Submitted by: Marc Johnson
Current wording:
Chart. No groom required for single Dressage carriages.
Suggested wording:
Chart. Groom required on all horse and pony Dressage carriages. No groom
required for single small pony and single VSE.
The 2021 ADS Rule Change Proposal (RCP) Member Comment period ends Aug 31. NOTE: Although every effort has been made to include all the comments, with accuracy, made in the Comment Period, the content herein should not be relied on as the official record of ADS member comment made for the 2021 RCP's.
hatsbykatie@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteIt is time for this rule to go forward. It has neve made sense that the advanced drivers are required to have a person on the back of their carriage at all times and not the lower levels. Also, many people at the lower level use marathon carriages that ARE NOT MADE to have no one on the back. We have all seen accidents when the back end comes off the ground because no one is on the back. This is a huge safety issue.
I feel strongly that the ADS should NOT require grooms on single carriages at Training and Prelim levels. It will discourage competitors to have to pay for another person for the whole weekend. So many entry level drivers do not have the funds to afford to do this. I’m fine with a “ knowledgeable person” being required to be on hand. Muffy Seaton 4611
ReplyDeleteMember Name: Donene McGrath Membership #: 7649520 RCP#:#7
ReplyDeleteThe proposed change is: Groom required on all horse and pony Dressage carriages. No groom required for single small pony and single VSE.
No reason is given for this proposed change, so it's somewhat difficult to comment on it. I completely disagree that a groom is needed on a single dressage turnout for an equine of any size. Dressage is the area where most drivers spend the majority of their time practicing, and for the majority of us, that practice is done alone. To have to add an additional person on the carriage at competitions would change the dynamics of the test for many. It's just not needed.
RCP # 7
ReplyDelete"Suggested wording: Chart. Groom required on all horse and pony Dressage carriages." I oppose this RCP. It would be inconsistent with Art 943.2.14 as well as 943.2.16
If the intent is to also change Art 943 accordingly - for which I do not see any RCP (yet?), then I would be opposed to that too.
It has often been discussed over many years, and contrary to the FEI we at the ADS have always allowed single horse and pony turnouts in dressage & cones without grooms on the carriage (By now: Unless the organizer wants to require grooms there and states so in the Omnibus). I see no good reason to change that now, just to go along perhaps with the FEI? As usually argued by the proponents of wanting to go along with the FEI, we always thought it was not a safety concern, as usually there are enough knowledgeable persons around ringside both in dressage & cones, should somebody be needed to assist, as we also do for VSE's and Small Ponies. hardy zantke
ADS # 1187
Paul Van Sickle
ReplyDeleteADS#: 12037350
RCP#: 7
- This will not only put an additional burden on the singles driver to source a groom it would also create another expense. So, I gotta ask why this is being considered? Makes no sense, VSE’s & small ponies don’t have equipment or behavioral issues? Has there been a rash of problems with horses & ponies that I missed? This proposal will cause more folks to walk away from the sport.
Dear Members of the Board,
ReplyDeleteI am strongly opposed to PRC#7 the requirement to have a groom present on all horse and pony carriages except for small ponies.
This rule change will create additional unnecessary challenges and burdens for competitors. There will be the financial burden of funding and hiring a properly attired groom. It is hard enough often to find a navigator. Grooms will be limited and will create a scheduling obstacle for the organizers of an event among competitors sharing grooms
On a personal note, I drive a two wheel vehicle which I love and do not like having someone in the cart sitting next to me, especially when I am trying to concentrate on a dressage test. Others may feel the same and may goes so far as to warrant the purchase of another carriage. I do not want to have to purchase another carriage. I much rather put those funds to participating in ADS events.
Unfortunately, an explanation was not given for the proposed rule change. The change was proposed by Marc Johnson, a well respected and seasoned official with many years of experience. I would very much welcome an explanation as to the reason for the change to help me better understand how this will benefit the sport.
As for now, I respectfully urge you to not pass PRC #7. Thank you for your consideration and thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns.
Paige Horine
ADS#9308
Member since 2000
To Whom It May Concern,
ReplyDelete"I strongly oppose proposed rule change RCP #7, Chart. Groom required on all horse and pony Dressage carriages. No groom required for single small pony and single VSE. Many times I go to shows alone and only have my navigator come the day of the marathon. This rule change would create a hardship for me. I can always grab someone at the barn to head my horse while hitching but finding someone willing to dress in proper grooms clothing and ride on my carriage is another matter. The rule change would not only be a problem finding a willing body, it would cause a financial burden as well by either having to provide a groom with the necessary attire and/or I would probably have to pay someone to do the job. My husband, my marathon navigator absolutely would never be willing to ride as a groom on my carriage for dressage. This rule change makes it more difficult to compete and we are trying to encourage more participation not deter it. Also, I don't understand the use of the word "Chart." at the start of the existing or the proposed rule. What does that mean? I strongly urge you to dismiss this rule change.
Linda Evans
ADS member #4369 since 1987"
Marjean McIntyre Member ID: 5394
ReplyDeleteRCP 7 - I wanted to voice my objection to the RCP proposed by Mark Johnson to require a groom in dressage for all levels. The case that this is a change based on safety is just a false narrative. I have been a member of ADS for more than 25 years. I was an organizer for 5 years. I am not aware of anyone having an accident during dressage. I am aware of a couple in warm up but none while actually in the ring. I am not going to say there hasn't been one, I'm just not aware of one. At a time that I feel it is so critical to be as supportive and welcoming to new competitors as possible this will do nothing but eliminate many from being able to compete as they may not have someone available, they may not have appropriate clothing for them, they may not be able to afford to pay for someone's expenses to come with them. It's just BAD on so many levels.
The amendment that I am referring to is RCP #7. My ADS # is 20161133.
ReplyDeleteAs a driver of a 12h pony ( just over the small pony designation) I feel that this change will put me at a disadvantage in the dressage ring and cones course. The extra weight will effect his performance in both. It also will add to the cost of participating in an ADS show. I generally pay someone to navigate for me in marathon and would have to add on the charge of two additional events. Dressage and cones are both in confined areas where there are ring stewards and spectators that could assist if there was an issue in the ring. It would take a groom longer to get out of the jump-seat than it would for the ring steward to walk in to head a horse. I can understand the need on a marathon course where there would be no one close by to help with tack or equipment issues. So far, I have not found a single person in my region that is in agreement with this revision.
>>>NON-MEMBER<<<
ReplyDeleteAs a brand new driver I’ve joined my local Florida Whips but not yet joined ADS.
The proposed rule change #7 to require a groom on the carriage for dressage, if passed, would likely cause me NOT to join ADS, and give up on the idea of competition driving with my horse.
Of necessity, I mostly go to shows alone. If I’m lucky my SO will be along—happy to hold and help, but absolutely not interested in getting in the ring (or dressing in the required attire). So I would have to either hire someone—adding to the cost of competing—or beg a favor from one of my mentors—which might happen once but seems an unrealistic burden for every show.
Regards,
Helen Donnell
Pink Flamingo Farm
Mount Dora, FL
My name is: Tamara Woodcock
ReplyDeleteMy member number is: 017580
#7. Absolutely no. There is no safety reason a groom is needed on the back of a single turnout for dressage and cones. It is hard enough for many drivers to find someone to navigate during marathon, and pay for hotels and meals for that day, without adding dressage and cones to the requirement. This will also further limit drivers from sharing duties, or sharing a navigator.
