|
Post by chloesmumnli on Jun 2, 2018 8:47:31 GMT
I agree gillwales and as Janet has said BSPS DO take complaints seriously and fully investigate. Perhaps when you don't get the outcome you want or not every investigation is made public, nor should it be with the amount of 'false' allegations they receive, people perceive no action has been taken. In the case pinkypie has mentioned which would seem to be blatant rule breaking if there is proof said person rode the pony and was over age, BSPS would have a record of age on their membership. I appreciate these people may have been very devious and entered under the younger siblings name so perhaps difficult to proof but I am sure it would be investigated and surely others would also know ? Just another thought, if you feel that action has not been taken why not approach your own BSPS Area Chairman and discuss, they can raise issues, this is why we have local Area committees so people who maybe don't want to go to main Council can discuss with people they know.
|
|
|
Post by Pinkypie123 on Jun 2, 2018 22:03:57 GMT
For the absence of any doubt - our situation was reported and we also had the support of the person who's show it was - who, as it happened, was one of the founders of the PP series. She was absolutely briilliant and appalled that someone had the audacity to do such a thing and not just at her show - but the entire season and no one was going to let her get away with it. Of course she categorically denied it but fortunately there were several photos taken by the photographer during the day and as I have already said, she had blond hair and her sister a brunette. The process was still a lengthy one because BSPS still had to give her a 'right to reply'. I am stil appalled that an adult could cheat a child out of her rightful placing - her prize money and the utter joy of qualifying for the class full stop. I think that the area committees is an excellent idea - the more people engaged to clean up the classes the better.
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Jun 3, 2018 7:04:01 GMT
Pinkypie's genuine story goes to prove that the BSPS (as indeed, do other Societies) DO follow up proper complaints submitted in the correct way.
|
|
|
Post by LucyGlitters on Jun 12, 2018 13:22:35 GMT
Gosh... Not been on HG for months...
A few things occur to me as I read through five pages of this thread:
1) A lot of resentment seems to stem from people's failure to understand the very clear distinction between PP and Amateur and the rationale for each. 2) The ruling about Amateur riders not receiving 'help' on the day arose from competitors making accusations of 'facey' judging, i.e. the rule is about professionals not being visibly associated with an animal in a way that might result in accusations of influencing results in any way, e.g. stripping in the ring, riding the pony in the collecting ring in full view, etc. It's perfectly within the rules of Amateur classes that producers may be involved behind the scenes on the day, eg transporting and so on. 3) People need to recognise that there are always others who have more advantages, and others still who have fewer advantages. That is LIFE. The fact that one person has a lot of family and friend help and another is single-handed doesn't make one more eligible than the other. Don't be bitter. Do the best you can in YOUR circumstances. These classes are a best attempt to create level playing fields for all: professionals; people who work and can't have ponies at home; people who do have ponies at home/DIY and are not professionals. It's a good range of provision. It's simply a fact of life that within each category some people will have more/less ability, experience, resources, support etc. 4) All the hot air generated by misunderstandings of the rules clouds the very real, and fortunately few, instances of real cheating, such as an ineligible rider pretending to be another person. These instances take time for the societies to investigate and all of this has to be done in ways that comply with data protection and so on. It doesn't matter how 'obvious' it may be, how much evidence there is on social media, the society has to follow protocols otherwise there can be no sanction.
Enjoy what you do. Make sure that rule-breaking really is that by knowing the rules thoroughly. Report it and let it be dealt with in the correct way. Accept that you are doing the best you can, that others may do better, and others may do worse.
