NRHA Open Derby: Review & Analysis 2024- EP 30

A review and detailed analysis of the 2024 Open NRHA Derby competition. Officiating analytics from the open derby 2024 in OKC.  Answering the questions and addressing the myths around  officiating are analyzed and discussed. What do the results from this year's NRHA open derby  say?   This episode compares the 2024 NRHA Open derby  to the first half of 2024 open aged events.

Episode Transcript

(00:17):
Welcome to the Cowboy Office Show where you'll experience
expert analysis and epic discussion on key pillars of the
equine industry including sports, business, hobby and the
horse lifestyle. Your cohosts are Jodi Brainerd
and Brian Dagger, industry veterans with over 120 years
combined living the cowboy lifestyle.
The Cowboy Office Show will helpyou get involved, ask more

(00:37):
questions, and create change. We'll keep riding for you as
together we learn from the ride already ridden, learn to listen
better to our horse, and make our industry better for all.
Each episode will take a ride around the industry in less time
than you can load the truck and trailer.
Drop your e-mail at cowboyoffice.com to receive
updates and never miss an episode.
Saddle up as we ride into today's show.

(01:01):
Hello horse World. We knew we were gonna trip and
stumble at some point in time, and lo and behold, here we are.
This show is all about what happened at the NRHA Derby,
where we are as an industry and do we really know what we're
doing? We have a detailed review of the
NRHA Open Derby as we'll addressa few myths along the way about

(01:22):
officiating on this ride. The stakes are high, returns are
significant, and is the exhibitor getting their peace
accurate and consistent? We'll let you decide.
Welcome to the cowboy Office. I'm Brian.
Go to cowboyoffice.com. Put your e-mail in, come ride
with us. Make sure you hit the subscribe

(01:43):
button at the bottom of the platform.
You watch us and enjoy. I'm Jody.
Welcome. The NRHA Derby was open to four
year olds to seven-year olds of nominated horses.
We saw 296 total entries in thisyear's Derby.
Took three days to sort the go around and find the cut lines.
The purse payout for the open L1to L4 was $740,150.69.

(02:09):
We saw 130 riders positions occupied the purse payout across
the four open levels. The 2080 rule was in effect
right? And the open Derby it was 18.7
to 80. So that means that a few riders
are taking most of the money is what that 8020 rule says.
But the the general buzz and thebarn talk about the open Derby,

(02:32):
you know, started after the second section of the go round
and continued through the finals.
Brian. Well, I wanted you to see
because you always talk about the 8020 or 2080 rule, right?
You've always had that sense andyou had it for a very long time.
And so I highly respect it. But we actually calculated it
out for the Derby. So this isn't going to hold true

(02:55):
across the entire industry yet, although we're going to kind of
track it. But here it is, it's up.
It's up on the screen and the the, the total purse.
So here comes because what this shows you is a level 4 purse,
which is right slap in the middle, $437,000 is what the
level 4 purse was. So they paid that out to 35

(03:16):
places because they had 35 horses go to the finals with the
ties. The entire 4 levels in the open
purse was 740 thousand, 3/4 of amillion and they talked about it
all week being a record year of purse.
That's great. Well, if you take the four
levels, level 123 and four, that's 130 positions that earned

(03:39):
money and that's due to ties. You had ten horses across those
four levels that because of the tie they did, they all took 30
plus ties. And when you look at the amount
of that open purse that was thentaken by the top percentage,
it's it's 18 riders took the 80%of the purse.

(04:02):
So that at your 8020 rule and you are so close.
I was amazed at it. So that's the bottom line.
Cool. Yeah.
And that's a great piece of information to realize.
It's actually a little bit smaller than 20%, right?
Yes. And as these purses go, and
that's the whole point of, you know, kind of what we're doing
is looking at the real things and the facts and what's really

(04:25):
going on. But that 8020 is it's right on
it. So good for you.
Oh. Cool.
Well, thanks. Like I said, it's yeah, I've,
I've, I've, I've been on both sides of that.
I've got to be in the 20% and I've got to be in the 80% a lot
more. So I get it right.
Yeah. Yeah.
Well, so, So tell me your thoughts about about the the the

(04:45):
talk that went through the Derby.
We've been there before as monitors of those major events
and if chairs of the judges committee.
What? What were you thinking?
Well, the, the, the, the buzz around this event for whatever
the reason, I'm not sure yet, but there was a lot of buzz
around this event and you didn'thave to be there to hear it.
So that's true. And what did they all get