We strongly oppose this proposed change. To require single horse and pony ADS competitors at all levels to have a groom on the carriage during the Dressage places undue burden on competitors.
ReplyDeleteNo rationale for change is given; I am assuming this was for safety concern as required groom to be available to assist the competitor. If safety concern is the case, then requiring a person to be present might be better option. Then you could have person at hand but without the requirement that your assistant has size, dollars and inclination to dress up for dressage as groom on carriage. Also there would be increased burden on judges as they have approve that groom can stand on any carriage that does not have a safe groom seat. .
Respectfully,
Marcy Eades #14025
Mark Eades #14025a
Rule Change Proposal #7 Bonnie Fahrner 10775
ReplyDeleteI have been a single driver , horses and ponies, since 2004. I have shown every year and have always struggled with obtaining a gator. for the marathon. I know that finding someone for 3-5 days will be impossible for me.
I can neither afford the daily expense of having an additional person thru out a show nor have access to a friend that can be away from family, or business obligations for 3 -5 days and in addition be physically capable of being a gator/groom. My retired friends often meet the first requirement but not the second.
If this rule is passed the effect will be reduce the # of single drivers at shows and in particular the single drivers with limited funds. And it may have a negative effect on ADS membership. I know if I can not show in CDEs or HDTs I will forgo my membership .
Hello. Please consider my comments regarding the proposed changes. The ones I am commenting on are, in my opinion, only a hindrance to those considering our chosen discipline and will cause hardship for those of us already competing.
ReplyDeleteRCP #7 Article: CD 937.3
I strongly disagree with the requirement for a groom to ride along with dressage competitors in horse and pony divisions. I feel that it would be a hindrance to anyone like myself who attends shows by themselves (I have a non-horsey husband). I do not have any one person who can personally ride along with me. I train with a professional who has multiple clients at events and many of us are in the same division. It would require that additional person to hop from cart to cart as a groom if he/she wasn't competing.
Deborah North
ADS member #20161038
JDNorth Farm
Hello All,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the work that you do! Here are my comments on three of the proposed changes.
Michele Harn ADS # 1130751
RCP #7 Article 937.3 No explanation is given for this rule change, but chatter on Facebook indicates safety. I fail to understand how having another person on the vehicle will make the overall event safer. Those drivers who do have concerns about their ability or that of their equine can choose to have an additional body on the vehicle. In the unlikely accident during dressage or cones my experience is that it is volunteers and officials ringside that are assisting when an incident occurs. Especially for CT's which are increasingly held in conjunction with Pleasure shows, I feel this creates an unnecessary burden that would quite likely lead to decreased number of entries. I am against this rule change.
Carol Ilacqua
ReplyDeleteADS# 12037560
RCP #7 Article: CD 937.3 re: Grooms in Single Dressage
I disagree with this change. I do not believe that a single dressage carriage requires a groom because a single driver can handle a single horse. In the event of an accident, there would be two people in jeopardy, rather than just the one. And, in the rare, problematic event that a horse needs to be headed in the ring, there are sufficient volunteers and competitor coaches on hand to assist. It would make more sense to require that a single driver have a designated ringside attendant than to require an on-vehicle groom. It is also hard to find someone willing/able to dress the part of a groom.
Member Name: Ruth Graves Membership #: 9969 RCP#: 7
ReplyDeleteI do not support the requirement for a groom in dressage for a single horse /pony turn out.
This would place an unnecessary burden on a competitor who would now have to find someone
who was available on show day, dress them, feed them, and who would very likely have to get "used' to driving
with said groom, when they have been schooling sans groom at home.
The safety aspect has long been a topic, but I would have to see some documented proof that it is a widespread
problem in the dressage ring to agree with this rule change.
Good Morning All, I wanted to let you know that I do not think your idea’s of having a groom on the carriage for dressage and cones, or having all carriages the same width is good for our sport. Why not lump all carriages that are similar width in one group, those that are narrower will be happy, those that are wider, not so happy. However it would certainly help with finding cones setters, if that is an issue for the show committee. If everyone knows before hand that is how cones will be, you can decide if you want to compete or not.
ReplyDeleteAs for having grooms on for dressage and cones in the lower levels, forget it. Most of us find it hard enough to compete, without the added expense of a groom/helper for 3 days. I have rolled over in cones, and seen an advanced roll over in cones. That groom got squished by a heavier driver, broke her arm. Both in two wheel vehicles. I was perfectly fine, grabbed the pony, righted the cart, and all was good. TWO WHEELERS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR ANY CONES COMPETITION. How about doing that as a rule change.
You know, as well as I, that our sport is mostly older drivers. Find ways to help, not hinder the sport. I will never compete in Europe, doubt if I will ever compete FEI either. For those that aspire to greater things, more power to them, for those of us that drive for the fun and love of it, having to purchase another carriage, having to find help for 3 days, will kill the sport for many.
Thank you for taking the time to read my note, and also thank you for being on the ADS board.
Cheers,Laurel Pyatt Member ID: 10082
RCP #7 Article: CD 937.3
ReplyDeleteI do CT’s because I do not have a navigator or groom. I am against this change and the person that proposed the rule didn’t even give the reason they think it should be changed. If a marathon carriage is designed for proper safety to have a person on then that should apply to that style of carriage only. Not a presentation carriage.
Sincerely,
Laurie Renda Member ID: 4252670
Marion IA 52302
319-393-3231
laurie@touchofglassinc.com
www.touchofglassinc.com
Member Name: Membership #: RCP#:
ReplyDeleteLinda Holman Eagerton
4609480
RCP#7
I am opposed to the change. Leave wording as is.
Jamie H Leier
ReplyDeleteADS member
# 12036330
RCP# 7,
Article CD 937.3
I strongly oppose this proposed rule change. As an amateur competitor, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in ADS shows. I can see no need to have a groom on the carriage or cart in Single Horse Dressage, below the FEI level. If safety is the concern, then helmets and vests are the obvious adjustment to be made. While no-one is penalized for wearing a helmet in Dressage, it is an individual choice, made by an adult who has taken responsibility for his or her own welfare. The choice to be accompanied by a groom should be the same.
Finally, it is very much a hardship for those of us who train at home, usually alone. The added weight and shift in balance is certainly not fair to the horse only when it is being asked to perform in competition.
Thankyou for your attention, and for the work that all the ADS committees do.
Jamie Hiegel Leier,
Newberry, FL
RCS#7 DO NOT SUPPORT AT THIS TIME
ReplyDeleteDana Bright ADS # 4436
Number 7 Grooms for everyone in dressage and cones. Not necessary. There is currently a rule, is there not, that everyone needs to have someone available to “render assistance” at all times when you are in a carriage at a show. If this is a safety issue, it is easier and faster for that person to get to the head of a horse from the sideline then from trying to get out of some of these presentation carriages, (I for one use a two wheel road cart), especially when something is going all to hell and the horse is acting up, rearing, etc.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, having an additional person In the carriage will, if things are going THAT BAD, only add an additional potential patient to deal with if there is an accident. Remember most shows for dressage and cones only have a single EMT available, not a whole ambulance and crew…which may not both be EMTs. (Legally an ambulance crew can be one EMT and one Driver who has CPR training….) So if something goes so bad in dressage and cones and someone needs assistance….isn’t it safer and faster for people from the sideline to assist, then to have TWO people in a carriage who can both end up injured and needing assistance?