My friend and I arrived at a show last weekend and were parked up next to a fantastic lorry with pop-up-pop-out this and that, hoards of people, grooms, etc. I said to my friend, "Isn't it great that we are even here? We need to remember that we are competing against professionals, generations of showing families, millionaires, people with multiple horses and grooms, older riders with more experience, younger riders with more energy, just more... And we are here. And that is amazing and wonderful, because there are so many people for whom just owning a horse, no, even getting near to a horse, is but a dream.
|
|
|
Post by Pinkypie123 on Jun 13, 2018 9:00:02 GMT
Forgive me if I have misinterpret ed what you have said but the rules for PP are entirely different than Amatuers, which you ave stated. But as far as doing your best under your own circumstances,, by definitions to compete in the PP, everyone , on or before the day of true final, should have complied with the same conditions of qualification as you have done. IRrespective how how much or how little money you have. THe class is all about presenting your pony in the best way you know how, Brushing it, plaiting it, all by yourself. taking a sense of pride in what you have done yoursel - !not turned out by a producer round the back of a lorry, or ridden in by another bigger, better adult rider.
You say that these classes are for everyone - but they aren''t - they are for like minded competitors who enjoy turning out and producing their ponies themselves and sadly it is greed and perhaps a belief that those precluded from doing the classes have some sort of entitlement to enter the classes without any consequences. THese are the people that are causing the demise of the series - not the hard core, rich or poor,, that want tome sort of validation that the early mornings, dark cold nights, al the hard work, was worth it. ANd even if you don't win on the day - you know you did d all by yourself on the day and so did everyone else in the class! everyone!!!!!
,
,
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Jun 14, 2018 6:43:58 GMT
Whilst not wishing to detract from the essence of the thread, standing this discussion on its head, I'll recall for your interest, two very genuine stories. Story 1) It was the Paris Winter Show, way back in the day that the horses were actually stabled within the vast Exhibition Hall, adjacent to the trade stand area as opposed to living more 'naturally'. Air conditioning to a minimum and drainage not ideal! Evening time. We producers and grooms were accommodated in our (in those days, very basic) wagons, our owners stayed in the "George V" on the Champs Elysee - the most expensive hotel in Paris. Came back by taxi to see their horses after dinner. We'd been out for an enjoyable collective meal locally and were going about our business, as you do - One 'money'd owner turned to a 'landed gentry' owner and said . . "just watch them working. . . .they're so happy - do you know - you can have everything, but in a way, you have nothing".
Story 2) A 'money'd' owner came to my yard to see her horses, bringing with her, her little girl who didn't have a pony either at home or with us. Daddy didn't approve. It happened that when they were there, two talented children who rode for me (split family, children lived with dad, who couldn't afford ponies), were at the yard to ride. As the boy rode back into the yard and jumped off 'his' pony (a well -known owner's pretty 12.2hh mare), the 'posh' little girl said, ever so quietly - "please Mummy - can I go and stroke the pony?"
What I'm getting at, and mirroring some of what Pinkey-pie has said - is that all may not be what it seems on the surface.
|
|
|
Post by LucyGlitters on Jun 14, 2018 8:43:48 GMT
Forgive me if I have misinterpret ed what you have said but the rules for PP are entirely different than Amatuers, which you ave stated. But as far as doing your best under your own circumstances,, by definitions to compete in the PP, everyone , on or before the day of true final, should have complied with the same conditions of qualification as you have done. IRrespective how how much or how little money you have. THe class is all about presenting your pony in the best way you know how, Brushing it, plaiting it, all by yourself. taking a sense of pride in what you have done yoursel - !not turned out by a producer round the back of a lorry, or ridden in by another bigger, better adult rider. You say that these classes are for everyone - but they aren''t - they are for like minded competitors who enjoy turning out and producing their ponies themselves and sadly it is greed and perhaps a belief that those precluded from doing the classes have some sort of entitlement to enter the classes without any consequences. THese are the people that are causing the demise of the series - not the hard core, rich or poor,, that want tome sort of validation that the early mornings, dark cold nights, al the hard work, was worth it. ANd even if you don't win on the day - you know you did d all by yourself on the day and so did everyone else in the class! everyone!!!!! , , Yes, yes, I am completely with you on this Pinkypie. Sorry if I created any misunderstanding. My comments were directed at people who make erroneous comments that stem from not knowing the rules or just from plain resentment. I don't say that