS BEFORE you enter as Forester has said they are happy to answer any questions on eligibility.
Edited to add I don't know the people being discussed in the thread but they have been honest enough to come on here with their own names to reply, I know from personal experience how horrible it feels to have annonymous people write about you and your integrity often without being in possession of all the facts. Again if rules have been broken intentionally or unintentionally go to BSPS and ask them to investigate, they will! If no rules have been broken you have to accept it and if you don't agree with the rules then use your voices and challenge the rules Phew!!!! Good Luck to all you are competing in PP this year.
|
|
|
Post by Hidingnow! on Apr 21, 2016 10:13:34 GMT
Yes I have come on here as a guest because I am pretty shocked and saddened that this board has been reduced to this level. Very sad. I am also very scared by the hidden threats!
Can I please point something out though and this I believe is the danger of social media and the web in general.
I was curious who David was so I googled him - yes I know that little about showing that I did not know who this demi-showing-god was!
His name immediately popped up on a 'Team Osborne' web site which clearly states that David has 'worked with horses for many years' and goes on to name some of the top producers in the country.
Correct me if I am wrong but please could someone explain the rule around 'earning money from show production' - Is is in the past or present? Producer or staff? Including David's name on a 'team' web site surely indicates that this gentleman assists with the production of this pony in some way? I would suggest that, David, you remove your name from this page to prevent any further 'confusion'.
I will finish by saying that HP classes should be entered 'in the spirit of HP' and an extended team of buddies (whether they have worked for top producers or not) is not HP.
|
|
|
Post by just googled on Apr 21, 2016 11:28:29 GMT
Hi me too have just looked this Guy up and was surprised to see the info
Methinks they doth protest too much -
if these classes go -what then can a home produced family do sometimes lots of them just like the pp classes so please dont bin them - bin the people who abuse them
|
|
|
Post by Keep it Fair on Apr 21, 2016 12:08:59 GMT
I cannot see how someone is eligible to compete in HP classes when they are paying someone else, especially a professional, to help them produce their ponies!! It's making a mockery of those of those who keep to the rules and are genuinely "Home" produced. I appreciate that not all mums can ride or produce to a good enough standard and need help in these areas THEREFORE STICK TO OPEN CLASSES AND STOP BENDING THE RULES
|
|
|
Post by CONFUSED . COM on Apr 21, 2016 13:30:39 GMT
i may be simple but is the gentleman not a dental student ? and as for getting help i thought you could have lessons with a professional as in rule 279 ,so what is a professional ? I AM ONLY ASKING
|
|
|
Post by chipmokey on Apr 21, 2016 13:33:42 GMT
Regarding time limits I cannot see how it is fair that a pony can have been in a producer's yard until 31st March and go straight out to compete in PP qualifiers in March. A previous post suggested that this was because they were there for breaking or schooling - surely there is an argument that if they were there for breaking they should stick to novice classes for the current season (or opens if they wish) and if they are there for schooling then they are professionally produced. I was shocked to learn that there are those who have been produced the previous year to qualify HOYS and maybe Olympia but provided they are not in a producer's yard after 31st March until after RI they can be produced for 8 months a year without contravening the rules.
In the past I have known a producer express surprise that people were critical of her children competing in PP classes and a rider admitting that her mother had been a producer but was no longer. Surely someone does not lose their knowledge and expertise of professional production as soon as they stop accepting money for this and therefore it is certainly against the spirit of the rules and should be against the rules for them to compete in PP classes. It would be fairer and easier to police if anyone who had been a producer at any time and chose to continue to be involved in showing whilst no longer charging for their services were excluded from PP classes, after all there are plenty of other classes for them to compete in.