Better safety issue would be to make cones more like it used to be. Right now, with the complicated elements and how tight judges are measuring courses, you have to drive faster then you should, to basically complete what has, imho, become one big marathon obstacle, in double clear time….often in a “presentation/dressage” carriage which is NOT DESIGNED for those speeds and turns. So slow down the speed again, or measure the courses in a realistic, safe manner.
And keep in mind….COVID 19 Is not going away any time soon….so why do you want to force someone else to be in a carriage with someone!!! Even with a mask. (And also then you are forcing people to wear masks when now, if the person is alone in the carriage for dressage/cones they don’t need a mask.)
Mary Mott Member ID: 5674
RCP #7 Diane Kastama 7713
ReplyDeleteWhile I like the idea of a groom on the carriage for everyone. I don't think during a pandemic is when we should start requiring a groom. As many people would have to recruit someone to ride on the carriage with them. This means they would be putting themselves and that person at risk, even with masks on. As current ADS policy's state you can't share grooms back and forth, this would severely limit participation.
Thank you,
Diane Kastama
This would require all levels of driver to have a groom on board for dressage and cones. This is a hardship for those drives like myself who do not have help available for almost any show I attend. It would force me to pay for a professional groom and significantly increase the cost of attending any show. Secondly I drive a two wheel roadcart. Putting a second person in the cart changes my perspective and makes driving cones much more difficult since I drive from the center of the vehicle this second person actually becomes a huge disadvantage. A second person is not able to exit the vehicle any quicker then then one and may actually contribute to an accident. Leigh Semilof ADS #9296
ReplyDeleteMember Name: Kate Cabot Membership #: 20161026 RCP#: 7
ReplyDeleteI do not approve this rule. I have a cart which I will use for both dressage and cones. The cart has a wedge seat in the center for that purpose. If I move the wedge seat off to the right, I can only carry a small person next to me but not my regular groom since then it would make it too tight a fit for two. There is no supporting commentary about why this rule needed to be changed, but assuming that the issue is one of safety, with my situation at the very least, it will make it more dangerous for the groom to get out of the cart in case of an emergency than it would be with him standing nearby and ready to come to my aid from the ground. I hope that this rule is not approved.
RCP #7
ReplyDeleteLaurie A Neely
ADS # 7303
As the driver of a single, 127cm pony, I am strongly opposed to this suggested rule change. The overall effect of this change would be to slow the times for those of us driving two-wheeled vehicles, especially in pony divisions, and discourage new drivers, and those of limited means.
1) Far from providing a greater degree of safety in cones, carrying another person in my vintage meadowbrook would pose a danger to that person as I turn through a gate and make quick corrections. This is a fact to which my husband will attest, having been nearly unseated on more than one occasion while out on practice runs. :-) I am certain that others would have the same concerns. No one driving a two wheeled vehicle needs to be looking out for a white knuckled passenger gripping the seat beside them.
2) Requiring a groom in the dressage arena would be both distracting to a driver and useless. A person on the ground would be in a far better position to respond to a problem than one who must figure out how to get out of the vehicle and then chase it down to assist. As a frequent ring volunteer I have had a number of occasions to jump over the rail or chain and head off a problem before a groom was even aware of it: a broken bit in one case comes to mind, and another when a driver dropped a rein.
3) and perhaps most importantly, requiring a groom on a single turnout would pose a logistical, and financial burden to those, who like me, are happy competing a single *because* I don’t need a groom on board and have limited funds to put toward competitions. I am not a small woman and I drive a pony. My husband, great guy and helper on the ground that he is, is not going to put on a suit coat, tie and apron to sit next to me in dressage and cones. Trust me on this. So, where will I find these appropriate grooms? Will I have to pay them? They have to be familiar with driving and ADS rules etc. in order to be even minimally helpful. Will I have to have an extra apron with me and pay for their hats and/or helmets in order to maintain the appearance of my turnout in dressage? Surely no two rent-a-grooms will have the same size heads or jackets, either one in my colors, making it impossible for me to just have a spare turnout on hand.
RCP#7 will slow times in dressage and cones, offer no benefit, and will discourage horse/pony owners with limited incomes who are interested in driving, from even considering entering the sport. We need to attract and retain drivers far more than we need to please judges in the UK. This rule change is a bad idea.
Laurie Neely #7303
> Member Name: Donene McGrath Membership #: 7649520 RCP#:#7
ReplyDelete> I am adding to my original response to this proposed change as the post now includes a reason of safety given for the change.
I do not think requiring the lower levels to add a groom for dressage will increase safety. Most drivers will end up picking up whoever is available to sit on their carriage and happens to either fit the grooms’ attire that they can provide or who has their own. In some cases this might be someone with horse experience but most likely will not be someone with driving or carriage driving experience. Frankly, I feel safer knowing that my support person/people are on the sidelines for dressage and can be in the ring in a heartbeat of needed. Having someone in my grooms’ seat who fulfills the requirement but wouldn’t know what to do in an emergency - after probably struggling to exit the carriage - does not provide any measure of safety. This is an ill-advised change and will do nothing to increase safety during single entry dressage tests.
First, I am a bit confused by the wording. “groom required for single Dressage carriages”. This implies that if I use a marathon carriage for dressage (and cones), I don’t need a groom. Correct?
ReplyDeleteIt could also be interpreted to mean all single entries in dressage, in which case, it does not apply to cones.
Perhaps this could be re-worded before we all weigh in on it? Because at this point, I honestly don’t know what the proposed rule means.
Aside from this confusion, I don’t think this is a good idea. Why complicate the process with additional requirements? It is hard enough to recruit a groom for marathon. Asking that friend to give up 3 days to help out, not just 1, will be difficult for many, if not prohibitive. I’m a believer in the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Sweetheart
I could guess that the purpose is for safety, having a helper readily available. But, when doing dressage (and cones), there is always a sizable crowd of spectators in the immediate area who can (and do) help if needed. And if the reason for this is just to be the same as everyone else, I think that’s a lousy reason.
Please vote NO!
Virginia Miner
ADS# 3611
Member Name: Carl Zimmerman Membership # 9904: RCP#: 7 and 8
ReplyDeleteI am strongly opposed to RCP 7 and RCP 8. In both cases, the likely result will be to reduce overall participation in ADS events. It would certainly reduce or even eliminate my participation as I do not have a groom reliably available to assist at competitions nor would I be willing to purchase a new competition carriage.
Janet Oliver
ReplyDeleteADS Member # 9355930
RCP #7
If safety is the priority, please have a person truly capable of rendering assistance at the warmup ring and competition ring. I could have my husband be my attendant. He is neither horse savvy or capable of paying attention. If a horse goes down and someone needs to sit on it's head to keep it from getting up, I don't think that I would be capable of providing that assistance. There are a number of experienced drivers who would be capable of alerting if assistance is needed, but not have the speed or strength to be effective. I don't have the budget to bring a truly capable person with me to a competition and have them available every time that I drive.
Require helmets be worn if safety is truly a concern.
RCP #7 no - I understand the pros and cons but end on the side that the requirement for a groom is an unnecessary burden on the competitor.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your efforts to make carriage driving a better sport!
Carol Hunter
ADS #12335
With regard to RCP#7, I am opposed to the change.
ReplyDeleteRequiring a groom on single carriages at the lower levels will add a burden to those wishing to compete, many early on in their CDE experience. The expense and extra effort involved in bringing another person to be dressed, housed, fed and sometimes compensated is unnecessary and may discourage some from competing at all. It is hard enough to have a competent navigator for the marathon arranged for every event, and while some may be able to use that person as their groom, for most that will not be the case.
