2008 AMHR Nationals Results

[Jill]

Hello, Everyone --

I appreciate, very much, the people who are able to empathize with how I am feeling. The messages here and the many emails, calls and private messages have meant a lot to me.

Please realize though I am not disappointed or let down in Destiny. I am so proud of him, as most of you probably are aware. He has shown well enough to make any owner very pleased and proud. Destiny's a National Champion and a Reserve National Grand Champion with a Hall of Fame. Maybe even more important, he's begun his career as a sire having recently given us a beautiful filly with more foals on the way.

The people I feel sorry for are those who spent 3.5 months thinking their horse moved from 3rd to Reserve National Grand Champion or from 3rd to Reserve National Champion (as there is a lot more than just one class in question)... People who thought their horse got a title and now it's gone. I feel sorry for those people who thought their horse was 10th only to now find they are back to being a basically an unrecognized 11th. Now that would be heart breaking to think your horse had a National title and now it doesn't, or to think your horse placed Top 10, and now it hasn't.

AMHR has provided nothing to even suggest that the horses who caused the turmoil had in fact qualified to show at Nationals... AMHR's own actions reveal there has been a lot in doubt (temporary changes to the original placements, way late Journal issue explained as a result of problems regarding Nationals placements, notation IN the Journal we just got that certain results were not final...). Why doesn't AMHR officially state these horse in question qualified and provide the details, if in fact those horses were found to have qualified??? I won't swallow an explanation that the big name trainers involved took the horses to shows and showed them, yet they didn't happen place. I am also stunned that AMHR supposedly cannot / has not ever been able to really confirm if horses were qualified for Nationals or not.

The emotions I am feeling and have been feeling are anger and disgust at AMHR, not a mourning for something "lost" by Destiny. I feel AMHR is really pulling something shady. I also feel that AMHR is treating the membership as if they aren't actually thinking people who can figure out what's going on -- or that they just flat out don't care what the membership thinks. This is what my emotions in this matter revolve around.

Thank you again,

Jill

 

[Karen S]

Good Morning All,

I'm going to touch just a bit on the show program. As most of you know the show program is the exact same program that the AMHA WAS going to use and found out that there were alot of problems. ASPC/AMHR also hired the same man and now WE have the same problems.

What most of you don't understand (which I do cause it happened to several of us), is that program cannot be downloaded without it crashing our computer systems plus a lot of the facilities in which these shows are held DO NOT have internet and the list goes on. It isn't that the show managers are refusing to use it, it's that they can't in most cases. Yes the ASPC/AMHR board is aware of the problems, that we who are out here trying to put on shows for all of you can't use something that still isn't perfected.

A director that has been using it for some time now is having luck with it and they have even been working on an easy to follow manuel in which the managers can refer to. I do know it was discussed at the spring board meeting, that this program as is right now is not user friendly. So passing a rule for ALL show manager to use it is not feasable. There have been several suggestions made by the show managers to the board and they are looking into other alternatives for us.

So please don't always lay the blame on the show managers. The master list is just that. A list in which all miniatures and ponies are listed for that show but doesn't guarantee that those horses enter into a class. Our show manger wanted me to pass along that what she does at our shows, is that after all horses are checked in and have been in A class then she goes back through our show's master list and crosses off those horses that DID NOT enter the show ring and makes a notation to the office as such. She said she has never had any problems with doing this.

Thanks.

Karen

 

[Jean_B]

One last comment and then I am not going to say another word on this topic BECAUSE this topic has sort of taken a left turn and has become a bashing of AMHR and show managers.

Even if the show management software is working PERFECTLY, and even if EVERY show manager in the country was using it -- it STILL will not give you a true list of horses that qualify.

Why?? Because it lists horses that are entered in a class, and it lists horses that place in a class, but it does not give you a list of horses that entered the arena, were judged, but did not place!

For instance....let's say you have a class of 15 entries. Let's say that there are 2 last minute scratches. Often times, those scratches are not removed from the computer's class list. Only 6 horses place - so those are the only ones that people know TRULY entered the arena. So there is no way to verify if a horse that WAS entered but did not place actually entered the arena and was judged.

However, if someone SAYS they entered a horse in a class and it was the only horse in that class, but they do not enter the arena...the JUDGES CARDS would show -0- entries. Pretty hard to cheat on that one.