the classes are for everyone, but that there is a category for everyone, and that those categories are a best attempt at creating level playing fields, if the rules are adhered to. And then I am saying that even within those categories, when the rules are applied, some people have more advantages than others because of their particular circumstances and that is so in all walks of life; I say this because there are comments on earlier pages that are more to do with resentment of that fact than with actual breaking of rules. And yes, the PP rules are different and don't allow for professional help in any form other than lessons, behind the scenes or otherwise, but the rules do allow for help from other family members and from friends who are also HP. Some competitors, like myself, do everything single-handedly; others have a lot of support from family. That is within the PP rules and therefore it is fine; it is part of the aspect of it being a competition. I'm just using that point to illustrate that even when the rules are applied there are differences, and that there is no point in people being resentful about those differences. It made me sad to read someone's comments above about the amount of people involved with a particular pony and how that didn't constitute being HP; if those people are family and friends and all HP, well good for them, all having a nice day together. If I am completely on my own, well good for me, doing it all by myself. Both scenarios are good and within the rules.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Jun 14, 2018 9:57:47 GMT
Quote "And yes, the PP rules are different and don't allow for professional help in any form other than lessons, behind the scenes or otherwise, but the rules do allow for help from other family members and from friends who are also HP." Unquote
Actually Lucy Glitters PP Rules do NOT allow friends to help now, it is immediate family only as defined by the BSPS rule book - but otherwise I agree with you!
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Jun 14, 2018 11:19:31 GMT
Realistically, it is so incredibly sad when rules have to be created to combat rule-breakers of established Rules. How much further can this perpetuate without becoming quite ridiculous? For example - the latter, to which Janet Bushell was referring (BSPS) rules 279 & 280 p 46 2018 Rule Book (regarding "Immediate Family"). With today's regularly disconnected /disjointed and re-aligned 'step-families' (many, living together but not actually remarried) this (RULE) has become incredibly restrictive - but has presumably been created out of necessity due to rule-benders.
Before long, the various Societies will be requiring to see legal rights to step /adopted and otherwise not 'immediate blood' relatives. All due to the few who spoil it for others.
Edited to score out a verb & an adjective. If 'casual' use of these words appeared flippant it was absolutely not my intention, so please accept my apologies if the sentence caused offence.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Jun 14, 2018 12:12:56 GMT
Quote "For example - the latter, to which Janet Bushell was referring (BSPS) rules 279 & 280 p 46 2018 Rule Book (regarding "Immediate Family"). With today's regularly disconnected /disjointed and re-aligned 'step-families' (many, living together but not actually remarried) this has become incredibly restrictive - but has presumably been created out of necessity due to rule-benders." Unquote
I'm sorry Caroline but I find your description regarding families a tad offensive & I believe the BSPS rule stipulating their definition of "Immediate family" was not written due to "rule breakers" but to make the Pretty Polly section cover ALL families
The only aspect of this list that I find strange (& I have mentioned this to BSPS) is that nieces & nephews are included but not Aunts & Uncles (without whom there would be no nieces & nephews!)
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Jun 14, 2018 19:46:52 GMT
Quote "For example - the latter, to which Janet Bushell was referring (BSPS) rules 279 & 280 p 46 2018 Rule Book (regarding "Immediate Family"). With today's regularly disconnected /disjointed and re-aligned 'step-families' (many, living together but not actually remarried) this has become incredibly restrictive - but has presumably been created out of necessity due to rule-benders." Unquote I'm sorry Caroline but I find your description regarding families a tad offensive & I believe the BSPS rule stipulating their definition of "Immediate family" was not written due to "rule breakers" but to make the Pretty Polly section cover ALL families The only aspect of this list that I find strange (& I have mentioned this to BSPS) is that nieces & nephews are included but not Aunts & Uncles (without whom there would be no nieces & nephews!) I don't quite see how you can see my consideration of 'extended families' as 'a tad offensive'. It is fact and, folk need to accept this with a liberal attitude. People move in with each other - absorbing his n hers - don't necessarily re-marry. Without losing the essence of this thread, that is fact. Additionally, I referred to "rule-benders". Sadly, they will always exist. However, "rule-breakers" are in a different league. Then, there are some who make a small error and are hammered unmercifully. Sometimes, irrationality takes over.
