New Rule

[tittle tattle]

Lets not let this thread get into a she said, he said, they said, situation.

It was pointed out right at the start of the thread the nobody was sure on the status of the rule & as such we have all made very valid & valuable comments, without falling out, name calling or pointing fingers. Please don't start that now.

[anon]

Please dont misconstrude my post as name calling was merely pointing out that the origin of the rule came from an suggestion made by members not simply something the nps have just decided to enforce. This was done in the guise of representing all members and i dont know about any other member but this isnt something i want !

[tittle tattle]

anon said:

Please dont misconstrude my post as name calling was merely pointing out that the origin of the rule came from an suggestion made by members not simply something the nps have just decided to enforce. This was done in the guise of representing all members and i dont know about any other member but this isnt something i want !

Anon, my post wasn't intended at you but at a few of the posts on the previous page. I just felt that as i have watched this post develop the mood of the contributors has changed. Names have started to be brought into the discussion which i personally don't think is necessary, as i said in my previous post alot of peole have contributed very postively & it would be a shame to change that.

[Home producer]

The showring politics almost needs its own late night telly slot

The fundamental point is that to qualify and do well at olympia, both rider and horse must meet a particular standard, whether they be home produced or not. Perhaps this rule would encourage the standard slipping when they get to the final stages. As someone pointed out before many horses qualify under a face and are then competed at the finals under someone else. At the end of the day if the rider doesn't meet the standard at the finals then that is going to have a knock on effect on the result. The competition doesn't end when you recieve the qualifying card!

There are hundreds of producers countrywide who do a marvelous job with the animals they work with, however who is to say a home producer cannot do an equally good job. I for one welcome any ruling which makes such prestigious competitions within a home producers reach. That does not necessarily mean a slip in standards.

At the end of the day not everybody can afford to have their horses proffessionally produced, but who is to say that they cannot gain the knowledge and experience to produce a horse to the same standard. If the incentive is there it will undoubtably raise the standard throughout the showring.

[ponygirl]

I agree with you home producer. If you look at the qualifiers this year you will see many home produced ponies. None of these will let the side down at Olympia I'm sure

[not a competition]

I think people are missing the point. It is not about home produced vs produced it is all to do with the rider.

If I am correct many of the competitors have more than one horse and if you are able to produce two should you be penalised.

I think the Producer vs home produced came in because producers are more likely to have more than ride but so do a lot of ordinary folk now days they will also be penalised.

[Another point]

Another side to consider is what if someone qualifies a pony and then becomes pregnant or even worse ill, if the same combination has to ride at the final as qualified then surely there would have to be allowances? And then surely that would be open to exploitation !

[good point but]

In most sports if a substitute is required for medical reasons then a medical certificate may be asked for.

[Me again]

Yeah valid point about a doctors certificate but they are not that hard to come buy (sorry did i say buy i meant by !!! )

[Norman]

Just read through all the pages in this thread.
Personally I can’t see what all the fuss is about.
I read it as if you qualify it you ride it.
I have not got a problem with that.

If I qualified for the finals in a tennis tournament then I would be expected to play in that finals not get some one to take my place ;D

[Just asking]

not said:

I think people are missing the point. It is not about home produced vs produced it is all to do with the rider.

If I am correct many of the competitors have more than one horse and if you are able to produce two should you be penalised.

I think the Producer vs home produced came in because producers are more likely to have more than ride but so do a lot of ordinary folk now days they will also be penalised.

How are home produced people gonna be penalised?
Any normal person after qualify one would be quite satisfied.

So what year did you qualify more than one for Olympia ?

[answer]

Jusk asking.

I have never qualifed even one, but have been very close. But I have ridden more than one pony in qualifiers, I will be unable to do that if the rule comes in and not I am not a producer.

One was my own pony and the other was owned by a lady who cannot ride anymore, couldnt afford a producer but has a super Olympia pony.

[reply]

Once you qualify you will not be able to ride in any further olympia qualifiers, that should cut the entries down.

[worried]

Have heard a very worrying rumour that the NPS are considering scrapping the 5year old or over rule for olympia qualifiers. Dont the young ponies do enough already?

[dont worry]

4 year olds are allowed at HOYs why not Olympia.

A 4 year old won HOYs one year.

[Welshy]

Quite simply 'don't worry' because these are mountain and moorland ponies who develop a lot later than horses. Please take time out to read an excellent article by M Murry in Native Pony three months ago. Explains all!

[worried]

Certain breed societies dictate all nps policy.

[blackknight1]

They brought the 4yr old rule in because so many ponies in their first seasons were winning everything but when they got to Olympia they totally lost it and fell apart. The atmosphere was just too much for them as babies with limited mileage and life experience.
I was almost on the recieveing end of Baledon Commanchero doing Levad in the early eighties on his first visit and remember another stunning sec B, i believe it was possibly Keston Royal Occasion. ( i could be wrong) getting there and freezing.

The ability to cope has alot to do with the personality of the pony that you are riding and competing on, some 4/5yr olds are settled, laid back and wise beyond their years whereas some ponies can compete at Olympia year after year and still be upset by the electric atmosphere. I have an open C that would be 'fizzy' but a novice that would cope and take it in his stride.

I dont know what the answer is and dont know if amending the rule is right or wrong.....
I suppose it comes down to it being the owners/producers responsibility to limit the amount of shows they are taking the babies to and not to over expose them...