So.....until all the bugs are worked out of the system so that it is a system that will work for all show managers in all environments (and having worked with data bases, and having worked in an audit environment for most of my working life....I know that is a never-ending process), much of what we have to go on AT THE MOMENT is based on the honor system.

There ARE ways to 'audit' suspected rule violations. However, those are very tedious and labor-intensive.

And it would require that ALL show staff are diligent in their record keeping. It would require that the show secretary diligently mark all scratches in the computer program. It would require that the gateman diligently mark all scratches from their sheets as they are checking in horses for each and every class. It would require that the gateman's sheets be kept for a period of at least a year, and made available to the home office in the event of a questionable National entry.

I'm sure there are other things but I haven't had my second cup of coffee this morning so my brain isn't hitting on all 8 cylinders yet...but as you can see - this is NOT an easy fix!

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Are we at the point of requiring the horses to be microchipped and have the steward scan them as they enter the ring????

Tina

 

[Minimor]

So, Jean, you are saying that it is simply too much work/effort for show management to be accurate on recording scratches and removing from the show list those horses that do not actually enter the ring?

If being accurate on qualifications is too much work then I would suggest that the qualification requirements for Nationals be removed, and anyone and everyone can enter their horses even if those horses haven't been in the show ring in the past 12 months. End of problem.

 

[river]

I have a couple of questions on this subject

1. Was anyone contacted regarding the placing of their horse by AMHR? Or were the comments that horses had been disqualified all through the rumor mill. I understand that the Journal said it was late becuase of possible changes but it is my understanding that no official word was given and that no changes were made in the Journal.

2. It is my understanding that the AMHR attorneys were consulted on this situation and that the AMHR was told not to pursue the matter - due to the fact that it does state in our rulebook that the entry form must have a place provided for the qualifying shows. Since this was not done - we could not pursue those that did not comply. As no one had to actually sign that their horses had qualified. Is this correct? Obviously AMHR will make sure this does not happen in the future.

3. If the show managers have 30 days to get their paperwork into the office there is no way that the office can verify the show results for the August shows before nationals. Is this not correct? Horses have always been verified after nationals in previous years mainly because of this problem. When looking at the show schedule it looks like there is 10 or more shows (which possibly could be 500-600 horses that would not show qualified at time of entry).

4. I personally do not know any of the people on either side of this situation but I think that previously to this year AMHR has done a wonderful job with a very large show. Obviously there is always room for improvement and this is going to be a huge lesson.

5. For those accused of showing horses that are not qualified - apparently only they know for sure if they did wrong or not. Jean has shown us in so many ways how people can and will cheat. I do not think that AMHR can legally give a list of all horses that were accused of not qualifying - think of those that were accused and innocent - just having their names on the list will tarnish their reputation.

AMHR is suppose to be a family organization and want all people to be able to show even if they do not place at a local level. Half of the fun is just being at nationals and mixing with the other participants and learning. It is always great to place but not necessary for having an awesome week. I hope they do not make any changes to the qualification process (except having the form correct) and that we must trust that we are all on the honor sytem until after nationals when the office will check the winning horses. I seriously believe after this year we will not have any cheaters.

I know this is an extremely sensitive issue and I hope either AMHR office or the BOD officially comment on this subject either on their web site or in the next Journal (the 2 appropriate places).

River

 

[Sandee]

I have a couple of questions on this subject
1. Was anyone contacted regarding the placing of their horse by AMHR? Or were the comments that horses had been disqualified all through the rumor mill. I understand that the Journal said it was late becuase of possible changes but it is my understanding that no official word was given and that no changes were made in the Journal.

2. It is my understanding that the AMHR attorneys were consulted on this situation and that the AMHR was told not to pursue the matter - due to the fact that it does state in our rulebook that the entry form must have a place provided for the qualifying shows. Since this was not done - we could not pursue those that did not comply. As no one had to actually sign that their horses had qualified. Is this correct? Obviously AMHR will make sure this does not happen in the future.

3. If the show managers have 30 days to get their paperwork into the office there is no way that the office can verify the show results for the August shows before nationals. Is this not correct? Horses have always been verified after nationals in previous years mainly because of this problem. When looking at the show schedule it looks like there is 10 or more shows (which possibly could be 500-600 horses that would not show qualified at time of entry).