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Jun 14, 2018 20:09:41 GMT
Forgive me if I have misinterpret ed what you have said but the rules for PP are entirely different than Amatuers, which you ave stated. But as far as doing your best under your own circumstances,, by definitions to compete in the PP, everyone , on or before the day of true final, should have complied with the same conditions of qualification as you have done. IRrespective how how much or how little money you have. THe class is all about presenting your pony in the best way you know how, Brushing it, plaiting it, all by yourself. taking a sense of pride in what you have done yoursel - !not turned out by a producer round the back of a lorry, or ridden in by another bigger, better adult rider. You say that these classes are for everyone - but they aren''t - they are for like minded competitors who enjoy turning out and producing their ponies themselves and sadly it is greed and perhaps a belief that those precluded from doing the classes have some sort of entitlement to enter the classes without any consequences. THese are the people that are causing the demise of the series - not the hard core, rich or poor,, that want tome sort of validation that the early mornings, dark cold nights, al the hard work, was worth it. ANd even if you don't win on the day - you know you did d all by yourself on the day and so did everyone else in the class! everyone!!!!! , , for those who do not ha These at exactly the reasons I have suggested that if you have any doubts regarding your eligibility re a certain class, ask the society directly and get them to put their answer in writing, then there can be no doubt
|
|
|
Post by Pinkypie123 on Jun 14, 2018 21:43:45 GMT
Gill - I I completely agree with Caroline and I don 't want to be offensive but I think you haven't perhaps grasped the gravity of the situation. The rules are not difficult to understand and really should not need clarification - they are crystal clear. Do you actually believe that the person that was 22 and competing on a 153cms SHP was going to ring up and ask if it was ok for her to do it? Absolutely not - she was a cheat and believed she would get away with it. I mean really, does a burglar knock on your door, declare his intentions to rob you and ask what's time you will be out? Really? I was not directly involved but there was another incident where a 'Show team', specialising in lead rein and 1st riddens and charges 100 (sorry can't find the pound sign) a week, has also qualified. Is she actually going to ring up the BSPS and say '0h, by the way, my child is riding a 143 SHP now but I am not producing, despite my child being well past lead rein are.........., I am offering schooling liveries, however? Allegedly, this was acceptable and her qualification still stands ..................work that one out. OR - another one and one that I am not directly involved in but it concerns a pony purchased from a producers yard, well past the cut off point of when ponies can and cannot be stabled in a professional yard. Yet it enters and qualifies for the PP? Don't tell me that they did not know and if there was any doubt they would have checked and been told they were not eligible. For the love of God, READ THE RULES - you would not enter a 143 open class on a 153 - all hell would break loose - Do you actually think the Producers would tolerate such behaviour? There would be an uproar and the JMB would be called in straight away. But, it is ok to do it in the PP classes without any recriminations. Why do people think they can get away with this and continually cheat by entering the PP classes? These is just a snapshot of what has happened this year and I am sorry Gill, but I think it is completely out of touch with reality to believe that people are actually going to ring up and check their eligibility. We are very fortunate to have two of the most respected people in the showing world helping us - at home. Tthey have done for years. The two most important 'pearls of wisdom' that they imparted was that 'you make your luck at home', and the other being 'find the level that you want to compete at and try to be and the best you can and still enjoy yourselves'. My point being that if we choose to compete in the PP classes and not the Opens, that is our choice, - the same as those who choose to go with a favoured Producer - that is their choice. But, the PP should not be seen as some sort of inferior competition - 2nd class to the Opens. - we all pay the same subscriptions................There is no reason whatsoever, for cheating to be tolerated in these classes. It wouldn't be in the Opens. There would be an enquiry and the outcome published . I have said it before - name and shame, fine them, publicly humiliate them, ban them. Something has to be done so that people like us can be the best that we can amongst like minded, legitimate competitors who are what they say on the tin - honestly, home produced and straight from the bottom of our hearts.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Jun 15, 2018 5:10:48 GMT
Caroline - it is the words "disconnected" & "disjointed" which I perceive as offensive & judgmental of people's personal circumstances & life choices, particularly in relation to the children of families who have no choice in the matter of who they regard as their parents &/or guardians
I have no problem with the word extended.