I understand there are safety concerns, but I have been competing in CDEs for almost 20 years (mostly at the lower levels) and I've never seen anything approaching an accident in the dressage ring or in cones. If there was an issue, people on the ground would likely be as effective or more at offering assistance. As for cones, if the carriage is not stable enough to be driven without a person on the back, that can be addressed with weights on the back.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ardeth Obenauf
ADS # 13813
Lynda Jowers. #7659
ReplyDeleteI have been a member for 22 years and actively engaged in showing both in CDE’s and pleasure for that whole time. I am absolutely against rules 7 & 8. I have shown without a groom throughout my career and have never had or seen a situation where a groom on the carriage was needed. If needed in dressage then it would also be needed in cones with the groom seated. On a marathon which many of us use a seated groom can cause a turnover on turns since they are not allowed to move. We are losing drivers and especially now rules that make it harder to compete are very detrimental to our sport. This same argument goes for rule 8, let’s not discourage people from entering or staying in this sport by making it any harder or more expensive than we have to.
ReplyDelete> Member Name: Gail Thomas
> ADS # 14350
>
> I have read and considered the rule change proposals and would
> like to comment on several of them. As follows:
>
> RCP #7
> Proposed change: Groom required on all horse and pony dressage carriages. No groom required for single small pony and single VSE.
>
> This proposal is not necessary. The driver should make the decision whether to carry a groom in Dressage. If having a groom is a safety enhancement, then why wouldn’t the proposal apply to Pleasure driving as well?
Hi ADS rules committee,
ReplyDeletePlease add this feedback to the pile for RCP #7 (grooms needed for Single Horse dressage).
VOTE NO because:
While I appreciate we’ve deviated from FEI/European rules here, that alone isn’t sufficient reason, as we’ve deviated on many other things.
While I can see the value-add of someone to assist in the event of an emergency, I think any value of them being on the carriage versus being ringside is outweighed by the fact they may be inexperienced in helping or already physically hurt by whatever is “bad” thing is going on.
A good percentage of people are competing with just one carriage, so they are driving a marathon type vehicle for dressage and cones. While I agree a marathon carriage is more stable with the a navigator STANDING on the backstep, since the groom must be seated and stationary, they must pick one side or the other to sit on. This puts a marathon carriage pretty badly out of balance for dressage and about 50% of your turns in cones.
Personally, I compete a single horse, and my husband is always at ringside. I realize you’re not asking for this, but suggest the requirement be that you either have groom onboard or ringside.
And I’ll add my own, embarrassing story to illustrate. I was participating in a Developing Driving clinic in FL in 2016. Driving a single horse with the only carriage I had there, a marathon carriage. Cones day we were told we must have groom on carriage. My husband (“ringside” as usual) agreed to sit on carriage. We talked about how many turns were to left and to right, and which side was the better bet to sit on. He’s about 250lbs. He picked a side. I drove too fast – my very bad judgement. We rolled the carriage to the side he’d picked to sit on. We were both thrown out. He got a concussion, and thus was no help in extracting the horse from wreck. The rest of the people ringside were VERY helpful. Glad to report no one, including horse, were badly hurt, but it’s left me with a strong opinion about this rule.
-Kate Bushman Member ID: 10895
With regard to RCP#7:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with mandating a groom to accompany drivers in all but small pony and VSE dressage classes. My reasons are as follows:
1. I don't believe that safety is compromised by allowing the driver to drive alone in the dressage phase. I have been driving and competing for almost 20 years and have never witnessed an incident that would have benefitted by having a groom aboard. By the time the groom steps down from the carriage, outside assistance has usually been rendered. The one and only time I personally witnessed a situation that required assistance during the dressage class was when a very unruly pony was rearing and bolting forward at X, could not be controlled by the driver, the groom could not safely leave the 2 wheeled vehicle, and assistance was rendered by a volunteer who came in from the sidelines and got the situation under control.
2. From a personal standpoint, I sit in the center of my 2 wheeled vehicle. Adding a groom would be a hinderance.
3. And speaking of grooms; finding a suitable, knowledgeable person is not easy. And with Covid19 lurking, I would be hard pressed to find someone other than a family or household member that I would be comfortable with. Social distancing would be impossible to maintain with 2 people sitting on one seat. This does not take into account the added expense of paying for lodging, etc for this extra person for another day of competition.
4. And quite frankly, I do not give a hoot what "they" are doing in Europe. As my mother would say: "if everyone else jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge would you do it too?"
Sue Gregorio Member ID: 11768
I am against RCP 7. Although the chart referenced is for FEI competitions, I fear that this requirement will spill down to ADS-sanctioned competitions, where it will very likely drive people away from the sport. If one is competing at a high enough level, they are likely going to have a presentation vehicle and possibly a paid groom or two, and will have someone with them anyway. People at the lower levels, at lower-level events, may not have a presentation vehicle to accommodate a groom behind, may not have room for a groom comfortably beside them, and will have to invest in livery of some kind (and find someone to fit in it, if they don’t have a reliable, regular partner). Furthermore, if a groom is sitting beside the whip (for instance, in a road cart) and must render assistance in an emergency, it will be very difficult for the groom to get out of the vehicle quickly and easily to take care of the matter.
ReplyDeleteI think that a more reasonable compromise would be for the competitor to have a ground person at the dressage ring and the cones ring who is capable of rendering assistance should the need arise. I’ve logged a lot of hours as a volunteer and a competitor, and I can’t recall a time when I’ve witnessed a situation when a whip really needed a groom with them on the carriage unless the type of vehicle or class required one. I’ve seen a lot more whips need people on the ground to adjust a piece of harness, wipe down a horse, or stand at the horse’s head while the whip took care of something. I’m not denying that there could be times when a groom on the vehicle could be helpful, but I just haven’t witnessed it. I see no reason to change the rule/chart as it stands.
Respectfully submitted,
Gina Handy
ADS Member #10401
This is Hilary Miskoe, ADS #9717
ReplyDeleteRCP #7 - no.
Please do not make those of us without a staff need an extra body on the carriage for dressage/cones/at all times. The rule change rationale lists accidents in general but no actual stats to back up the claim. I have been competing for 6 years and have not seen a cones or dressage accident at all, (nor have I heard of any through the grapevine) nevermind one that might have been prevented by a person on the carriage. HOW MANY and WHAT KIND of accidents have there been in dressage and cones that an extra person on board would have prevented?
An extra person on the carriage is more weight for the pony and not necessarily safer. if you don't have a competent person. If having an extra person on board is a requirement it means competing as a single person might become impossible. It is hard enough to find a navigator for one phase, but to need someone all day?
Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in.
Hilary
With regard to RCP#7, I am opposed to the change.
ReplyDeleteRequiring a groom on single carriages at the lower levels will add a burden to those wishing to compete, many early on in their CDE experience. The expense and extra effort involved in bringing another person to be dressed, housed, fed and sometimes compensated is unnecessary and may discourage some from competing at all. It is hard enough to have a competent navigator for the marathon arranged for every event, and while some may be able to use that person as their groom, for most that will not be the case.
I understand there are safety concerns, but I have been competing in CDEs for almost 20 years (mostly at the lower levels) and I've never seen anything approaching an accident in the dressage ring or in cones. If there was an issue, people on the ground would likely be as effective or more at offering assistance. As for cones, if the carriage is not stable enough to be driven without a person on the back, that can be addressed with weights on the back.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ardeth Obenauf
ADS # 13813
RCP #7 – I do not support this change.
