|
Post by CarolineNelson on Apr 24, 2018 8:20:56 GMT
The whole point of not allowing a 'Debbie Thomas' into the ring is because she is a producing 'face'. By removing the 'face' from the ring either in the saddle, handling or grooming then you allow the amateur status to shine through. Someone above mentioned some bloke called Colin wading into the ring if a child had fallen off or was in trouble - I would suggest this is a totally pointless 'good old days' comment as quite frankly if the child had been peeed off with or fallen off then they wouldn't be placed anyway?? Comparing genuine assistance in times of strife with the type of assistance banned in amateur classes is ridiculous and leads to the ambiguity that cheats thrive on. I am home produced and amateur but I see 'families' roll up in their lorries packed with adults (must be catholics to have that many immediate family members LOL). One driving, one doing entries, one cooking the breakfast, two or three grooming, an older teenager riding the legs off the pony and then lo and behold the cherished immaculate child is removed from the lorry without touching the floor and placed atop the bless'ed pony. Yea right amateur home produced my arse! Oh but the rules are the rules and those of us that are quite literally child and mum must put up and shut up as thems is the rules. I agree with others above. This post is discriminatory to the point of being offensive. Flippant, insensitive. Not only about Religion, either. ie: "quote" - " someone above mentioned some bloke called Colin wading in the ring . . .etc". Irrespective of who this person was, he has family and friends. Is it really necessary to be so deliberately insulting? As for the " good old days" comment - well - perhaps people DID look out for each other better in the past. Perhaps people were more genuine, less insular, not so quick to judge, to seek the worst case scenario as opposed to the flip side? At least, if drawing attention to another person's comment, having the manners to be polite about the subject goes a long way. Back to the other comment, " I see 'families' roll up in their lorries packed with adults . . .". Does one read a hint of jealousy? It matters not whether the person competing has a large family or just a single, tolerant, OH, Granny or friend to assist. Or, a parent and child. Hopefully, all are, win or lose, enjoying their day out with their person and their animal. Gosh, even I started out as a mother and child' combination with, very occasionally, a totally non-horsey father coming along to support, hold the dog, get in the way and generally share and enjoy our day. Yes, that's another 'good old days' comment. And the almost-a-swear word? In a word - is, like many of the comments, delectably unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by Pepper on Apr 24, 2018 12:58:59 GMT
I think as a true Amateur it is very disappointing that people are clearly breaking the rules in these clases . Again seeing peoples results on Facebook this weekend and thanking the producers that have helped them . I'm sure that at some point these people and producers started as amateurs , maybe they should be more considerate of others . I find para two curious In horses, amateurs can be produced - maybe you have a full time job, a family and husband to care for etc etc. So if you are produced, hold your own in open ranks as well as amateurs and get a decent result, why shouldn’t you thank your producer or they congratulate you. ....and this is said by a true home produced amateur - career girl, mum and wife, who competes in these circles. In My experience the people actually out there doing it, really don’t have a problem and crack on.
|
|
ta
Junior Member
Posts: 153
|
Post by ta on Apr 25, 2018 6:00:21 GMT
I believe there is still an ignorance with some of the rule breakers and they genuinely haven't bothered to read the rules and their attitude is its only Pretty Polly so let's stick them in there, my suggestion is that at point of membership if you wish to compete in the home produced classes you sign a declaration/form or whatever you want to call it confirming who will be riding your ponies for the season, a lot of us now have different surnames to our children and at least its logged, name of rider and relationship, along with confirmation that you understand that no assistance can be given at the show from anyone who is either family or acknowledged as also home produced. I also think that when we get our email confirming our qualification for RI, again it should be reiterated on there so just in case they have ignored the rules hopefully their conscience will be pricked and they will hand back their ticket. The home produced classes are very important to a lot of us and it is such a shame that every season it is tarnished by those who can't follow a few simple rules.
|
|
|
Post by thegroom on Apr 25, 2018 6:34:48 GMT
I believe there is still an ignorance with some of the rule breakers and they genuinely haven't bothered to read the rules and their attitude is its only Pretty Polly so let's stick them in there, my suggestion is that at point of membership if you wish to compete in the home produced classes you sign a declaration/form or whatever you want to call it confirming who will be riding your ponies for the season, a lot of us now have different surnames to our children and at least its logged, name of rider and relationship, along with confirmation that you understand that no assistance can be given at the show from anyone who is either family or acknowledged as also home produced. I also think that when we get our email confirming our qualification for RI, again it should be reiterated on there so just in case they have ignored the rules hopefully their conscience will be pricked and they will hand back their ticket. The home produced classes are very important to a lot of us and it is such a shame that every season it is tarnished by those who can't follow a few simple rules. I couldn’t agree more...well said
|
|
|
Post by very sad on Apr 27, 2018 13:46:53 GMT
Just to update "Friend" has been in the ring, no objections and won the class. Hurrah!