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Jun 15, 2018 6:22:11 GMT
Caroline - it is the words "disconnected" & "disjointed" which I perceive as offensive & judgmental of people's personal circumstances & life choices, particularly in relation to the children of families who have no choice in the matter of who they regard as their parents &/or guardians I have no problem with the word extended. Perhaps my terminology came about as I was half watching Grand Designs at the same time! - the house was being built by new partners, plus his two teenage girls and her two teenage girls. They slackly used similar terminology - and were hoping that the new home, the new building, would somehow 'connect' and create unity with the four girls . . Janet, I had utterly no intention of being 'offensive' and indeed am mortified that it was perceived so. Edited to add - unfortunately I cannot now change the wording, as you have quoted it!
|
|
|
Post by thegroom on Jun 15, 2018 6:54:49 GMT
Gill - I I completely agree with Caroline and I don 't want to be offensive but I think you haven't perhaps grasped the gravity of the situation. The rules are not difficult to understand and really should not need clarification - they are crystal clear. Do you actually believe that the person that was 22 and competing on a 153cms SHP was going to ring up and ask if it was ok for her to do it? Absolutely not - she was a cheat and believed she would get away with it. I mean really, does a burglar knock on your door, declare his intentions to rob you and ask what's time you will be out? Really? I was not directly involved but there was another incident where a 'Show team', specialising in lead rein and 1st riddens and charges 100 (sorry can't find the pound sign) a week, has also qualified. Is she actually going to ring up the BSPS and say '0h, by the way, my child is riding a 143 SHP now but I am not producing, despite my child being well past lead rein are.........., I am offering schooling liveries, however? Allegedly, this was acceptable and her qualification still stands ..................work that one out. OR - another one and one that I am not directly involved in but it concerns a pony purchased from a producers yard, well past the cut off point of when ponies can and cannot be stabled in a professional yard. Yet it enters and qualifies for the PP? Don't tell me that they did not know and if there was any doubt they would have checked and been told they were not eligible. For the love of God, READ THE RULES - you would not enter a 143 open class on a 153 - all hell would break loose - Do you actually think the Producers would tolerate such behaviour? There would be an uproar and the JMB would be called in straight away. But, it is ok to do it in the PP classes without any recriminations. Why do people think they can get away with this and continually cheat by entering the PP classes? These is just a snapshot of what has happened this year and I am sorry Gill, but I think it is completely out of touch with reality to believe that people are actually going to ring up and check their eligibility. We are very fortunate to have two of the most respected people in the showing world helping us - at home. Tthey have done for years. The two most important 'pearls of wisdom' that they imparted was that 'you make your luck at home', and the other being 'find the level that you want to compete at and try to be and the best you can and still enjoy yourselves'. My point being that if we choose to compete in the PP classes and not the Opens, that is our choice, - the same as those who choose to go with a favoured Producer - that is their choice. But, the PP should not be seen as some sort of inferior competition - 2nd class to the Opens. - we all pay the same subscriptions................There is no reason whatsoever, for cheating to be tolerated in these classes. It wouldn't be in the Opens. There would be an enquiry and the outcome published . I have said it before - name and shame, fine them, publicly humiliate them, ban them. Something has to be done so that people like us can be the best that we can amongst like minded, legitimate competitors who are what they say on the tin - honestly, home produced and straight from the bottom of our hearts. [/quote) Well said!