ReplyDeleteAs with most farms, family members and friends cover feeding and chores for each other. We can’t all be gone all weekend. Given the distances we travel for most events, it would not be possible for me to have a groom for both days. This change appears to be an unnecessary complication and could prevent me from attending future competitions.
ADS member number 20191947
Rebecca Burkheart
RCP #7 – I do not support this change.
ReplyDeleteAs with most farms, family members and friends cover feeding and chores for each other. We can’t all be gone all weekend. Given the distances we travel for most events, it would not be possible for me to have a groom for both days. This change appears to be an unnecessary complication and could prevent me from attending future competitions.
ADS member number 20191947
Rebecca Burkheart
Member Name: Patricia Anselm ADS# 13621
ReplyDeleteRCP #7 – I am opposed as this change is unnecessary and burdensome to many single drivers at ADS (as opposed to FEI) level.
Member Name: Patricia Anselm ADS# 13621
ReplyDeleteRCP #8 – I am strongly opposed to this change. While I understand the difficulties in setting courses and getting enough volunteers, this rule change would place a tremendous financial burden on the base of the ADS competitors. Implementing this rule change would prevent many competitors from moving up from Training to Preliminary because of the financial burden in an already expensive sport.
EXP #7 Article:CD 937.
ReplyDeleteReasons not to change at preliminary level and below
--
1) lack of knowledgeable groom's that could be of assistance An un-knowledgeable groom is worst then no groom A person available on the ground is of greater assistance. 2) not all carriages are able to carry a groom.
Robin and Wilson Groves Member ID: 13149-A and 13149
Name- Jillian Stroh ADS # 11226
ReplyDeleteRCP #7- please keep the rule as is, I do not support the change. Requiring grooms for all divisions will definitely become an issue for many of us with limited help and funds. I realize, in theory, we could have a few people dressed as grooms ready to hop on carriages at shows, but how is that not an increased liability? I don’t want to pay a stranger to sit on my carriage. What happens when someone begs a friend or family member who is not horse savvy and cannot actually help in an emergency?
Helen Heinzer, #4240
ReplyDeleteI support all proposals except:
RCP #7, I support the current rule. No groom required for single dressage carriages.
As a single driver, I find it hard to find a Groom. Its challenging to get a steady navigator for Marathon.
So I often focus on the Dressage/Cones or Pleasure Shows.
Mandatory grooms for single dressage and/or cones would cut me out of many ADS shows.
Tracey Morgan
ReplyDeleteADS # 13258
RCP # 7 opposed
ADS does not have a history of accidents due with Single Drivers without grooms. More accidents occur when hitching/unhitching which would be a time to require an assistant.
Deborah Bevan. Member 4712
ReplyDeleteRCP# 7
I strongly disagree with making training and prelim carry grooms for dressage and cones.
— from my experience, a person on the ground has been able to assist drivers faster than someone who has been riding on the carriage and has to get off to assist.
An impatient horse needs a ground person at their head and will not likely wait for the driver to hault and groom get off the carriage. Grooms leaping off the carriage to assist will likely provide opportunity for human injury as well as add more commotion.
— many marathon vehicles used at training and prelim do not have safe accommodations for a person to sit while doing these phases as required by the rules
— ADS US shows are supported by these lower level entries who often have limited help and this rule would but a burden on them to have a help who could ride on the carriage. After all we are an aging population of drivers and sitting as a groom on a carriage my be a problem for many.
GladysAnn Wells Membership #:102560 RCP#:7
ReplyDeleteI believe this change, while well intentioned, would keep many of us now active to stop competing. It is too hard to find experienced help for those of us from non horse families for the marathon (although my husband has done an amazing job, as a non horse person). Please don't make things harder.
RCP #7 Article: CD 937.3 Groom required on all horse and pony Dressage carriages .No groom required for single for single small pony and single VSE
ReplyDeleteSusan D, Lathrop ADS # 6775
Gail Aumiller
ReplyDeleteADS # 782190
“RCP #7 Article: CD 937.3
Submitted by: Marc Johnson Current wording:
Chart. No groom required for single Dressage carriages.
Suggested wording:
Chart. Groom required on all horse and pony Dressage carriages. No groom required for single small pony and single VSE”
I am opposed to this change! I drive a single hitch, because I do not need a groom.
Would like to know the reasoning behind this proposed rule. Does Marc plan to propose a change to require a groom for cones???
Requiring a groom for my single hitch Dressage drives would eliminate my entering those classes, because I do not have a person to ride along with me. If entering, I would have to scramble at an event to find someone, which means a new variable added to my test without training and practice. As a 70yo amateur whip, I need to be over prepared to drive a test, not adding a new variable just before I compete.
If this becomes a rule, I will have to rethink my plans to winter in FL in 2022 to compete in ADS driven dressage events. I certainly don’t need another hurdle to overcome to get into the show ring.
RCP #7 Article: CD 937.3 Groom required on all horse and pony Dressage carriages .No groom required for single for single small pony and single VSE
ReplyDeleteKate Busman Member ID: 10895
Member Name: Elizabeth Goldmann Membership #: 2020670 RCP#: 7
ReplyDeleteI am not in favor of requiring a groom on the carriage during Dressage and Cones. Having a groom should be the decision of the whip. I am among those drivers who enjoy CDEs with a small group of friends who assist each other and always ride as navigators during marathon, but we do not have the luxury of dedicated grooms at our beck and call for Dressage and Cones times. Also, having a groom during these events is not necessary. These events occur in contained areas with other contestants, their friends, staff, and spectators who could lend assistance in extremis (with appropriate penalties for outside assistance.) I have been competing for 10 years and have had only one 'emergency' when in the middle of my dressage test a horse outside the arena ran away towards the barns. My judge blew her whistle to stop me, got down from her platform and came to stand at my horse's head until the runaway was dealt with far in the distance behind us. The judge said because she was in charge of the ring and I was in it, I was her responsibility and came to my immediate aide. My horse was nonplussed by the event, only wondering why we had halted in the middle of our lengthened trot. Once there was no more threat the judge told me to go back to the previous movement and pick up my test again with no penalty.
From my anecdotal experience I believe there is plenty of help available as necessary without requiring a groom, who would also cause issues of balance during Cones.
Thanks for reading my comments. I urge you to vote NO on this proposal.
Member Name: Penny R. Nicely
ReplyDeleteMembership #:4259
RCP#:7
It seems rather ludicrous that we have allowed singles to compete in
dressage without grooms for all these years and now we want to make them
carry grooms. Since VSEs and small pony's still don't have to, this
suggests that grooms are not necessary to the competition. Therefore
making them mandatory for only some doesn't make sense. I would also
remind you that there are still many drivers at 3-day CDE's who have
grooms that have to work Friday and don't arrive until late in the
afternoon after dressage is over. This is an unnecessary change and I
would vote (if I had a vote) to not approve.
I feel a groom in Dressage should be optional. I am a ADS member and do training level dressage. If forced to have a groom I would not compete
ReplyDeleteADS 12029070
Donna Rose
Rochelle Temple
ReplyDeleteADS Life Member #5096
RCP 7: Do not agree
RCP #7
ReplyDeleteGayle Heiring. ADS number 7278
Completely opposed to requiring groom on all horse and pony carriages. This is just adding expense of having to find, bring, outfit and house an additional person. There should be no safety concern in dressage. If someone does not appear safe in warmup the steward should address. Showing is already very expensive and adding more unnecessary expense will result in fewer people being able to show. Finding and sharing navigators is already difficult but at least that effort is related to safety. A groom for a single in dressage is expensive nonsense.