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Apr 28, 2018 15:48:53 GMT
The whole point of not allowing a 'Debbie Thomas' into the ring is because she is a producing 'face'. By removing the 'face' from the ring either in the saddle, handling or grooming then you allow the amateur status to shine through. Someone above mentioned some bloke called Colin wading into the ring if a child had fallen off or was in trouble - I would suggest this is a totally pointless 'good old days' comment as quite frankly if the child had been peeed off with or fallen off then they wouldn't be placed anyway?? Comparing genuine assistance in times of strife with the type of assistance banned in amateur classes is ridiculous and leads to the ambiguity that cheats thrive on. I am home produced and amateur but I see 'families' roll up in their lorries packed with adults (must be catholics to have that many immediate family members LOL). One driving, one doing entries, one cooking the breakfast, two or three grooming, an older teenager riding the legs off the pony and then lo and behold the cherished immaculate child is removed from the lorry without touching the floor and placed atop the bless'ed pony. Yea right amateur home produced my arse! Oh but the rules are the rules and those of us that are quite literally child and mum must put up and shut up as thems is the rules. I never said about a producer, be it Debbie or anyone else go into the ring, I merely said "help", now that could be helping a child or any other person who was having difficulty in tightening a girth, or passing a comment of help or encouragement. I fully accept that this would be frowned upon with all of todays rules and so much petty jealousy that occurs at the ringside, but I do not think that todays showing is the better for it.
|
|
|
Post by Philippa on Apr 29, 2018 8:00:45 GMT
My bless’d child is lifted from the lorry to the pony!!!! We would like her to remain clean once ready. Pmsl. 🤣🤣
We are far from produced. But when we go to shows there’s sometimes mme, daughter, husband, my mother & stepfather. All have a roll to play even if it’s cooking and dressing child!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Follow the rules on May 29, 2018 19:38:37 GMT
To get back on track, there are at least a couple qualified in the M&M PP that are no longer eligible, i.e. rider has since set up as a producer/ pony now back with former producer. There should be a way to inform societies of such issues without having to come forward and be named, and thus face the backlash of being branded a “sore loser” etc. I for one would welcome societies having an online form where issues can be raised anonymously, so these issues can be brought to their attention much more quickly and nipped in the bud.
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on May 29, 2018 19:58:01 GMT
Follow the Rules. You are obviously unaware of the procedure in these situations. Names of complainants are completely hidden, those who are complained about do not get given the names of those who have bought the complaints. It takes 2 independent witnesses to bring about the complaints procedure.
|
|
|
Post by bud on May 30, 2018 5:41:58 GMT
why 2 if the first person has proof?
|
|
|
Post by Follow the rules on May 30, 2018 6:25:21 GMT
Bud this is half of the problem... the current system requires two separate individuals. Therefore the complainants cannot be totally anonymous or how would it be ensured that they are in fact two separate people. I realise they are supposed to be anonymous complaints but having been part of the showing world for over two decades I can clearly state that their names often come out/are subject to rumours.
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on May 30, 2018 6:40:40 GMT
Are you a member of any Society? If so you will have a rule book, please read it as it will explain a lot. Just imagine that people did not have to put in writing what had happened, that unless more than 1 person had to complain? It would be a disaster. Anyone who had a grudge against another person would be able to cause no end of trouble. You do have to be practical. After all, you are not even prepared to talk about it in your user name. When you write to the Secretary of a Society, that person submits the details, without the name of the person who has written to the committee who oversees these matters. If you do not have faith in this system then really what is the point of showing? Rumours have always been part of the horse world in general, in fact in any walk of life, maybe not one of humanity's better traits.