(05:08):
buzzing about was that the judging was out to lunch.
Bottom line, I'm using just generic barn talk, but the buzz
from the beginning of the go round, after the go round, on
the way to the finals where the judges were all over the place
and what they were talking aboutwas the scores were high
accuracy of the scores, you know, they saw a lot of, and

(05:29):
we've got a lot of stats and so we can go through it.
So the buzz around the industry was, well, this isn't new news
in all of competition. Competition breeds exhibitors
and fans have opinions about theoutcome of competition.
That's true. Well, that's true in our world
too. But for whatever reason, this
particular event provoked more buzzing and more talking around

(05:56):
whether or not the officiating was accurate.
Was it staying consistent? We had three days ago around the
cut line move, the scores did elevate the crossed it, yes, you
got a lot of variables. We'll talk about those things
along the way. The bottom line to it is though,
were the scores high? The answer is no, because the

(06:19):
scores were very respectful to the depth and quality of what
we've seen in our sport for the last three plus years.
So were they excessively high? No, they weren't.
Are we going to look at a few details and accuracy?
Consistency standard is a big one because if you we use the

(06:42):
five judge system and we've got some stuff we'll show you
because did all 5 judges see this competition basically the
same way, which would be the NRHA standard way?
And my answer would be no. They sought their individual way
and that's what that was a big factor on what continually
contributed to the audience and the exhibitors in trying to

(07:05):
interpret it and figure it all. Out.
Absolutely yeah. And I, you know, I since I live
here and I, you know, have lots of lots of old clients and, you
know, professionals, peers, friends that are, are competing.
And yeah, I got to hear all about it, right?
I mean, from a, from the standpoint of, you know, the

(07:26):
past chair and the, my phone lights up too.
And it's like what? And I said, first of all, that's
that's not my department anymore, gang.
So it's like, but I'd, I actually would tell them I said,
but we'll analyze it, we'll talkabout it.
I said, you know, I mean, I saidit's, it's, you know, I said
there's the answer is always in the middle, right?
I mean, you know, some people are going to get very, very
defensive about it and some people are, you know, like I

(07:47):
said, there's, there's, it's, it's in the middle and we've got
some, we've got some great statsand some great stuff to talk
about that that I think that canenlighten our viewing audience
about what happened. Well, the first one that I want
to take you to is an overview ofthe stats on the go round.
And then we're going to waltz down it because we have this
broken down pretty good. We've got this whole analysis

(08:08):
pretty standardized. Now.
We'll be bringing the information to the audience in
a, in a very standard procedure.This is the go round of this
year's Derby and this gives you an overview.
So using the scale there it is in the go round three 296
entries 3 days and and here it is.
If you compare this to 2020 threes national stats, they're

(08:31):
right on target with it. You know plus 1 1/2 was used .3%
of all the maneuvers in the go round 200 and 9685% of all the
maneuvers were marked between minus half and plus half again,
right slap in what normal 7.4% of non unanimous penalties were

(08:52):
applied in runs. That's actually lower than the
23 national trend. So that's a good thing.
And then you've got now, and this one's slightly lower
because it was over 20% last year, 17.6% of all runs had
maneuvers cross zero. That's the one that puts a thorn
under your saddle pad all the time.
And I agree with you. It does me too because that's

(09:14):
the one that it can't be bad andgood at the same time.
So what's going on? We know where the is on zero and
that the correct score of 0 catches a lot and the there's a
distinct difference between the top of 0 and the bottom of 0.
But on the scorecard, you can't,you can't make that distinct

(09:35):
decision. Does it happen?
Yes. Is it happening way more
frequent in today's time than itdid five and eight years ago?
Yes, it is. So, you know, that's that piece.
Now I want to take you. I'm going to take you two more
steps real quick. Is that OK?
Yeah, move for it. Yep, it's good.
Those are easy to understand. Well, this next one, and we'll

(09:56):
come back to those because we'regoing to look at the go round in
the finals. This one is the cut line.
And this cut line lets you look at the major events that we've
had so far this year. Cactus Derby run for the million
qualifier, the NRBC, the 100 exit, Fort Worth and then the
NRHA Open. And so when the when the
everybody at the Derby is screaming that the scores are

(10:17):
too high and they're marking them too high and all that
stuff, the answer is actually, no, that's not true.
Is the competition deep? Is there more of them than there
have been in the past? That answers yes, but they
weren't marking them any higher than where the industry is.
And this shows you. So this, this lets you look at
all four levels, lets you look at the cut line to make the

(10:40):
finals and what the high score in the go round was on the way
to the finals. And then we can do this again as
we get to the finals. But if you look at it's a, it
was a 2/22 and 1/2 level 4/2, 20, 1/2 Level 3, level two, 217,
1/2 level 1217. But then let me show you this

(11:00):
one real quick because when you summarize it and you put it
together and this lets you look at our industry.
Now this is the cut lines. And what we've done here is look
at Level 3 and four average cut lines across those events that
we just talked about so far thisyear.