Member Name: Suzy Stafford Membership #: 8907 RCP#:7
ReplyDeleteI do not approve of this change. It will limit participation to competitors without extra support staff.
Elfleda Powell ADS Member #2926400
ReplyDeleteRCP #7-
Dressage stresses obedience. If an equine is not schooled well enough to
perform in the dressage ring, then it should be practicing at home in the
training ring. I cannot see where a second person on a cart or carriage
can be a guarantee to save the day if something goes wrong. A groom on
the back of a marathon carriage must sit on one side which changes the
balance and adds weight. In a cart, a groom impedes the driver from free
movement and surely cannot exit quickly or safely to assist.
In order to understand this, I opened my 2020 rule book to look at “the above chart”. The chart immediately above 937.3b (the quoted current wording) specifies “no minimum weight or width". This doesn’t make sense, as it would not constitute a change. I’m guessing the RCP meant to refer instead to the FEI chart above that, but rules are interpreted exactly as written, no guessing.
ReplyDeleteAside from unclear wording, and assuming this is intended to require minimum track width, I do not support this change. At the lower levels, most competitors own just one carriage, a marathon carriage with track width of ~125 cm, which would no longer be legal for dressage and cones. So this would require purchase of a second carriage. And most of those folks do not own a trailer big enough to transport 2 carriages. Consider for a moment the cost of a carriage AND new trailer. Events are already struggling to attract enough competitors to cover costs. The last thing we should be doing is putting competitions out of reach for more members.
I do understand that the idea is to make cones simpler, and require fewer volunteers, which would be an advantage. If Training level is exempted, this change would not reduce the number of required volunteers, and so the primary advantage of the change will not be realized.
It comes down to weighing the cost to competitors vs. simplifying the running of the cones competition. I do not think the advantage comes even close to outweighing the disadvantage.
Please vote NO.
Virginia Miner
ADS# 3611
Julie
ReplyDelete7:22 PM (46 minutes ago)
to rulebook
Member Name: Julie Kirchhoff Membership #: 20181543 RCP #7 & #8
I am strongly opposed to RCP 7 and RCP 8. I believe the likely result
in both cases will be to reduce overall participation in ADS events
especially at the training level and preliminary levels. The cost for
equipment and grooms would increase the cost of competing at these
competitions substantially. It would certainly reduce or even eliminate
my participation as I do not have a groom reliably available to assist
at all competitions.
Esther R Wright ( Boots)
ReplyDeleteLife member #5200
#7 no
'Roger Cleverly' via Rulebook Committee
ReplyDelete7:39 PM (42 minutes ago)
to rulebook@americandrivingsociety.org
Roger Cleverly
ADS Membership # 37720
RCP #7
Grooms on dressage carriages
Reason for change? No reason has been stated by the proposer. Without a clearly stated reason, I am very much against this proposal. Whilst Presentation Vehicles have the facility for a bolt on dickie seat, Marathon Carriages are not designed for grooms to be seated, so it seems rather unnecessary for single horses and ponies. The proposal also adds another level of expense for competitors.
RCP #7
ReplyDeleteThis rule change would really add to the expense of competing with a single horse. I have a navigator, but buying presentation clothes for her in addition to other expenses would limit going to CDE’s.
Safety can’t really be the reason for this, because with the speeds required for cones, having a person sitting on one side of a marathon carriage seems to totally mess up the balance on turns. And, if I have to find a person (small and well dressed) at the show. they probably would know very little about my horse or turn out.
Gloria Ripperton
12020050
RCP #7, Kathleen Carey, ADS #10474 - Disagree. Requirement would create additional expense and may reduce participation. If safety is the concern then reduce the speeds.
ReplyDeleteADS number 12039070 - Leslie Granger
ReplyDeleteRCP#7 - Disagree - Single carriages should not require a groom for dressage or cones.
Kevin & Marcia Fetherston - ADS Member # 3797240
ReplyDeleteRCP#7. Article CD937.3
I disagree. I believe the rule on "no groom required for single dressage carriages" should be left unchanged. Allow the athlete the option or the organizer may require a groom, per the individual event rules. However, I do not feel that a groom should be mandated on horse and pony dressage carriages.
We have a lot of club members who come to our events by themselves, with no helpers or family. They already have to arrange for a gator for the obstacles. In addition, some 2-wheel dressage carriages are not necessarily safer, with a groom on board.
Member: Marcia Geil
ReplyDeleteMember #: 314480
RCP # 7:
Opposed - adding the necessity of a groom to Dressage arena only is not going to enhance safety in the warm up area, nor in the tacking and untacking area - plus will make it much harder for people to compete. I prefer to have an assistant available to hitch and unhitch, but am driving horses that are not completely developed in their muscling and asking them to pull the additional weight will not be productive for them. I have a marathon carriage, and having someone "sitting" on the side will produce an unbalanced carriage thru turns. This is not clear if it is meant to apply to all carriages being driven for a Dressage test, or only presentation vehicles with additional seating.
ADS Member - Gale Pellegrino
ReplyDeleteADS # 11029
RCP#7 - No
Requiring an extra person on a carriage or on the ground at all times for a single driver is not feasible for most people that are showing. This is in no way a safety feature seeing most people will find a "body" to fill that role and that body would not be effective to help in a required situation. I have been showing for many years and dressage/cones is not where the accidents occur. Granted the FEI rules requires this but it would take many people out of the sport at the ADS level.
I strongly oppose this rule change requiring an extra person on a carriage for a single horse/pony in dressage and cones. If the reason for this rule change is for safety, I don't see that happening. By having someone behind me gives me no safety should my horse decide to bolt or run away or do whatever equines do when they get frightened and try to run out of a *situation.* Having knowledgeable people nearby the ring (both dressage and cones) gets the job done much faster. Seen it happen. Besides the cost of having to bring an additional body to events, this rule would just make most competitors I've talked to forgo participating in the event.
ReplyDeleteBarbara Akers ADS #3186
DeleteFrom: Deborah Bridges (ADS #466330)
ReplyDeleteRE: RCP #7
Vote: NO on this proposal
Against the change forcing entries to carry a groom in Dressage. This change will increase the cost for competitors who will now have to have an extra person at competitions. There is no supporting evidence provided why this change needs to be made. The current rules allow for those competitors wishing to have a groom on their carriage to do so, making all horse and pony competitors to have a groom will only increase costs and put further downward pressure on entries.
Submitted by Ann McClure ADS #1190
ReplyDeleteArticle RCP # 7 - I strongly oppose. This is the United States and we have different traditions
than Europe. If a European Judge will not abide by our rules hire a different judge. I’ve never understood how riding in a Dickey seat is safe. I see nothing wrong with the addition of encouraging a groom if applicable. Results I see is another decline in competitors or ADS recognized Shows.
Submitted by Carole Grimsley, member number 167100
ReplyDeleteRCP #7
Article: CD 937.3
My comment: This change will be a detriment to the lower level competitors. It is sufficient that the current rules specify a support person/team on the ground to assist in Dressage and Cones.