4. I personally do not know any of the people on either side of this situation but I think that previously to this year AMHR has done a wonderful job with a very large show. Obviously there is always room for improvement and this is going to be a huge lesson.

5. For those accused of showing horses that are not qualified - apparently only they know for sure if they did wrong or not. Jean has shown us in so many ways how people can and will cheat. I do not think that AMHR can legally give a list of all horses that were accused of not qualifying - think of those that were accused and innocent - just having their names on the list will tarnish their reputation.

AMHR is suppose to be a family organization and want all people to be able to show even if they do not place at a local level. Half of the fun is just being at nationals and mixing with the other participants and learning. It is always great to place but not necessary for having an awesome week. I hope they do not make any changes to the qualification process (except having the form correct) and that we must trust that we are all on the honor sytem until after nationals when the office will check the winning horses. I seriously believe after this year we will not have any cheaters.

I know this is an extremely sensitive issue and I hope either AMHR office or the BOD officially comment on this subject either on their web site or in the next Journal (the 2 appropriate places).

River

Well put!

 

[targetsmom]

For anyone who thinks that it is a bad idea to remove all qualifications for AMHR Nationals, that is how the Pinto Horse Association does it and it doesn't seem to hurt them at all. Their local shows are certainly well attended. It also allows them to hold their World Show in June. I have never been to any National or World Shows so I can't comment on those.

 

[Lilac Lane Farm]

Hello All,

I think that the membership for the most part has been very mislead as of late regarding the software package from this contractor. The board itself was mislead for sometime on this subject also. Here is the nuts and bolts of the whole situation. The software that you the membership are paying for you do not own. What this means is that AMHR's board has decided to pay $14,000+ a month of your membership and dues for a service. In the beginning they were lead to believe that they were buying a software package and they aren't. So what happens to all the data if they decide to sever ties with the contractor you ask? They loose it all just like AMHA did. I was given a copy of they contract to review in October of last year at my own expense I went to the convention in Branson MO to inform the whole board of my findings. The reception I got was less than favorable and there were a few people I found would much rather defend a bad decision than admit that they were wrong. The board also decided after verifying my findings with lawyers and other IT professionals that they are still going to continue to pay this contractor regardless of the inevitable outcome. At that point AMHR's membership will have sunk in an estimated $265,000+ into the development of a software package they do not own, does not meet the needs of AMHR/ASPC and they cannot continue to use without paying more for a license agreement with the contractor. Realize also that the license agreement is an ongoing fee. It has been stated by the board that even if they decide to cut ties with the contractor they still own the data. This is true but what they do not understand is they cannot access that data without using the software and that requires a license agreement. The contractor has made a lot of empty promises but what it comes down to at the end of the day is what is in writing. AMHR/ASPC is paying for a borrowed horse.

Jamie

 

[Fred]

Thank you Jamie. About time that came out.

 

[sdmini]

Jean ya know I love ya BUT if this is an on going problem, the verification of horses actually "qualified" for Nationals, than it's one that should have been addressed before today. Listing the reasons as to why it doesn't work is not validation when we are talking about a national organization's biggest event.

No matter if AMHR found these horses to be honestly qualified or if because of the exclusion of the line on entry forms decided not to remove the horses placing I have no issue with. However the explanation of "because I said so" went out of fashion with me when I became an adult.

I can appreciate the importance of behind close door sessions but in light of the worst kept secret in AMHR history I, personally, feel that putting everything in the open will go a long way to mend feelings and clear names. Just as mistakes are in human nature, human nature also makes us suspicious of things "in the dark", not shining the light on the subject seems to give more validity to the "good ol' boys club" theory.

I do hate to post on either associations threads with negative comments but I know from my own experience the things that are being said here are being said, unchecked and much more elaborated on, in private conversations.

Wow, I'm just floored in reading Jamie's post. I knew there was something amiss with the computer program when AMHA dumped it but did not know the extent.

 

[Sandee]

.........pay $14,000+ a month for a service. .............AMHR's membership will have sunk in an estimated $265,000+ into the development of a software package they do not own, ...............AMHR/ASPC is paying for a borrowed horse.
Jamie

Wow! AMHA never did say exactly what was wrong with that program, and now we know!