|
|
|
Post by nothomeproduced on Apr 21, 2016 13:37:51 GMT
These home produced classes always cause so much controversy. And I cannot do them so it's not sour grapes. I do really feel sorry for the 'genuine' home produced people. It would be fairer if maybe at the beginning of the season you registered to do either the Pretty Polly RIHS qualifiers or the Opens. I'm sure the people who can do PP but can still be top of the line in the opens would stick with doing the opens. Then the genuine PP people would still have their own class to do at RIHS but where they are all on a level playing field. Some of the people who do PP have a whole show team of ponies and grooms and often buy ponies that have already won HOYS or RIHS previously with producers. And quite often are top judges or have previously been professional producers themselves. Its really not fair to the people who maybe can only have one or possibly two. Although when I started showing there wasn't any HP and we learnt from the pro's and worked our way up and competed at the top with the rest of them.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyMoney on Apr 21, 2016 14:17:45 GMT
nothomeproduced, this is absolutely the RIGHT and only enforceable solution - registering either for pp or open from 1st Jan and only able to switch during the season from pp to open if the pony changes hands mid season, but not the other way round. However, the cynic in me says that the BSPS would never go for that because, although it would mean that you'd get a completely different set of ponies in each final and you'd genuinely open up more opportunity, it would mean splitting the entries at the qualifiers and reducing levy income. At the moment the vast majority of ponies do both if they are eligible (or not in some cases) for pp. Similarly, ponies that are ridden in open classes by a professional shouldn't be allowed to have a random amateur rider on to add another class to their tally in the PUK amateur RIHS class, and in the young riders section it should be one section for each combination, not under 18 AND intermediate AND Amateur. But I don't think the societies actually care whether the same ponies are in all the classes at the RIHS, so long as the qualifiers have the maximum numbers of entries. They say it's about more opportunity, but in reality it's all about more money and they only get that if everyone can do pretty much everything.
BTW - not sour grapes as I regularly qualify in the open classes, but it always seems to be a complete war zone in the pp and amateurs.
|
|
|
Post by thatboythatgirl on Apr 21, 2016 14:21:44 GMT
But a HP ponies in an open class isn't a level playing field as it's HP v Pros
Just because you can qualify in open why should you be penalised and not be allowed to compete in a class of ponies that are supposedly HP
Last year's PP people bent the rules ponies got his hoys ticket with another jockey then did the PP at RIHS
|
|
|
Post by MoneyMoney on Apr 21, 2016 15:05:28 GMT
Well we can't have it all ways. If the PP people want a tighter system then registering for one or the other at the start of the season would help and would allow for PP eligibility to be checked. The trouble is, of course, the best of the PP competitors are used to having two sets of qualifiers.
I'm not saying that if you are good enough to qualify in the open you would not be ALLOWED to compete in the PP, but that it would be less open to abuse if we all had to CHOOSE one or the other at the start of the season. You could argue that it is completely unfair that home-produced people have two sets of qualifiers whereas professionals only have one... how is that fair???
And then, really, none of it is a completely level playing field... If it was a 'level playing field' it would be a game and not a competition because we'd all be the same. I am disadvantaged by a disability, someone else is disadvantaged by their physical size, person x works 70 hours a week whereas person y doesn't have to work at all, etc, etc. But if there are going to be two main categories, HP and none-HP, then there's no real reason why one set of people should have two opportunities and one set should have one opportunity, and because the none-HP will always be seen as slightly better (otherwise why even worry whether someone is HP or not) HP competitors could still select to register for OPen if they prefer. I think this is how it works in SHBGB with amateurs, isn't it? i.e. you register a horse for amateur or open and if it's registered open an amateur can still ride it but not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by nothomeproduced on Apr 21, 2016 15:38:48 GMT
MoneyMoney, I competely agree. Its all about the money!! Totally agreed with you on PUK Amateur classes too. The problem is its generally the HP people who are doing the complaining about it not being fair on them to be against the producers etc and the rules being bent so if they had only one class to do it would still be a fairer class for them. Whey should they have two bites of the cherry to be fair. There are a lot of producers and professionals out there with their own children who can't do home produced on their own family owned ponies so it does swing both ways to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by pinkypie on Apr 21, 2016 15:39:09 GMT
Maddies Mum RNI - or whatever - who went on as a guest - sorry I can't link to your post.......
I sincerely hope that you weren't accusing me of starting a witch hunt. I'm not going to get into some mud slinging dialogue with you,so I will clarify what I said once and only once.
I reported the facts in my post. I have a right to do so, we live in a free country and with that comes the benefit of free speech. At no time did I accuse the family of any wrongdoing whatsoever. In fact, I specifically said that the family had permission from BSPS. I did not need to know anything about the family. I am sure they are lovely - they could be the loveliest family in the UK but this had nothing to do with the facts. At no time did I express my personal opinion or pass moral judgement. I reported the facts as any responsible journalist would - that is what they do - deliver the facts and open up a discussion pertaining to those facts. It is called the democratic way. Some people might agree with them, some won't - that would be their opinion but you can't shoot the messenger for delivering the facts.