(11:21):
So this is 2024. So by average for Level 3 and
four, the industry is at 220. The fact that it took a 2/22 and
1/2 to go to the finals at the Derby is not out of bounds.
Total average cut. When you put all four levels
together, there's your average as an industry, so 217.3217 and

(11:44):
a half for all four sections. When you average that out,
that's where the industry is right now.
And then your high scores. So it Level 3 and four average
high score end of go round to make that cut line 225 1/2.
And we've been talking about a 2:25 to 2:30 for three years.

(12:07):
You know, they added 229 1/2. They had a pair of them tied at
the end of the go round. So were they overly high?
The answer's no. When you put all four levels
together, the average high scorein go rounds as you're trying to
get qualified for finals is 223.3, which 223 point and a
half. That's what it is.

(12:28):
Those are very detailed specifics, and when the general
populace says that they feel or their perception is that the
scores are getting way too high and way out of bounds, it's
actually not true. So that's what that's kind of
talking about. Absolutely.

(12:50):
You know, it's interesting and I, you and I didn't even have
had to talk about this after dayone, but I had, I went out to
dinner with with the Hornsteaders and some of their
clients the night before the Derby started.
Amy and I did and I was, you know, and of course Arno, he's
obviously very good, very good hand and I absolutely aware of
what's going on. And I had no idea what it took

(13:11):
to make the Open finals last year.
And I said, well, I think it's going to take it through 21 1/2
this year. I said a couple fours in the 3
1/2. I said that was, you know, I
mean, I said, I think that we'rethat's where we're going to go.
And he said not only took a do 20 1/2 last year to make the
Level 4 open finals, I said home, I didn't know that.
But I said, well, looking at some of these earlier spring
shows and looking at Tino, the Tulsa, the early show at Tulsa

(13:33):
and looking at NRC and I thoughtit's going to be a little bit
higher. And you and I talked about the
conversation and I said, yeah, well, I, you know, I told told
Arno I thought was going to takeit 221 1/2.
And at the end of the first day,it was like, whoa, maybe I best
a little high on that one because I think that maybe a 216
was at the bottom of the top 30 maybe or something like that
after day one. And I remember you going, I just

(13:54):
hang on, you know, don't get toocarried away yet.
And boy, yeah, boy, was I wrong.You know, I mean it, it, it went
up from there. And like I said, we'll, we'll
get into some of the reasons that perhaps it did.
But obviously, so, you know, there's some, some good horses
that that that did go to show. And I will, I will tell you that
as we as we get on this, just because I was out to dinner with

(14:16):
Arno and he was, he was grumbling a little bit about
having to go so early. I think he was, you know, very,
very early draw that first day. And I think he was 223 or 3 1/2
and, you know, I mean, and, and made it back to the four finals,
which, you know, kudos to the guys who were sitting in the
chair to recognize those early horses because sometimes that's
not easy to do. Well, correct.

(14:37):
And I think that that's a big one because that statement alone
tells you that they have qualityofficials and the officials are
in the chairs and they're doing the right job.
I'm going to show you. And that's true. 2 Two horses
that made the finals were in thefirst ten horses of the first
section of the go round. So the fact that they saw it and

(14:57):
then they marked it and then those horses end up making it to
the finals, that is a big one. That says a lot because the
officiating is getting it right.Now comes are they being
consistent with that? The, the real question is did
the best thirty horses make it out of the go round to go to the
finals? And I'm going to just give you a
simple number and there's work to be done there.

(15:19):
So I'm not going to, I'm not going to offer our opinion
because you got to do some significant work to say did the
top thirty horses that were supposed to go to the finals?
I can't answer that sitting here.
What I do know is that you had eight horses.
It took a 2/22 and 1/2 to make the Open finals.