Hubby is a retired programmer and for $265,000, I'd bet he could actually makea program that works!

 

[Littleum]

In the beginning they were lead to believe that they were buying a software package and they aren't.

Did no one read the fine print? The salesman could have said anything he wanted, but when the contract came around, someone should have spotted this in the contract and stopped the presses. I can't honestly believe someone read the contract and agreed to it- unless they really did not understand what the contract was saying (which is fine, but for the love of pie, hand it over to someone who does understand IT legal lingo!)

This story just gets worse and worse by the post, and it boggles my mind.

 

[Taylor Jo]

AMHR is suppose to be a family organization and want all people to be able to show even if they do not place at a local level. Half of the fun is just being at nationals and mixing with the other participants and learning. It is always great to place but not necessary for having an awesome week. I hope they do not make any changes to the qualification process (except having the form correct) and that we must trust that we are all on the honor sytem until after nationals when the office will check the winning horses. I seriously believe after this year we will not have any cheaters.

River

Well put!

Thank you Sandee well said. I agree with you 100%. I had a lousy year last year. One of my horses placed and one didn't but he and I got to experience the joy and wonder of driving at Nationals. He's "new" at driving and it may take him awhile to catch up to his counter parts and I hate to see him penalized by the rules. He's catching up and hopefully this season he'll be better. BUT you never know. I'd hate to have the PRESSURE of 1. Driving to different shows TRYING TO GET my horses points, especially NOW when I have to drive 4 hours to get to my nearest show and some people have to drive even more. 2. I stress enough as it is and PAY enough to the trainer to try to make my horses good. Plus, I work hard at training them myself. HOW MUCH MORE can I do.. That's just MORE added PRESSURE to perform. This is suppose to be about FUN remember.

My vote is for leaving it alone, and making AMHR more accountable for they're bookkeeping MAYBE they need to hire more help.... You will ALWAYS have someone trying to beat the system and that's sad. It takes away the joy of the sport. I feel sorry for those that are caught in the middle of this and loosing. My heart goes out to you. Anyway, that's just my two cents worth. TJ

 

[Littleum]

.........pay $14,000+ a month for a service. .............AMHR's membership will have sunk in an estimated $265,000+ into the development of a software package they do not own, ...............AMHR/ASPC is paying for a borrowed horse.
Jamie

Wow! AMHA never did say exactly what was wrong with that program, and now we know!

Hubby is a retired programmer and for $265,000, I'd bet he could actually makea program that works!

The thing that gets me is that I really don't think AMHR's needs are complicated! They need DBs that can handle large amounts of data, but the data doesn't really have to DO anything- it's just warehoused!

This is probably something a college student could do for a senior project, and would LOVE to do to have in his/her portfolio.

 

[gvpalominominis]

Exactly , is the reason there was error , that is supposed to be on all our Entry forms for Nationals !! and it was over looked when making the form and left off

, But last I knew to error was human.

So, in other words, it would have or should have been noticed with the very first entry that showed up without that information, and something coulda, shoulda, been done about it right then and there. Heavens, how long in advance is the entry close date? Obviously, it would have created additional work to have to request that information from the exhibitors due to the omission of that part of the entry form... but considering all the man hours, hard feelings, animosity and disgruntal etc. it caused by not correcting it right away, and/or was it noticed and there was decision to not correct it then? ... after though... how could it NOT have been noticed?

IMO I'm not saying the office/AMHR should be condemned forever for making an error... but at least step up and be accountable for it! Excuses are a weakness. This seems to be a HUGE problem in several clubs I know of. Nobody wants to be or is accountable for their actions. I can't speak for others, but its a whole lot more admirable to stand and say... "We made a mistake, we're trying to correct the trouble it caused, and here's how we're going to prevent it from ever happening again in the future".

But you are right Belinda, to error is human and what's done is done so the best thing to do is insure that it does not happen again. Hopefully though, the lesson learned through this event can also be applied to other curriculums within the organization.