|
|
|
Post by sjw87 on Jun 15, 2018 7:43:24 GMT
Actually Lucy Glitters PP Rules do NOT allow friends to help now, it is immediate family only as defined by the BSPS rule book - but otherwise I agree with you! Whatever rules are in place, there will always be some people who have more advantage than others; Those who don't work so can dedicate more time to their horses than those working full time or shift work, or in the case of the above ruling for PP classes, those who are 100% home produced but have no family support are heavily penalised with the above ruling. Obviously as PP classes are aimed at junior riders, they will have to have an adult take them and the pony to the show but this isn't necessarily a family member. Personally, coming from a completely non-horsey background I have never had physical parental support; only some financial help before I was old enough to work. Back in my junior years, the owner of my loan pony would take me to shows so I wouldn't have been eligible for PP under the above rule and then as soon as I was working, I saved and did my HGV test and bought a horsebox and go alone or occasionally with a friend. Even now in my 30's you'll regularly find me in RI qualifiers completely on my own. The rules are the rules but (slightly off tangent) I find it a shame with showing that it is very difficult unless you have a team of people with you.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Jun 15, 2018 8:24:45 GMT
Caroline - it is the words "disconnected" & "disjointed" which I perceive as offensive & judgmental of people's personal circumstances & life choices, particularly in relation to the children of families who have no choice in the matter of who they regard as their parents &/or guardians I have no problem with the word extended. Perhaps my terminology came about as I was half watching Grand Designs at the same time! - the house was being built by new partners, plus his two teenage girls and her two teenage girls. They slackly used similar terminology - and were hoping that the new home, the new building, would somehow 'connect' and create unity with the four girls . . Janet, I had utterly no intention of being 'offensive' and indeed am mortified that it was perceived so. Edited to add - unfortunately I cannot now change the wording, as you have quoted it! No problem Caroline - how families choose to describe themselves is fine, but that doesn't mean that others would or should use such terminology. The programme you were watching was perhaps coming from the point of view that the family members had not been able to all feel that their previous living accommodation belonged to them as a unit?
|
|
|
Post by viking on Jun 15, 2018 8:42:55 GMT
Semantics !
Do please stop.
|
|
|
Post by chloesmum on Jun 15, 2018 10:31:59 GMT
I find it crazy and very sad that someone cannot help a fellow competitor in or outside the ring by holding a pony, helping with a saddle etc for fear of 'rule breaking'. As sjw7 points out sometimes people are on their own or with a friend who is not a family member. The sad part is that you can guarantee someone will be watching and straight away be moaning about 'rule breakers'. I think we need some perspective here - of course report the 'real' rule breakers but making people so paranoid about help on the day I feel ruins showing, helping and supporting each other is how we make friends and seriously unless a producer/professional I fail to see how it influences a result.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Jun 15, 2018 10:33:30 GMT
Semantics ! Do please stop. Semantics can still cause offence! But happy to stop as I have no wish to offend you viking LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Pinkypie123 on Jun 15, 2018 12:32:01 GMT
Chloe's mum and sjw - if you look at rule 279 (I believe) it clearly says that ponies can be held and groomed both inside and out of the ring by the owners, immediate family and OTHER HOME PRODUCED EXHIBITORS.
There is some wide misconception that no one - other than the owners, can touch the pony - this is not true. This only applies to working in, lunging or preparing the pony for the ring in anyway - markers, coaching etc. So SJW - if you were the right age, you could realistically go to the ball after all............. may your success continue - well done
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Jun 15, 2018 13:34:50 GMT
Just spoken to BSPS regarding Rule 279 which in the hard copy of the 2018 rule book does not have your capitalised extra wording Pinkiepie123 & it should!!!!
It does have the correct wording on the internet
May I offer my sincere apologies to both yourself & Lucy Glitters over this point.