(15:39):
True, there were eight horses at2:22.
There were six horses at 222 1/2, which is what made-up that
tie to take 35 to the finals. If you took those fourteen
horses right on the bubble and went back and did further
analysis, how, how well did we? And it's not, it's not about any

(16:01):
person, it's not about an individual.
It's about how our system works.And is our system sorting out
the depth and the quality that our sport is now bringing to the
arena. That's the real question.
And that's where everybody is getting a little stuck because
they're not asking the right question.
So let me show you this real quick.

(16:21):
This is an interesting set of stats and we haven't used this
in our past. And I think we'll start with
some of these aged events that have finals.
This is the three sections of the go round and it's measuring
a couple key statistical factors, maximum, which is
maximum score. So the the top, it's first

(16:43):
sections blue, second sections green, third sections brown or
orange, whatever you want to call it, which is Friday,
Saturday, Sunday of the go round.
Maximum score in that go round. So you go from a 224 on Friday
to a 229 on Saturday, 2nd section.
And then you had two 229 and a halfs in the third section and

(17:05):
median is midpoint. So half that draw is above and
half that below. 213 1/2 in the first section, 217 1/2 in the
second section, half a point difference, 218 for the third
section. Was there a big distinctive
difference between first sectionand 2nd?
3rd answer's yes, the top 30 cutline and this just measured it

(17:28):
while the go round was going on.So at the end you just made
reference to it. The end of the first section it
was 216 1/2 and you and I had talked and I actually said it
looked weak. If that was representative of
300 aged horses, it looked like it was going to be a weak Derby.
That's what it set me. Didn't turn out to be that way.

(17:50):
We just didn't see those horses were later in the draw.
So at 216, 1/2 was a cut line after Friday, 2/21 and 1/2 was
your top 30 after Saturday, and then it moves to a 221 and a
half 2/22 and 1/2 by the end of the go on Sunday.
So again, A1 point deviation between second and third, but

(18:12):
again a big step between first section and 2nd, 3rd.
And then the mode is the most frequent number in a data set.
So the the frequency, what's themost used number.
That's the bottom line. That's what mode measures.
This is measuring the final score, not all the individual
scores, the final score. So 216 1/2 was the most

(18:34):
frequently used score in the first section. 219 was the most
frequently used in the second section, and a 2/21 and 1/2 was
the most frequently used in the third section.
So did the depth of competition in the draw go up?
It says that. Did their scores go up?
Yes, it says that too. There's work to be done to look

(18:58):
at the accuracy of that. And I know a lot of people were
talking about, because those 219to 222 runs, depending on where
you were, we've been more conservatively marked than some
of the 220 threes, 220 fours, 220 fives that they saw.
And that's where a lot of the industry kind of got to buzzing,

(19:19):
yes. Yes, absolutely.
There's no, there's no question about that.
And we've in the past, both you and I've had, we dealt with this
and I mean, that's one of the biggest things that you know
from a monitor's position that you're or even from the chair of
the judges committee, even if you're out showing horses, but
you're still aware of what's going on.
But I think that's one of the biggest things that that we try

(19:40):
to avoid because that's happenedin the past.
We know that it does happen in the past.
And it's just, and you know, you've heard me say it's a
million times. Nobody does that on purpose,
right? I mean, no, no judge says, well,
I'm going to score low this morning, I'm going to score high
this afternoon. It just doesn't happen that way.
But you know, there are ways to,there are ways to ensure that
that doesn't happen. But the only way to to to look

(20:04):
at the data is after you would have your say, your committee
members go take those, take those 220 to 222 runs.
Pick twenty of them out over thethree daytime period.
Mix them in random order and sayhere mark these runs.
And then you can analyze the doubt after that's over with, I
mean. But I would take you one more
step because do you leave that to the responsibility committee

(20:27):
in today's time? And I'd say no.
Do you have 100 great judges that are out there in the field
marking these things? And could you get an independent
marking analysis doing what you're talking about?
And I would then say yes, because the, and that's where
that analysis would come from and how you would best do it so

(20:47):
that it was done in a true unbiased kind of fairway.
And you could look at the accuracy of that.
I and, and the point to all of that is it's illustrating the
depth, the depth and the volume.And that's not new news.
So why did this get to be difficult?
Because you had 300 of them. Bottom line, there's an

(21:09):
interesting point that comes outof here.
And this was one that you and I have tracked for 20 years.
Because when we used to do the work on the committee and where
we were very active in there andwe used to.
Consistency is a big one and it's very important.
Accuracy and consistency we would always follow because it's
normal. It's normal and by reflex for
officials to it's it's like a rhythm.