I'm sorry but I have to agree and I've even witness it first hand that AMHR has kind of a laid back attitude of running things in general and seems to panic a bit and plants their feet once challenged, and even when the current rules' meanings are left to interpretation and unclear the old addage of "its been this way for 50 years it'll be good for 50 more" just doesn't cut in this day and age when EVERYTHING needs to be outlined and PERFECTLY clear.

Belinda, I admire and appreciate your passion, as well as others for their involvement in the club and the way things are going, that "Good 'ole boy" attitude in many ways can also be a welcome sign to new members frustrated with the bureaucracy and lack of 'member friendly' actions in other clubs, so lets not get rid of it totally

. But I also believe that the rules need to be adhered to and followed, especially by example from the Board and leaders.

 

[pinck43]

In the beginning they were lead to believe that they were buying a software package and they aren't.

Did no one read the fine print? The salesman could have said anything he wanted, but when the contract came around, someone should have spotted this in the contract and stopped the presses. I can't honestly believe someone read the contract and agreed to it- unless they really did not understand what the contract was saying (which is fine, but for the love of pie, hand it over to someone who does understand IT legal lingo!)

This story just gets worse and worse by the post, and it boggles my mind.

Why read the fine print?

The stimulus package was 1100 pages long and no on bothered to read that. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Belinda]

This is how I feel and that we just continue to

Now we have turned this negative post to a even more neg, post by bringing the computer contract into a subject .. WoW how this group jumps from one subject to another

Honestly I might have just figured out why NONE OF THE OTHER DIRECTORS POST !! You cannot keep up on here.

I must say this.. JAMIES POST IS NOT CORRECT !!! AND WE SPENT ANOTHER $600 ON HIS ADVICE TO HAVE OUR CONTRACTS GONE OVER BY A OUTSIDE ATTORNEY AND WE ARE FINE. AND NEGOTIATING WITH MARK AT THIS TIME ON THE PRICE AT THIS TIME. AND WE ARE MUCH MORE FUNCTIONAL THAN AMHA WAS BY MILES..

JAMIE YOU DID NOT HAVE THE ACTUAL CONTRACTS DID YOU , TELL EVERYONE THAT YOU ONLY HAD A SUMMERY OF THE CONTRACT !! IF WE ARE GOING TO AIR THINGS TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT WAS GIVEN YOU..

NOW I, AM WITH THIS AND THIS WHOLE POST .. I HAVE TRIED TO BE A VOICE ON HERE OF REASON , I HAVE HELPED MANY PEOPLE ON HERE THAT SOME DON'T EVEN KNOW I HAVE , THOSE THAT HAVE POSTED ABOUT PAPER WORK PROBLEMS WITH THE OFFICE OR NOT GETTING THEIR JOURNALS , OR MANY OTHER PROBLEMS , I HAVE TAKEN IT UPON MYSELF TO CALL THE OFFICE AND TRIED TO GET THESE SETTLED OR THINGS DONE, AND MANY THINGS JUST TOOK A SIMPLE PHONE CALL.. BUT THOSE ARE THINGS I DID ON MY OWN AND WAS JUST TRYING TO HELP ,

IF SO MANY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO FIX ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH OUR ASSOC. THEN BY ALL MEANS ....PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND GET IN THAT OFFICE OR ON THE BOARD AND HELP

IT IS ALWAYS MUCH EASIER TO WRITE IT ON HERE HOW EASY IT IS TO FIX THINGS , BUT IT SOMETIMES IS MUCH EASIER TO SAY THAN ACTUALLY DO ..!!

Sorry for the vent , there really are lots of nice people on here and there are many many nice folks in both assoc.. or else I would have quit a long time ago..

 

[LaVern]

Holy Smokes!!!!!!!! Are you guys saying that we do NOT own our own Stud Book. What if that guy got run over by a train? Would his relatives get the software.

Maybe he has nothing to do with our Stud Book. In my opinion it is the most important thing we have.

 

[~Lisa~]

Since the subject has changed I do have to say that the computer program seems to be working for our needs. We have to remember that it is a work in progress and one thing gets done and then we (meaning the office) realizes hey we need to fix, tweak, add or delete this to make it work even better.

I think as far as the program is going it has done a lot and allowed us to do a lot as far as the legal aspects I am not a lawyer nor have I seen and read the contracts so I would never even attempt to make an opinion I can say though the program software seems to be something that can meet our needs and grow as our needs do