Comments on various proposed rules by Bill and Kim Allen (ADS #13146)
ReplyDeleteRCP #7
We are opposed to this change. This is unnecessary and only serves to increase the cost of competing. This will reduce the number of shows we are able to enter.
Member name: Susie Weiss
ReplyDeleteADS Lifetime member # 4704
RCP #7
Article CD937.3
Oppose of this change in ruling. A groom may not notice that there is a problem until it is too late. A groom also may not be able to get out of the carriage fast enough to help. A ground person can see the problem a lot quicker and react faster.
It also imposes a financial burden on the driver, finding a capable person and paying their expenses to help.
We all have seen accidents happen at anytime with a horse, but if you have a problem with the horse in the Dressage Arena, maybe they are not ready to do the other phases of a CDE.
Name: Cindy Baehr
ReplyDeleteADS#: 12025280
RCP#: 7
This change has the possibility to require that a competitor replace their carriage. Some two wheel carriages do not have a large enough bench to accommodate two persons comfortably. The rule would only be in effect for classes above training, but some of us spend a lot of time training our horses to advance to higher levels of competition. This change might require some to buy a new carriage.
Cheryl Pratt Rivers ADS# 032720 on proposed rule changes for 2021
ReplyDeleteI write to comment on proposed rule changes for 2021. I am a long time driver who has competed in both Pleasure Shows and CDEs from the training to the advanced level and have competed in Europe as well. I have attended several world championships as a spectator as well.
I am embarrassed that I have never paid much attention to rule change proposals before. This year though you have gotten my attention and I am writing with a sense of urgency and a deep disappointment at the direction of a couple of the changes. I appreciate the effort that people put into these changes, and support most of them. I oppose those that I believe will discourage and reduce participation in our sport which I believe is at risk for survival.
RCP#7- I would like to associate myself with the comments of Dana Bright. I am a trainer and am often
competing young horses for their early competitions. I am safety conscious. I much prefer to have a
knowledgeable person on the ground capable of rendering assistance. Often young horses are still
building strength and any extra weight as we strive for lightness and correctness in dressage is a handicap and a concern. By the time we reach the advanced level the horse is better able to handle the extra weight. But before that , I think a groom on the carriage is a detriment for the smaller horses and ponies. If safety , and not some desire to emulate Europe, is the motivation, require helmets for every person on a vehicle during an event at all times. I have never seen a safety issue at an event caused by not having a groom in dressage, and that is over the course of about 40 years. This will discourage participation. The only way that this could be justified in my view is if there was well documented objective data to demonstrate it as a serious safety issue. There is no such data. Please reconsider this as we will lose drivers who do not have the means to comply with it. It The proposal will be a detriment to the developmet of young horses. They need time to develop strength. This will ask too much, too soon for many of them.
Meghan Richey/Chuck McGrath, Member ID: 12030930
ReplyDeleteRe RCP #7: Groom required on all horse and pony Dressage carriages...
Reply> NO. For one it increase required manpower and cost to the lower level drivers. Now will have to have a dicky seat (extra cost) and attire for the groom (also extra cost). In addition, the one dressage test where we did use a groom we were marked down in presentation because the judge (who is quite a popular judge so judges often) didn't like the way the manufacturer had configured our dicky seat.
RCP # 7:
ReplyDeleteI strongly oppose proposed rule change #7, Groom required on all horse and pony Dressage carriages. No groom required for single small pony and single VSE. Many single drivers go to shows alone and only have their navigator come the day of the marathon. This rule change would create a hardship for many single drivers. While a driver can always find someone on the show grounds to head their horse while hitching, finding someone willing to dress in proper grooms clothing and ride on the carriage is another matter. The rule change would not only create a problem of finding a willing body, it would cause a financial burden by requiring yet another expense added to the already hefty entry and stabling fees to pay someone to do the job. Just like there is a shortage of volunteers at shows, there is also a shortage of available grooms. This rule change makes it more difficult for a single pony/horse driver to compete. As the ADS, we are trying to encourage more participation by drivers, not deter it. If the concern is over the safety of a young/green horse showing, then make this a requirement at training level only. This would put a 3 show limit on the requirement; not a permanent one. As one progresses up the levels, their pony/horse should be solid enough to be driven as a single without a groom. Many single drivers spend hours in practice and pleasure driving without a groom on the carriage. If the single driver feels safe enough to participate in a show without a groom, then they should be allowed to do so at their option not mandated by the organizers. All drivers are required to sign a release of liability so, therefore, they are responsible for their own actions and results thereof.
In my opinion the committee should not approve one rule change to make it easier for the organizers and volunteers (RCP # 8 regarding standard carriage widths) while at the same time approving a change that makes showing more burdensome on the drivers (this RCP #7) who are paying the entry fees to attend a show. The more burdensome we make the rules on the drivers, the more we are limiting the future of the sport.
Furthermore, trying to implement this rule at this time, given the restrictions of the ADS COVID-19 Action plan updated 7/27/2020 will make it almost impossible for singles to show at the few shows we will have in the 2020-2021 season. The July 27, 2020 COVID 19 Action Plan specifically disallows sharing of personnel at any time, including Marathon. So implementing this rule, in conjunction with the COVID 19 action plan means that each single driver will have to provide their own groom/navigator as we can no longer share personnel. This creates additional burden since as mentioned above there is already a shortage of grooms/navigators on show days.
Janet Crumpton
ADS Member No. 12036410
Name: Tracey Turner
ReplyDeleteADS # 2181656
RCP #7
I believe this proposed change would make it more difficult for people to compete if they are unable to bring an extra person to every show. It is increasingly difficult to get all the help and sharing people for CDEs it already difficult and in some cases sharing is not allowed or can’t be accommodated when both people are competing. I think this change would make competing more difficult for many people. Additionally, I don’t think it is necessary for added safety because speed is not an issue in dressage. Perhaps at training level, it may be more warranted, but again, if a person has had the training necessary to compete and attests to that fact in the safety form, an additional person should not be needed.
I do not support this proposed change.
I am against the rule change #7.
ReplyDeleteFinding a groom and getting them suitably dressed for dressage just adds another layer of complication for a solo competitor to an already complex undertaking.
Diane Kern
#3620
Pamela Miller 8007 RCP 7
ReplyDeleteOpposed. This will not make the sport more accessible for many people. Only a little safer. Many people pick up a navigator for the marathon. Drivers have to supply the lucky volunteer with a vest and helmet. Now they also need a selection of Groom clothes. In an emergency the volunteer Groom may not be any more agile and brave than a willing bystander. Here in the west the drive to a CDE is 5-10 hr. No friend will just pop by to groom or navigate. Drivers will have to house and feed a groom/navigator for two days if not three.
How about an extra point for a well turned out groom on your cart ? Don’t put another obstacle in the way of competing by making the groom mandatory.
Elfleda Powell ADS Member #2926400
ReplyDeleteRCP #7-
Dressage stresses obedience. If an equine is not schooled well enough to
perform in the dressage ring, then it should be practicing at home in the
training ring. I cannot see where a second person on a cart or carriage
can be a guarantee to save the day if something goes wrong. A groom on
the back of a marathon carriage must sit on one side which changes the
balance and adds weight. In a cart, a groom impedes the driver from free
movement and surely cannot exit quickly or safely to assist.
Katie Twohy ADS Membership number is 624800
ReplyDeleteRCP #7
I strongly oppose this rule change proposal for the many reasons that have been well presented by other members.