(21:33):
It's it's like a routine. So when you start marking a lot
of really good runs, that gets to be easier to do as you go.
And the key is resetting yourself to the NRHA standard.
That's my view. The stat that's interesting is
watching the draw and when we talked about the NRBC, because

(21:53):
they had 250 horses in three days of go round and the
consistency across the go round was some of the best we'd ever
seen. It was actually phenomenal.
So, so yes, it can be done in this case.
In the NRHA Derby's case, 34% ofthe finals, which is 1/3 of

(22:15):
those finalists, all came from the last 25% of the second and
third section. And that is a tendency that we
used to you and I and others used to spend some work on to
keep that in check. Because that's that reflex that
if you let it get out of control, it can, right?
Absolutely. There's no question about that,

(22:36):
that from a, you know, and we'vehad, we've had significant
discussion about this, you and Ihave, and we've we've talked
about that monitor his position,the importance of it and or just
keeping your team at that consistent level.
And I think, you know, from, I always said from myself, when I
monitored, I would tell those judges that, you know, it's not
my job to tell you how to judge.You already know how to do that.

(22:57):
You're going to go mark the horses.
It's my job to make sure that you stay consistent and you
finish the show the same way youstarted the show.
And you know, like I said, that's been going on for years
and years. And, and I think that, you know,
it was interesting. There was, I also did a
significant amount of work on the National Football League and
they're officiating crews. And they had done, they had done
a study on what they called cognitive load, which was how

(23:20):
much information they would, they would hit their officiating
crews with on film or tape work and then on the live work.
And what they determined was that if the tape work was
intense enough and was, you know, correctly viewed that your
brain couldn't tell the difference between the the tape

(23:40):
work and the live work. In other words, they, they would
compare those studies. So in other words, you can you
can significantly affect the waythat people prep by showing them
the right information. So yeah.
And it works the same way with the Rainers too for sure.
I always knew it's cool that you've done some of that
research because I've always assumed that several of the

(24:00):
other professional sports that are far more advanced have got
to be light years ahead of us onofficiating.
And especially when you got subjective calls.
That's true. It's just one of the human human
elements. And so I'm always fascinated to
hear that piece. I want to take you one more step
because Age of Horses and I just, I don't want to sidetrack

(24:21):
us. We're going to stick with the
details. But it was interesting in the
Derby and this looks at the Derby, the 100 X and the NRBC
because hundred X was only four year olds and the NRBC is four
to seven-year olds and the NRHA Derby was four to seven-year
olds and they were completely flipped.
So there was more 4 year olds inthe NRHA Derby than anything

(24:44):
else. Now this is looking at age of
horses in the finals. So when you look at the finals
across those events, that's whatyou're seeing.
And so 4 year old, five year old, 6 year old, 7 year olds,
there was 40% of the open finalists in the NRHA Derby were
four year olds, 30% five year olds, 17 and a half, 18% were

(25:07):
six year olds, 13% were seven-year olds.
And almost, you know, you had 10% in the NRBC which were four
year olds, 40% were five year olds, and then 26% and 22% were
six and seven-year olds. I don't know what that means
other than that's how the exhibitors are kind of managing

(25:31):
their horses and where they are.The other piece that was very
interesting was the fact that 4 year olds, 2 four year olds won
the Level 3 and Level 4 and thenI think it was a 5A year, A5
year old was level 2 and a 7 year old was level one and they

(25:51):
were all studs, so. Absolutely.
Yeah, that's yeah, that's a, that's a neat stat.
I've often, I've often thought about that, you know, back in
our back in our day, but you know that it was either the
Derby or the Super Stakes and itwas 4 year olds only, right?
And there were, you know, there were no and then, well, maybe we
better add a few more horses. So we're going to give them
another year or two. So then all of a sudden it goes,
you know, four to seven. And then my question is, what

(26:14):
the Hell's the difference between a seven and eight-year
old or A7 and A10 year old? And well, obviously it's, you
know, it takes a long time for these horses are so good at what
they're doing now from from the genetics, from the training
techniques, sports medicine, everything that's being done.
Obviously they're not at that level.
They can't last as long. But perhaps, you know, at a non
pro level or a little bottom level, maybe, maybe there's room

(26:37):
for an all aged, you know, Derby, right?
Yeah, I would ask my viewing audience to tell me what they
think about that because I don'tknow why you couldn't show an 8
year old, you know, or a nine, right?
Just a question and I hear you. Yes.
And I think that's interesting. It'll be interesting to see if
the industry steps up because does do we pull the four year