For Elliee - thank you for you PM and I am so sorry that you felt I shamed you. The results will be in H&H and the Area 15 website for all to see but your name was already out there - it would be silly of you to think that it wasn't. There were a number of very disgruntled exhibitors by the ringside that were shocked and saddened by what they saw and I think that might have started at the show the week before. Not sure! That, however, has nothing at all to do with you, I'm sure you are a lovely girl and you were only doing your job and you were absolutely entitled to do everything you did that day. You did absolutely nothing wrong and no one I know has said that you have. From what I can gather and this is my personal observation, it all comes down to whether it was morally right or in the spirit of the competition to ride in and whether that was above and beyond the duties of a 'groom.' But leave that to everyone else to fight that one out - hope we are clear - contact me if not - absolutely no shame intended - you are just a good little jockey in the middle and I am just a 64 year old granny approaching 65 - now that sucks!!!!
|
|
|
Post by thatboythatgirl on Apr 21, 2016 16:53:47 GMT
2 sets of qualifiers is irrelevant really when a 12 year old on a sec a could in theory do FR, junior, open, pp and amateur class
Picking one or the other still won't stop people cheating; the issue is the fluffy rules in place and how people choose to interpret them to there own advantage
I see the addition of a pretty polly classes a class for HP people to do who don't have a string of ponies they keep with a pro so could have multiple rides on different ponies. Families like myself have one pony and he has to do and be everything from competing in County shows/qualifiers to having a 3 year old ride him around the field
|
|
|
Post by katieg14 on Apr 21, 2016 16:57:27 GMT
These home produced classes always cause so much controversy. And I cannot do them so it's not sour grapes. I do really feel sorry for the 'genuine' home produced people. It would be fairer if maybe at the beginning of the season you registered to do either the Pretty Polly RIHS qualifiers or the Opens. I'm sure the people who can do PP but can still be top of the line in the opens would stick with doing the opens. Then the genuine PP people would still have their own class to do at RIHS but where they are all on a level playing field. Some of the people who do PP have a whole show team of ponies and grooms and often buy ponies that have already won HOYS or RIHS previously with producers. And quite often are top judges or have previously been professional producers themselves. Its really not fair to the people who maybe can only have one or possibly two. Although when I started showing there wasn't any HP and we learnt from the pro's and worked our way up and competed at the top with the rest of them. I am and have always been pp. I had my B from a 4 year old and he's now 15 doing everything with him started from not knowing anything about showing. I qualified twice for the open and twice for the young riders but never managed to g that pp ticket if I had to choose that would be stupid as really I am 100% pp and should have better chances realistically. And I also think as I only normally have one pony it's nice to have two classes and not travel 3-4hours every show for one lonely class which would be against pros. So it wouldn’t be fairer to have to choose and some of us can still do well at the top.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyMoney on Apr 21, 2016 17:33:20 GMT
Yes, good points, but the reason you have never got that pp ticket, Katieg14 is that the pp is one mixed breed class whereas the open classes are in breed groupings. In horse classes, hunter weights for example, there is an amateur equivalent to every open class, which would be much better use of the timetable than having up to 4 overlapping classes with some of the same ponies as thatboythatgirl points out, i.e. have a HP and an Open for each breed, register for one or the other at the start of the season, and scrap all the overlapping classes. And many shows also have non-RIHS classes as well and not all those that have pp have open and vice versa, so it is always a case of picking shows to suit. Yes, of course many hp do very well indeed at the top, hence the suggestion of being able to choose to do open if preferred.
No solution will suit everyone, but wouldn't it better to have something that is simple and gives more individual families a chance to qualify, which it would undoubtedly do as some of the HP ponies would certainly be registered for the open sections and you wouldn't have the same pony qualifying in 4 different classes? Is it about what might be best for the sport or about everyone wanting something tailored specifically for them? Of course, it might not seem fairer to you if you feel you have fewer classes to do, but it would certainly be fairer to the people who would qualify who would otherwise have been blocked by the ponies who qualify in multiple sections. Fairness is about seeking the best solution for the largest number of people.
For what it's worth TBTG and Katieg14, it all seemed a lot fairer all round when there was only ONE class for each type/breed, everyone was eligible, you were lucky to get placed in a qualifier, and no-one complained.
