RC#: 19-018
Status: Posted 5Jun18, Recommended with Mods by CDC & ESC 19July18
| Name: |
Marc Johnson / CDC Chair |
| ADS #: |
9050 |
|
|
| Subject: |
Marathon Distance and Pace |
|
|
| Rule #: |
960.2.8 |
| Current Wording: |
|
| New Wording: |
|
|
|
| Reason for Change: |
Replace Walk Section with Transfer Section. Preliminary should be allowed any pace throughout Section B to better align with the sport. Training allowed .5 kilometer longer overall distance to allow 2 section Marathon and Transfer specifications. |
| Type of change: |
Modify |
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
Penny says :
June 9, 2018It is unclear if the intention is to allow Preliminary competitors any pace in the B section of all Marathons or only in this 2 phase version. In any case, It does not follow the guidelines set up for an orderly development between the levels which specifically prohibits Preliminary competitors from cantering outside the hazards. This should not be allowed as proposed.
Zantke says :
June 14, 2018I am NOT in favor. Keep our current WALK SECTION !
Jheroen Dorenbosch says :
June 29, 2018The table shows a NEW MIN KM Distance of Training if 8. This change is not justified.
The table should include a note that says that the minimum distances do not apply to Driving Trials.
(Note: For driving trials, there is a lower maximum distance for section B in Appendix CD-A, 7.1 of 10 km. As far as I can see, there is no separate minimum distance defined for driving trials. Is this an oversight or am I not finding a rule? It should be of the order of 5 km for training and maybe 5.5 km for preliminary)
For consistency:
– If the change to Training Max of 12.5 is made, it should also be changed in Appendix CD-E. Same if getting rid of the Walk Section and calling it Transfer.
– If the change to Training Max of 12.5 is made, it should also be changed in 960.2.7.a
rules says :
July 19, 2018CDC Recommends the change with corrections to the current footnote wording.
Zantke says :
August 28, 2018So what are the corrections to the footnote – which the CDC wants and then recommends it for approval?
keithy says :
July 19, 2018I am not in favor of this RCS. The Walk Section works so why eliminate it. As Penny mentioned above, the speeds for the Divisions were put in place for the orderly development between the levels. If the CDC means by “better align” to match the USEF rules this is not a valid reason. The ADS rules for the lower levels have been in place for decades while the USEF lower level rules have only been in place for a few years. The USEF should be aligning their lower level rules with the ADS not the other way around.
DanRosenthal says :
August 12, 2018Actually Keith they have only been in place this year and have only been used at two shows.
DanRosenthal says :
August 12, 2018I too would like to see a discussion of WHY this is a good idea beyond conforming with USEF rules that did not go through a rule making process.
Zantke says :
August 28, 2018Still not in favor! Let’s keep our Walk Section !
ashemont says :
August 29, 2018Please please please keep the walk section! I am NOT in favor of this change!
nis75p06 says :
August 30, 2018I am in favor of the section B changes, while I think the transfer section should be maintained at a walk as intended to promote good horsemanship and valuable training of a quality walk.
love2083 says :
August 30, 2018I am NOT in favor of this rule. Reasons pretty much as already listed.
Linda Yutzy says :
August 31, 2018Not in favor. This should have been presented as 2 separate changes. Keep Walk. Therefore, no cantering for Prelim.