Anyone in the showing ring needs to ask themselves why they are there. Unless it is for the joy of having your animal in the ring, meeting up with like minded people, seeing these wonderful equines, hopefully at their best then maybe it is not for you. Showing is objective. I agree, I hate to see the rules bent and if I did with certainty I would write and inform those who needed to know.
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on May 30, 2018 7:04:28 GMT
To the poster 'follow the rules' - The idea, presumably, is that two INDEPENDENT 'witnesses' have flagged up the fact that a rule (any written rule) has been broken. It should not be a case of one party 'persuading' a friend to become the second person.
Indeed, the rule contravening (or supposed misdemeanour) incident regarding a person (be it exhibitor or judge) need not be from the same show.
To my knowledge, anonymity is upheld by Society staff/representatives. The person should write in with their names and contact details. If the matter is discussed at Committee/Council, the contact details are blacked out so cannot be read.
If however, people chose to chat about it around the ringside / on social media - then that is their prerogative.
But, as has been stated above, far better to make a formal complaint to the relevant body than simply winge and tattle. If a complaint has been submitted, it remains lodged on file. If another one referring to the same subject/person arrives, then that is two. Simples.
Edited to add:- if an anonymous letter is submitted, it is ignored.
|
|
From the other side
Guest
|
Post by From the other side on May 30, 2018 9:51:32 GMT
I can categorically state that BSPS (op is saying the rule breaking is Heritage PP, so would be BSPS rules) do not inform names of those who have complained. I say this from being on the other side several years ago when we received a call from BSPS regarding a complaint made, not official but apparantly it had been 'raised'as an issue, which was totally false and we were able to provide evidence from judge/steward of not even having been in the alleged situation! We were very upset and asked for the name of the person as it was so obviously malicious but were told it was not policy to give out, even though we were in fact the 'injured party'. It left us feeling very upset that someone we presumably knew was being so vindictive. If you are SURE of your facts then raise them through the procedures as Caroline and Gillwales have said, better to raise them than spread rumours, or if you know the person why not quietly ask them if they are aware they may have breached the rules.
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on May 30, 2018 13:20:15 GMT
I can categorically state that BSPS (op is saying the rule breaking is Heritage PP, so would be BSPS rules) do not inform names of those who have complained. I say this from being on the other side several years ago when we received a call from BSPS regarding a complaint made, not official but apparantly it had been 'raised'as an issue, which was totally false and we were able to provide evidence from judge/steward of not even having been in the alleged situation! We were very upset and asked for the name of the person as it was so obviously malicious but were told it was not policy to give out, even though we were in fact the 'injured party'. It left us feeling very upset that someone we presumably knew was being so vindictive. If you are SURE of your facts then raise them through the procedures as Caroline and Gillwales have said, better to raise them than spread rumours, or if you know the person why not quietly ask them if they are aware they may have breached the rules. Well said, I'm glad you got the issue sorted
|
|
|
Post by flee on May 30, 2018 15:36:50 GMT
why 2 if the first person has proof? I must admit that , in certain circumstances , I am also a bit baffled as to why it is necessary for two people to independently report an incident for action to be taken if the matter is a clear and unequivicable breach of the rules . Let us say , for instance , that I witnessed ' Miss X ' at a show riding in a class for which she was not eligible , regardless of whether she won the class and/or qualified for something as a result . Surely ( unless she was riding under a false name ! ) if I informed the relevant society of the show , date , time , class number and riders back number (maybe I even took a photo ?) why would that not then would be sufficient information for the society to cross check that information with the show in question's secretary , and take action if necessary ? I'm not talking about trivial misdemeanors or petty squabbles here ,I fully understand that a very small number of people will quibble over misinterpreted technicalities or complain out of sheer bad sportsmanship but surely , when there has been an absolutely clear transgression of the rules ( whether intended or not ) , action should be taken immediately the society is made aware of it , regardless of how many people complain ? If I am the only person at my hypothetical show who realises that Miss X is breaking the rules ( or the only person prepared to complain ) does that mean that the society's stance is that it doesn't count and Miss X gets away with it ? If that is the case then societies should amend the rules on class restrictions to read -" ...but only counts if more than one person notices ". If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears , does it make a sound ? If a rule is broken but only one person sees , does that mean it doesn't matter ?