[not to worry]

There are no plans to change the age rule, only to stop riders riding more than one pony.

[blackknight1]

remembered now, it was Rotherwood Royalist not K.R.O....a stunning pony none the less.


Look forward to seeing what new rules have been implemented
Thankyou

[Bonkers]

Have they really gone ahead and altered this without actually consulting the members first hand !!!!
oh dear oh dear oh dear what a very sad end !!!!
Sparks are going to fly!

[not to worry]

Fraid so, members who cares about them.

[To Dave Bright]

Any chance of you confirming if the one rider rule is being implement, as we are producers and have owners waiting for a reply. Would like to book the ponies in now.

Many thanks.

[Thank you]

Thank you anyway for your help and understand the confidentiality issue.

[Gutted]

Just wanna say how disappointed i am in the nps for not polling the members to get a feeling of what we want. I do showing for the sheer joy of it and the polictics and discussions that take place behind closed doors arent really of an interest to me. But sometimes i wish major changes like these were placed on an open forum like this to be discussed. Every society seems to have become more of a dicatorship ! Have any of these people ever read George Orwells Animal Farm and actually understood the meaaning behind it !!!

[membership]

Gutted said:

Just wanna say how disappointed i am in the nps for not polling the members to get a feeling of what we want. I do showing for the sheer joy of it and the polictics and discussions that take place behind closed doors arent really of an interest to me. But sometimes i wish major changes like these were placed on an open forum like this to be discussed. Every society seems to have become more of a dicatorship ! Have any of these people ever read George Orwells Animal Farm and actually understood the meaaning behind it !!!

I do agree with you Gutted however unfortunately us members have not given the Main body any reason to contact us or ask us to poll etc. Quite simply because as members we don't reply or vote. Somebody mentioned on here in an earlier post about the number of members that voted, it was not as many as they said the figure was in the low hundreds.

As i said i don't disagree with your idea in principle but as members we do have a responsibility & up until now i think we have been very good at shirking it. When it comes to voting all we have to do is tick a box, put the paper into the envelope & post it, yet there are many member who can't be bothered to do that. What does that say about us?

[Right]

I am a guity person for not voting, Its just been one of thoes things that I never seem to get round to.

However why cant the NPS send out a newsletter/note letting people know what rules are on the agenda to be looked at/amended and then get feed back from the members. Particularly if they are large changes to existing championships.

Also voting for specific people on the comitte will not necessarily aftect how these rules change, If no one was aware that this particular rule was due to be changed, how could voting have made a difference?

Let the members have thier say, its not that difficult.

[surfer]

Proposed rule changes could easily be posted in the spring and summer newsletters with a dealdine for comments so that these could be reproduced and discussed at an autumn council meeting. This seems pure common sense and would allow members the chance to voice their opinions.

Olympia is far too important a competition to change at whim. If Council have some foresight they will scrap changes for another year, allow the concerns to be discussed and look at ways of motivating the membership to enter the qualifiers and "Have a Go". the AGM is evidently to be held on a northern racecourse so those of us who haven't attended before can voice our opinions.

The silver medal proposal mentioned on this thread at least looked inviting and a means of promoting and encouraging more entries in every class.

Is it true the is to be a wild card qualifier at Malvern?

Hardly sensible as from a financial point of view - we don't want the NPS to end up like PUK - this sort of qualifier would definitely lose the society money.

[good]

I for one think that this is a good idea,

It stops the proiducers taking all the qualifications. I mean one year ML had 3 in the final - to me that is just to much!.

[Claire Smalley]

Have just read this post and feel a need to put down a few words!

I have been riding M&M's for more years than I care to admit to, some of which belonged to me, but mostly ponies owned by either breeders or non-riding owners, and I have had a few successes with them over the years, including qualifying for Olympia on five different Section B's (read H & H this week Page 80!!!!). Anyway, I have NEVER been paid to ride any of these ponies, I have just done so for the pure pleasure and chance of riding such beautiful ponies and I consider myself an amateur and a very lucky one to boot. Olympia is very hard to qualify for, but from my experience, as many amateurs have qualified over the years as professionals - has anyone worked out if there have been more professionals in recent years or not? I think the new ruling will be the total demise of Olympia for M&M's as it will kill off any of the top producers that we have as how can they possibly survive on producing one pony per season? I for one would not send them a pony if I knew they had already accepted to produce one for Olympia classes in that year as it would be a waste of my money and the waste of a quality pony that would then not be able to be competed for Olympia. Entries have certainly dwindled since M&M's went to HOYS, only 5 Section D's in Olympia class at NPS Area 14 this year for example, and surely this rule will reduce numbers further.

I don't think this just affects producers, as quite a few amateur competitors now have more than one pony to show in Olympia qualifiers, and this rule will surely just lower the standard and reduce the prestige that we all perceive Olympia to have. What if, for instance, I rode a New Forest which qualified, and then had to sell him for whatever reason, and no other New Forest had qualified? Have the NPS considered this? I have always thought that Olympia was a representation of the best of each British breed, but that would not happen if the above occurred.

What if my niece and I travelled to Wales or Scotland for a qualifier next season and she was ill when we arrived and I rode her pony and qualified it. Does that mean the pony doesn't deserve to attend the final even though she would probably ride it better than myself as it is her pony?

Just a few thoughts!!!