Gosh, this topic always causes controversy and it's only the middle of April!
|
|
|
Post by maddiesmum on Apr 21, 2016 17:46:42 GMT
Maddies Mum RNI - or whatever - who went on as a guest - sorry I can't link to your post....... I sincerely hope that you weren't accusing me of starting a witch hunt. I'm not going to get into some mud slinging dialogue with you,so I will clarify what I said once and only once. I reported the facts in my post. I have a right to do so, we live in a free country and with that comes the benefit of free speech. At no time did I accuse the family of any wrongdoing whatsoever. In fact, I specifically said that the family had permission from BSPS. I did not need to know anything about the family. I am sure they are lovely - they could be the loveliest family in the UK but this had nothing to do with the facts. At no time did I express my personal opinion or pass moral judgement. I reported the facts as any responsible journalist would - that is what they do - deliver the facts and open up a discussion pertaining to those facts. It is called the democratic way. Some people might agree with them, some won't - that would be their opinion but you can't shoot the messenger for delivering the facts. For Elliee - thank you for you PM and I am so sorry that you felt I shamed you. The results will be in H&H and the Area 15 website for all to see but your name was already out there - it would be silly of you to think that it wasn't. There were a number of very disgruntled exhibitors by the ringside that were shocked and saddened by what they saw and I think that might have started at the show the week before. Not sure! That, however, has nothing at all to do with you, I'm sure you are a lovely girl and you were only doing your job and you were absolutely entitled to do everything you did that day. You did absolutely nothing wrong and no one I know has said that you have. From what I can gather and this is my personal observation, it all comes down to whether it was morally right or in the spirit of the competition to ride in and whether that was above and beyond the duties of a 'groom.' But leave that to everyone else to fight that one out - hope we are clear - contact me if not - absolutely no shame intended - you are just a good little jockey in the middle and I am just a 64 year old granny approaching 65 - now that sucks!!!! Hi Pinkie Pie, that was me not logged in (NLI) as my phone logs me out all the time..... I haven't accused you of anything, I do however disagree with the naming of someone on a public forum - when by your own admission they have broken no rules. I feel this whole thread has a bit*hy/witch hunt tone from OP onwards which is what I said in my original post..... I think the rules do need looking at, but competitors also need to be honest when entering..... I would happily chose to do opens or PP as for us would enjoy any chance to ride at RIHS - having both classes isn't a necessity & then overall an increased number of combinations would qualify. PP is always contentious, and I know many often question if it's even worth doing - at least you know where you are with the opens!
|
|
|
Post by Not just Pp on Apr 21, 2016 17:53:30 GMT
It's not just PP that people cheating for s4as is the same
A show team can name you as a working pupil yet you can qualify in s4as seems a little on the unfair side
|
|
|
Post by forester on Apr 21, 2016 19:45:29 GMT
I am HP but last year had someone ride my pony at 2 shows I couldn't make which knocked me out of PP I then qualified for the open at my only attempt, this year I have kept my pony for PP/Open/amateur I'm not greedy we now have our PP ticket after standing 2nd on joint marks to someone who (unbeknown to them) had broken the rules Like maddies mum I would happily choose to do either PP/Open
|
|
|
Post by Philippa on Apr 21, 2016 19:48:29 GMT
I enjoy competing with the big boys. I certainly wouldn't want to choose at the start of the season. We did one PP class last year which we won!! Haven't done any this year yet, I enter the shows I like and if the classes fit in time wise we would do them. But I'm not too fussed about hawking pony & jockey round every class going as they both would get pretty fed up pretty quickly. We've just got opens entered to press.
|
|
|
Post by Guest111111 on Apr 22, 2016 6:14:48 GMT
I just don't agree with people doing pretty polly classes when they have no entitlement to be in it. If they're going to cheat, just for a first rosette, they ruin the whole thing for everyone else who is TRULY home produced. People that do home produced but aren't supposed to should stick to they're own classes in the open, there's plenty of them! If BSPS don't do anything about the cheating they are going to lose a whole load of money and competitors as people will stop entering if they allow cheating in the PP classes.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Apr 22, 2016 7:51:39 GMT
I just don't agree with people doing pretty polly classes when they have no entitlement to be in it. If they're going to cheat, just for a first rosette, they ruin the whole thing for everyone else who is TRULY home produced. People that do home produced but aren't supposed to should stick to they're own classes in the open, there's plenty of them! If BSPS don't do anything about the cheating they are going to lose a whole load of money and competitors as people will stop entering if they allow cheating in the PP classes. But BSPS cannot do anything about the situation if other competitors do not police it & raise their concerns with the society.
|
|
|
Post by pinkypie on Apr 22, 2016 8:34:26 GMT
I entirely agree Janet - you are right but look at the pitfalls of 'falling on your sword' for your cause. If you don't name names, you are accused of making things up or not having the courage or temerity to 'put your money where your mouth is' and you are taunted to name names. I guess it is important because it is seen to validate your post or opinion or whatever. If you do name names whilst raising issues that you believe to be in competitors interest, you are accused and vilified for starting a witch hunt. Compounding that, you are then accused of being sour grapes, or a bad sport or just jealous. The facts get completely distorted - all kinds of accusations are made as people take sides and then the issue turns into a huge brawl. This post is now 4 pages long - but HG is a public forum and this is what happens on one.