|
|
|
Post by bigmama on Jun 15, 2018 13:45:22 GMT
Actually Lucy Glitters PP Rules do NOT allow friends to help now, it is immediate family only as defined by the BSPS rule book - but otherwise I agree with you! Whatever rules are in place, there will always be some people who have more advantage than others; Those who don't work so can dedicate more time to their horses than those working full time or shift work, or in the case of the above ruling for PP classes, those who are 100% home produced but have no family support are heavily penalised with the above ruling. Obviously as PP classes are aimed at junior riders, they will have to have an adult take them and the pony to the show but this isn't necessarily a family member. Personally, coming from a completely non-horsey background I have never had physical parental support; only some financial help before I was old enough to work. Back in my junior years, the owner of my loan pony would take me to shows so I wouldn't have been eligible for PP under the above rule and then as soon as I was working, I saved and did my HGV test and bought a horsebox and go alone or occasionally with a friend. Even now in my 30's you'll regularly find me in RI qualifiers completely on my own. The rules are the rules but (slightly off tangent) I find it a shame with showing that it is very difficult unless you have a team of people with you. Pretty Polly classes are not, as you put it, aimed at junior riders … they are aimed at genuinely home-produced riders of any age provided they are the correct age for the class they wish to compete in. For example, PP Intermediate classes and RIHS PP Open M&M.
|
|
|
Post by cmnli on Jun 15, 2018 14:02:28 GMT
Thats good to have clarified pinkypie and Janet and that seems really fair and a sensible approach. Good Luck to all genuine PP competitors.
|
|
|
Post by sjw87 on Jun 17, 2018 9:03:00 GMT
Pretty Polly classes are not, as you put it, aimed at junior riders … they are aimed at genuinely home-produced riders of any age provided they are the correct age for the class they wish to compete in. For example, PP Intermediate classes and RIHS PP Open M&M. Sorry, I should have said 'predominantly' aimed at junior riders. The intermediates are to my mind still a 'junior' class albeit young adults. The pp heritage m&m open is the only class without a rider age limit.
|
|
|
Post by sjw87 on Jun 17, 2018 9:05:19 GMT
Just spoken to BSPS regarding Rule 279 which in the hard copy of the 2018 rule book does not have your capitalised extra wording Pinkiepie123 & it should!!!! It does have the correct wording on the internet May I offer my sincere apologies to both yourself & Lucy Glitters over this point. That's fantastic to hear but also a shame that there has been an inconsistency as I don't doubt people will be making complaints or allegations based on the version with that wording omitted. Glad that it's allowed though.
|
|
|
Post by sjw87 on Jun 17, 2018 9:10:38 GMT
Chloe's mum and sjw - if you look at rule 279 (I believe) it clearly says that ponies can be held and groomed both inside and out of the ring by the owners, immediate family and OTHER HOME PRODUCED EXHIBITORS. There is some wide misconception that no one - other than the owners, can touch the pony - this is not true. This only applies to working in, lunging or preparing the pony for the ring in anyway - markers, coaching etc. So SJW - if you were the right age, you could realistically go to the ball after all............. may your success continue - well done Thank you. I have coloureds and am too old for the intermediate classes but do show in HP, amateur and open classes with the societies I'm a member of. My best pony is yet to be backed but one of the others qualified yesterday for RIHS 2019 (also already qualified for this year) with another competitor's groom kindly giving me a leg up in the ring. It's hard work going alone but when you hear families falling out by the horsebox it's often more relaxing to be solo!!
|
|
|
Post by Pinkypie123 on Jun 17, 2018 21:03:30 GMT
Super - good for you - you must feel so chuffed. Well done. You can join us anytime - we are 3 generations - flying the PP flag. Many congratulations - glad the hard work is paying off.
|
|
|
Post by catkin on Jun 18, 2018 11:49:27 GMT
Great clarification! Now can somebody please explain this one to me. I have a niece, whose pony I help her with (owned by her parents). I take it to shows as they both work at weekends and have no transport. However, I don't think she can do PP as I have a horse that is produced. I don't ride it in the ring, but I do own it and yes, I do like to touch it at shows! Said child has nothing to do with any of that. Her pony is a genuine family pony ridden by her and generally loved and plodded on by various other tiny cousins. My daughter could possibly be riding her produced horse at the same show but wouldn't have to touch the home produced pony. I am pretty certain due to my connections, we can't do PP and it seems so wrong. A true family affair. Oh, and the nieces and nephews bit of the ruling is OK, but no mention of aunts and uncles which seems bizarre!
|
|