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on May 30, 2018 16:53:29 GMT
Flee, I would imagine that if photographic proof was sent with maybe a page from a catalogue in the case you describe it would be taken seriously. If not acted on in that case kept on file
|
|
|
Post by Pinkypie123 on May 30, 2018 18:50:20 GMT
Sorry - can't remember my password - I'm not sure what is going on with people but this year seems particularly bad - people aren't just bending or misinterpreting the rules they are blatantly ignoring them. It must be a nightmare for societies to have to deal with them - Realistically, it is a full time job for someone and a pretty depressing one. I should think the need to have to have 2 people to object is that it gives them some impetus to get behind the complaint. . Often when challenged, even with evidence, people will still deny it. For example a 22 year old senior member spent an entire season competing in the 153 PP ' and Open SHP classes as her younger sister! . She denied it right to the bitter end - despite photos clearly showing her riding the pony. Unfortunately, she didn't take into consideration that she had blond hair and her sister a brunette. Apparently, another competitor, when challenged over her eligibility to do PP, wiped her entire facebook clean from adverts offering show production and photos with txt confirming that the ponies had been produced by her and robustly denied that she had ever done any ponies other than her own ones.
It must be soul destroying for the Societies and a thankless and daunting job to have to deal with these issues when they have other important things to be getting on with. I applaud their efforts. I'm not sure what the answer is - tougher penalties - suspensions? Maybe someone else has the answer - for me it is just too depressing.
|
|
|
Post by bigmama on May 30, 2018 20:06:44 GMT
Re. PP/Home Produced classes, would it be a good idea for a competitor to complete a form at the beginning of the year when submitting their society membership, ticking off the boxes that apply to home produced status and signing to say that if they are found to have breached these rules during the year, they will automatically be stripped of their home produced status? For those who do meet the showing society's home produced status, a HP card can be issued to the competitor who must show it to the steward when entering the show ring
|
|
|
Post by Philippa on May 30, 2018 20:17:13 GMT
Re. PP/Home Produced classes, would it be a good idea for a competitor to complete a form at the beginning of the year when submitting their society membership, ticking off the boxes that apply to home produced status and signing to say that if they are found to have breached these rules during the year, they will automatically be stripped of their home produced status? For those who do meet the showing society's home produced status, a HP card can be issued to the competitor who must show it to the steward when entering the show ring Sensible and not unreasonable idea bigmama.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on May 31, 2018 5:49:24 GMT
Re. PP/Home Produced classes, would it be a good idea for a competitor to complete a form at the beginning of the year when submitting their society membership, ticking off the boxes that apply to home produced status and signing to say that if they are found to have breached these rules during the year, they will automatically be stripped of their home produced status? For those who do meet the showing society's home produced status, a HP card can be issued to the competitor who must show it to the steward when entering the show ring Lovely idea bigmama, but surely the main point being made about PP rules is that they are being deliberately broken & I can't see how this would alter the fact as it would still rely on people's honesty at the start of the season & during it if circumstances change. In fact having a card to "prove" HP status may actually mean that cheats are not challenged, as they have "proof" they are HP from the society. Sadly there are always people prepared to cheat their way to success & there are always people calling themselves "producers" to make themselves appear knowledgable or somehow more important when it suits them, but reverting to HP when it doesn't! Anyone who genuinely believes that they have proof that the PP rules are being broken should contact BSPS. They do investigate these matters.
|
|
|
Post by honeypot on May 31, 2018 7:24:23 GMT
People will always break the rules, an the law. The fact that' nothing seems to be done', makes breaking the rules more worth while for the people who for what ever reason what to win not matter valueless in real terms that win. I think we have all won classes where there have only been a couple of entries or on the day the judge has not really known the breed type and we have been placed above a far better animal than our own, you get a rosette but not the pleasure of when yours wins in good company. You will never stop people from breaking the rules, like you will never stop people shop lifting, but does that mean we have to stop trying other methods. I can not understand why a database of results is not available for all the classes that would exclude rider/ponies from PP and any other class that has exclusions, even if its checked after the class and make the penalty for breaking the rules severe.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on May 31, 2018 8:07:24 GMT
honeypot the BSPS do have a database of results, but how can this prove whether a rider/animal is eligible under PP rules? Results do not list where an animal is kept, who looks after it, who rides it etc on a day to day basis, only what/who has won what at a BSPS affiliated show I do however believe that penalties must be sufficiently robust to act as a deterrent, but it will always boil down to the basic honesty of the competitor.