I totally agree, if you don't like what you are seeing then you have a responsibility to contact the society and I think that is where exhibitors are letting themselves down. There are a lot of 'brave keyboard warriors that should channel their wrath into something more productive - contact the Societies - only by doing so can positive change come about.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Apr 22, 2016 9:15:17 GMT
pinkiepie - I am in no way suggesting you name names on a public forum - but that you, or anyone else with concerns, contacts the BSPS.
I stated this on the earlier pages.
Some rules are easy for judges, stewards, show secretaries, spectators etc to identify, but these rules are not & rather than competitors grumbling at the show, or posting on social media, they should be prepared to speak to the society so that the relevant facts can be investigated.
An earlier post said you had to be a "name" to get anywhere, but I don't agree.
One of the problems with these classes IMO is that some people do not actually read the rules & then if they are still unclear, they do not check with the BSPS.
|
|
|
Post by cg on Apr 22, 2016 9:56:40 GMT
I have never done pretty polly nor have I ever qualified RIHS or HOYS (I would love to) but to be honest I did one season of HOYS qualifiers and didn't enjoy myself, so I stopped and turned my attention to side saddle and I love it. This is about enjoying ourselves, and everybody just seems to argue and forget why we all do this! I wanted to enter SFAS this season as I feel my boy is ready, however I have found I cant enter because an equestrian brand supports our side saddle riding with products. I work full time and I have no financial gain from this, just products for my horse, but It says you cant be sponsored. When I enquired they said its up to me and if I see fit!? But I cannot justify spending all the money on the entry and getting there for someone to say I may or may not be eligible. SO I am not going to bother, and continue in the side saddle world, where everybody just likes to help each other.
|
|
|
Post by pipandwill on Apr 22, 2016 10:08:42 GMT
I cant comment on above situations regarding the ponies/people in question, but in regards to the complaint procedure, its all very well and good saying the other competitors should be complaining to bsps if they believe there has been some cheating, but do bsps not have the rule that complaints must be submitted with £50 or something like that? I know its returned if the complaint if upheld, but to alot of people £50 is quite alot of money to forfit. So you can hardly blame competitors who feel they have been done out of a ticket because someone has cheated, taking to forums or facebook to air their grievances, when in the grand scheme of things, there's not all that much they can do... I can reel off a list of names who have done/still do pp classes and have won the finals at ri that make a living out of ponies and are sent ponies to produce, its a complete joke really!
|
|
|
Post by the showing register on Apr 22, 2016 10:10:04 GMT
Lots of good points on here and no real solution ! The HP / Amateur classes should be nurtured and encouraged as it is daunting for exhibitors to try to get past the professional and this gives them a confined class but how to ensure the playing field is always level ? A knotty problem !
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Apr 22, 2016 10:33:16 GMT
I cant comment on above situations regarding the ponies/people in question, but in regards to the complaint procedure, its all very well and good saying the other competitors should be complaining to bsps if they believe there has been some cheating, but do bsps not have the rule that complaints must be submitted with £50 or something like that? I know its returned if the complaint if upheld, but to alot of people £50 is quite alot of money to forfit. So you can hardly blame competitors who feel they have been done out of a ticket because someone has cheated, taking to forums or facebook to air their grievances, when in the grand scheme of things, there's not all that much they can do... I can reel off a list of names who have done/still do pp classes and have won the finals at ri that make a living out of ponies and are sent ponies to produce, its a complete joke really! All BSPS members receive a rule book (and the rules are also on the website) Page 18 Rules 72- 74 deal with the procedure & there is no fee involved, although there is a timescale. However, this could also be ascertained by contacting BSPS
|
|
|
Post by pipandwill on Apr 22, 2016 11:45:49 GMT
Must of gotten confused with something else, but it does also state that 2 seperate letter must be received by two different adult members from different families. Agree with the showing register, there is no real solution
|
|
|
Post by forester on Apr 22, 2016 12:09:37 GMT
Must of gotten confused with something else, but it does also state that 2 seperate letter must be received by two different adult members from different families. Agree with the showing register, there is no real solution This isn't always the case if u have hard evidence someone is breaking the rules no money/letters need to be submitted the girl disqualified from area 15 was disqualified Monday lunchtime after an email was sent so not always the case and Bsps are HOT on people bending/breaking the rules
|
|