Price Story member 9181
ReplyDelete7. No. Although I compete a small pony and this doesn’t affect me now, there is no reason to require Single horses or ponies to have a navigator in Dressage and Cones. Many of the carriages were not meant to carry a seated gator. If there is a problem, like hood is that someone on the ground can get there to help before the gator can get out anyway. Just because it is required in Europe, doesn’t mean we need to. It will increase the cost for those who have to bring gators because now they will be needed for up to 3 days instead of one.
Member Name: Teresa Jump Membership #: 12026210 RCP#:7
ReplyDeleteDear Committee:
I'm writing this in response to the proposed rule change regarding a groom being required on the carriage at all times.
As an organizer and driver this rule would put unnecessary strain on our volunteer list, as we are now taking volunteers from other areas to ride on the back of the carriage. Most single drivers do not bring a lot of help during dressage and cones days.
This would mean that a groom would have to be on the grounds for the 2 or 3 days of the competition, adding expense to an already expensive sport, i.e., hotel, food, etc.
If grooms are required for single horse or pony, why not for small pony or VSE? As an organizer, over the years, small pony and VSE can do as much damage as a big horse.
We want to encourage people to enjoy this sport. This proposed rule change would make it more difficult, if not impossible for drivers new to the sport to participate; we do not all have "staff" to ride on the back of our carriages!
Sincerely,
Teresa Jump, organizer and driver.
Debbi Packard, organizer and driver.
No grooms necessary.
ReplyDeleteWanda Chancellor
ADS # 8147
NAME: ERICA ROBB
ReplyDeleteADS#: 6951990
RCP# 7: OPPOSE. There is no value in adding a groom to dressage (and cones??) for horses and (large) ponies. Surely, we can manage to complete a dressage test without a catastrophe, and if there is a fear of a roll-over in cones, then stop increasing the speeds and tightening the courses; that issue is of our own making. USEF/FEI and Advanced drivers compete under different rules, as is appropriate; all competitors to not have to aspire to that level to enjoy the sport. This rule will shrink ADS even further by making it more complicated, more expensive, and more elitist to compete. I certainly will not be able to compete and will not renew my ADS membership if this rule is approved. (Side note: this rule is so poorly written, it actually isn’t clear what the change would be.)
'Alice Simpson' via Rulebook Committee
ReplyDelete6:01 AM (2 hours ago)
to rulebook
Alice Simpson: ADS #11510: RCP #7
NO. There are several reasons why this rule change is a very bad idea. First and foremost, if this rule change is adopted, it will reduce participation in a sport that is already on the decline. The ADS should be trying to grow the sport at the grassroots level, not kill it off. I for one may have to give up competing in combined driving if RCP #7 is adopted. It is already very difficult to find a navigator for the marathon phase, for those of us not married or otherwise related to one, and requiring someone to be at the competition for an extra day plus possess and be willing to wear the appropriate attire, will raise the bar so high I will not be likely to meet it. I already had to skip an HDT this year because I could not find a navigator, and this proposed rule change will just add to the challenge.
Second, it is unnecessary for a single carriage to have a groom on board during dressage. In the 16 years that I have been competing, I have never seen or even heard of an incident during a dressage test requiring the assistance of a groom. In the unlikely event of a wreck, the presence of a groom on board would not prevent the wreck and would just mean there could be two persons injured and not just one. If the purpose of this rule change was safety, it will have the opposite effect, especially if the groom is seated beside the driver instead of on the back of a vehicle. If outside assistance were needed, there are usually other competitors or spectators on the sidelines who would be in a better position to help out than someone on the carriage. Nor is it necessary to have weight on the back step of a marathon vehicle for dressage given one is hopefully not making tight turns at speed.
Third, suddenly asking a horse to lug around more weight that it is accustomed to during schooling at home, where I for one must drive alone because I have no one to ride along, is unfair to the horse which is disadvantaged by the sudden change in balance.
Fourth, just as a rider should be seated in the center of the saddle on a straight line, a driver should be seated in the center of the carriage. If the only place for a groom to sit is beside the driver, this displaces the driver to the side, which may be OK for pleasure driving but is not appropriate for dressage.
Last but not least, driven dressage is already an oxymoron, because having to push into a collar is biomechanically antithetical to one of the main goals of dressage, which is collection and self-carriage. A horse cannot “carry itself,” namely elevate the forehand, transfer weight to the hindquarters, and shorten its base of support, and push into a collar at the same time. Picture a draft horse pulling a stone boat (entire weight on the forehand) vs. a Lipizzan in a levade (entire weight on the hindquarters) and you can see the problem. So a compromise has to be made. Adding additional weight to the vehicle by piling on a groom just adds to the problem. Ideally, a vehicle for dressage should be as light as possible, preferably a two-wheeled cart, not a heavy presentation carriage with a groom on the back. There is a reason fine harness horses are shown in lightweight viceroys, not big heavy carriages.
Kasey Ashley, my ADS member number 11536.
ReplyDeleteRCP No. 7
I strongly disagree with these rule change proposals. Many other members have indicated the same opinion as my self. I agree with all their comments. Also as stated in my introduction, be mindful of the economic impact to your drivers. Without drivers, there is no sport.
Kasey Ashley, my ADS member number 11536.
ReplyDeleteRCP No. 7
I strongly disagree with these rule change proposals. Many other members have indicated the same opinion as my self. I agree with all their comments. Also as stated in my introduction, be mindful of the economic impact to your drivers. Without drivers, there is no sport.
RCP#7
ReplyDeleteTasha Wilkie ADS #8572
Oppose
It’s to the benefit of the horse to pull less weight in dressage. In my experience, it’s the POJ from Europe that has required a groom for dressage, since it is a requirement in Europe. Perhaps an organizer can find out from a POJ whether they are going to require it in dressage and, if so, note it in the Omnibus. Additionally, this rule change proposal doesn’t address cones, which is a different issue than dressage. Does the proposal require a groom in cones as well? The wording of the proposal needs to be reworked and resubmitted at a later date.
Member Name: Membership #: RCP#:
ReplyDeleteSheri Haviza #13248
RCP #7
The requirement of grooms on the vehicle will be a difficult requirement. Some of us have a hard enough time to find a groom for marathon. This will make it even harder to share navigators. Not all vehicles have a safe and comfortable spot for a navigator to sit. This sport is dwindling and this requirement will make it more difficult for drivers, not encouraging more drivers. There is usually someone always near by that can assist.
I am expressing strong disapproval to both RCP #7 and RCP #8. Each of these changes makes it very difficult for new and casual competitors to compete. None of my current vehicles are compliant with RCP #8 and I would be excluded from ADS sanctioned events. I acquired these vehicles from other drivers who were upgrading or retiring. Competing at ADS competitions is complicated enough, without these rules. Needless to say, if I am no longer able to compete at ADS events, I will no longer maintain my ADS membership.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the ADS has betrayed competitors like me. Not so long ago, ADS split from USEF in part because USEF ignored low level competitors like me. Now it seems that ADS has become decidedly unfriendly to those same drivers. If these two rules are approved, I suspect you will loose casual competitors/drivers and smaller local events.
Barbara Estey #10461
Norma Katz ads#9273
ReplyDeleteI oppose rcp#7 & rcp#8
Not all carriages can accommodate a groom - not all carriages are regulation width. I believe that if competitors are forced to buy different carriages - it will negatively affect entries. I also believe that events will withdraw from ads sanctioning and if enough events do that, ads will suffer and ads membership will suffer.