|
|
|
Post by flee on May 31, 2018 8:28:12 GMT
Re. PP/Home Produced classes, would it be a good idea for a competitor to complete a form at the beginning of the year when submitting their society membership, ticking off the boxes that apply to home produced status and signing to say that if they are found to have breached these rules during the year, they will automatically be stripped of their home produced status? For those who do meet the showing society's home produced status, a HP card can be issued to the competitor who must show it to the steward when entering the show ring Lovely idea bigmama, but surely the main point being made about PP rules is that they are being deliberately broken & I can't see how this would alter the fact as it would still rely on people's honesty at the start of the season & during it if circumstances change. In fact having a card to "prove" HP status may actually mean that cheats are not challenged, as they have "proof" they are HP from the society. Sadly there are always people prepared to cheat their way to success & there are always people calling themselves "producers" to make themselves appear knowledgable or somehow more important when it suits them, but reverting to HP when it doesn't! Excellent idea bigmama and surely a very simple one to implement . I agree , Janet , that there will always be people who are prepared to break the rules , but the fact that an individual would have to actually sit down and fill in a form declaring their home produced/amateur/professional status at the beginning of each season ( why not extend the scheme to cover all scenarios ? ) , and physically sign their name to confirm that ( A ) they fully understand the rules regarding their declared status and ( B ) they are telling the truth , it may , if not stop all cheaters , cause some to consider a little more seriously the consequences of knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules . And in that regard the form should also make very clear the consequences of knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules - I would suggest that the perpetrator is permanently stripped of their home produced and/or amateur status , because obviously they can no longer be trusted to comply with the rules . Bigmamas suggestion would mean that those caught cheating would have no wriggle room , whether by claiming ignorance of the rules , a change of status , just ' a little mistake ' , or whatever , because they have knowingly and freely signed a declaration of their eligibility for their status , and attested to their understanding of the rules governing it . Thus if you are subsequently caught flouting those rules , you have done so knowingly and willingly . You are a cheat and should be dealt with accordingly .
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on May 31, 2018 9:01:27 GMT
Call me a pedantic and old-fashioned old f@rt, but showing was considerably more simple in the days prior to the introduction of the "Home Produced" section (by whatever title). This angst which surrounds the classes/section rattles on year by year, is nothing but a Rule-maker's nightmare and at times, basis for a witch-hunt.
People who genuinely do their own ponies at home know who they are. Some are absolutely excellent at it, too, and very capable of holding their own in mainstream classes.
And, as Janet Bushell correctly states, there are some who chose to use the title 'producer' when in fact they simply 'trade' under the Bank of Mummy & Daddy, competing their own ponies but think the 'title' makes them sound grand.
'Real' Producers, whose business this genuinely is, simply get on with it.
Meanwhile, the seemingly constant whinging which concerns misuse of (in particular) the BSPS's Home Produced section, which was fondly given the title of "Pretty Polly", is disrespectful and demeans the name of the very famous Show Pony of the 1950's. Most of today's newbie punters have probably not even heard of her, nor care.
Yes, there will always be rule-breakers. A bit like those who drop litter with the attitude 'my one little piece of litter won't matter'.
But, what a way to bring up children.
Edited to add:- since the 25th May/ GDPR it might be unwise to be merrily taking pictures 'as proof'. At Northumberland County on Monday in the sheep showing section, the wife of one of the judges was innocently taking photos (smart camera, very obvious, not sneaky) - and was asked if she had permission from the exhibitors in the ring to take said photos. . . . . . . I agree, what is the world coming to . . . . ? but . .
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on May 31, 2018 10:28:00 GMT
Lovely idea bigmama, but surely the main point being made about PP rules is that they are being deliberately broken & I can't see how this would alter the fact as it would still rely on people's honesty at the start of the season & during it if circumstances change. In fact having a card to "prove" HP status may actually mean that cheats are not challenged, as they have "proof" they are HP from the society. Sadly there are always people prepared to cheat their way to success & there are always people calling themselves "producers" to make themselves appear knowledgable or somehow more important when it suits them, but reverting to HP when it doesn't! Excellent idea bigmama and surely a very simple one to implement . I agree , Janet , that there will always be people who are prepared to break the rules , but the fact that an individual would have to actually sit down and fill in a form declaring their home produced/amateur/professional status at the beginning of each season ( why not extend the scheme to cover all scenarios ? ) , and physically sign their name to confirm that ( A ) they fully understand the rules regarding their declared status and ( B ) they are telling the truth , it may , if not stop all cheaters , cause some to consider a little more seriously the consequences of knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules . And in that regard the form should also make very clear the consequences of knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules - I would suggest that the perpetrator is permanently stripped of their home produced and/or amateur status , because obviously they can no longer be trusted to comply with the rules . Bigmamas suggestion would mean that those caught cheating would have no wriggle room , whether by claiming ignorance of the rules , a change of status , just ' a little mistake ' , or whatever , because they have knowingly and freely signed a declaration of their eligibility for their status , and attested to their understanding of the rules governing it . Thus if you are subsequently caught flouting those rules , you have done so knowingly and willingly . You are a cheat and should be dealt with accordingly . You have more faith in people's ability to take any notice of what they sign flee - perhaps I am getting cynical in my old age, but every time they join the society they sign the form attesting to abiding by the rules, & every time they sign an entry form (or make an online entry which equates to agreeing to abide by the rules of the show/society) there are unfortunately those who do not abide by them, whether knowingly or not, although I do see your point regarding the form then being evidence if they are proven to have broken the rules. But however many forms are signed, it still boils down basic honesty, & to proving the issues, with people being prepared to inform the appropriate society. IMO the cheats of this world have the attitude that only the rules they like apply to them!
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on May 31, 2018 10:29:43 GMT
To get back on track, there are at least a couple qualified in the M&M PP that are no longer eligible, i.e. rider has since set up as a producer/ pony now back with former producer. There should be a way to inform societies of such issues without having to come forward and be named, and thus face the backlash of being branded a “sore loser” etc. I for one would welcome societies having an online form where issues can be raised anonymously, so these issues can be brought to their attention much more quickly and nipped in the bud. So follow the rules - have you been in contact with BSPS?
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on May 31, 2018 10:37:41 GMT
To get back on track, there are at least a couple qualified in the M&M PP that are no longer eligible, i.e. rider has since set up as a producer/ pony now back with former producer. There should be a way to inform societies of such issues without having to come forward and be named, and thus face the backlash of being branded a “sore loser” etc. I for one would welcome societies having an online form where issues can be raised anonymously, so these issues can be brought to their attention much more quickly and nipped in the bud. So follow the rules - have you been in contact with BSPS? . . . stating your full name and address, in order that they may put this incident on file?
|
|
sarahp
Happy to help
Posts: 9,510
|
Post by sarahp on May 31, 2018 10:48:31 GMT
I have long come to the conclusion that it's impossible to write rules for non-professionals' classes that will cover all possible scenarios in a way fair to everyone anyway!
I started my showing, both IH and ridden, in the era before home produced classes when the aim for us home produced amateurs was to beat those at the top of their game and we did, sometimes. That gave me far more pleasure then winning a restricted, home produced class would have done - I suppose it's a question of what your aspirations are; to be the best or to look a big fish in a small pond and count your red rosettes. Perhaps being at heart a breeder makes a difference, I rate my success (or lack of it!) by what the ponies I've bred are doing.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on May 31, 2018 11:16:30 GMT
I have long come to the conclusion that it's impossible to write rules for non-professionals' classes that will cover all possible scenarios in a way fair to everyone anyway! Section R (BSPS Rule Book page 46) Pretty Polly (Home Produced) Eligibility279. Animals can only be worked in, lunged or prepared by immediate family at any show Animals can only be groomed or held both inside and outside of the ring by immediate family or another home produced exhibitor. 280. Riders and leaders can only ride or lead ponies in the ring owned by their immediate family at any show (see page 6 for eligibility) 281. Animals cannot be stabled in a Professional Producers/Trainers yard since 1st February in the current year. (lessons are exempt) 282. Animals cannot be ridden at a show by a rider that has ridden for a professional producer/ trainer groom at any show since 1st February in the current year. 283. Animals and riders cannot have received any help from a professional producer/trainer groom at any show since 1st February in the current year. The B.S.P.S. expect competitors to accept the rules of this competition in the spirit intended. Sarah - personally I think these rules are very fair & very clear as to the definition/interpretation of "home produced" What it still boils down to is honesty!
|
|