(26:57):
olds out and have them as a standalone and is that kind of a
transition into the mature maybeand do we have enough volume?
It appears as such and 100X has proven it.
I got one more that I know because we've had a lot of
feedback on this one. This is the probability to
finals and then we'll stick up on the Derby and the red of the
rest of the data. But this looks at the

(27:19):
probability across the four levels of open divisions across
these events this year. Now you got to remember that
100X was 4 year olds only, but all this is showing you is the
entries per that level and then the probability to make their
finals. Now in the Cactus Classic, they

(27:41):
didn't have a final, so that wasthe probability of making the
payout and that Run for the Million qualifier that was top
10. So because there was only 10
slots that they were getting qualified for, again, it's a
qualified function and we're going to see the Run for the
million here in a oh shoot, another month.
Going to be really cool to see. So anyways, it's, it's an

(28:04):
interesting piece that kind of shows you where that probability
is and where that toughness is. And it's not new news.
Run for the million qualifier NRBC level 4 and NRHA Derby
level 4. And the real question gets to be
is our officiating system being accurate and consistent enough

(28:24):
that now purse layout, you got to remember we had 3/4 of
$1,000,000 in the NRHA Derby in purse in four levels.
You had just shy of a half million in level 4 alone.
I mean, that's. It's a lot.
Oh my word. Yeah, we, we talk about that
every time we every time we do one of these.

(28:45):
It's like, you know, I mean, if you'd have told me this 30 years
ago, I had to sit. They're crazy.
It's not going to happen. And it's, you know, I mean, it's
like, it's not going to happen now.
Are you nuts? Yeah.
I mean, people win more in a in a show than you win in a
lifetime now, you know what I mean?
It was like it just changed so much.
But, you know, I think everything is every every

(29:06):
professional athlete has, you know, it's the same, the same
thing happens in the NFL. You know, if you if you'd have
told Terry Bradshaw and he's a quarterback of the Pittsburgh
Steelers that they're going to be paid $30 million a year.
Now he also told you you're nuts, right?
So anyway, it's it's interesting, but I don't know,
back to the officiating part of that, you know, something that
you had said earlier about, you know, when I was talking about

(29:28):
maybe, you know, having some of those runs reviewed and you
said, you know, we have enough. And this is super important
because we've talked about this a lot too, when you said an
independent group, which is thatonly does that makes huge sense
because you avoid any type of conflict.
And I think, you know, I mean, obviously judges committee is
there for a reason. It's very, very important.
But there's another thing that happens sometimes I think, you

(29:51):
know, you get people get defensive and and you can maybe
don't get as honest an opinion as you would have within an
independent group that's doing them.
That would be doing the survey, right, That would be actually
doing that. I think that's AI think that was
a fantastic point to bring up that that that conflict happens
everywhere. And sometimes I think an
independent group would be wouldbe a better choice.
And and like I said, sometimes that that work is people that

(30:14):
are directly involved. It's a good thing.
Yes, and I'm not trying to bringpolitics in, but it is
fundamental science. And the point is that's like
peer review. Why do all scientific studies
have a peer review? That's an independent function
that reviews that work. I chalk it up to I call it a
price of success, part of our success.

(30:34):
And our judges committee is nowhere near where we always
hoped it would be. The purses are are way beyond
where we hoped they would be. And the the judges committee in
particular, it's it's it's self fulfilling, it's political.
If you use them as the only source to analyze accuracy, it's

(30:56):
self fulfilling. And can they are they going to
consciously do it? Probably not.
But will they subconsciously andreflexively, because their
interest is to be defensive? It's it's to defend and justify.
And I think as an industry we'vegot to stop that and we've got
to start listening and then looking at how can we make it

(31:19):
better, period. And can we make it better?
Yes. Do you have to blow it up and
recreate it? No.
We have a great system. We do.
It just needs to advance. And so the committee should
really be looking at and doing this kind of work into the
future. But they're not.

(31:40):
And so that's why it's obvious to me, because you got, you
know, those stats that we used for 2023, There was 80 different
judges that made-up 13 aged events last year.
So you can't tell me that if I sent the, you know, I sent 20
runs to 60 of them, you'd have agreat sample coming back.

(32:03):
The only thing it takes is you got to be focused and committed
to it. You can't be distracted.
And if you do that, then you'd have a great data set coming
back. So that's why I bring it up.
Yes, good stuff and I agree 100%.
Well. We're going to we're going to go
back to the Derby and if you remember when we looked at the

(32:24):
go round, this is the basic stats overview.
We have a lot more detail in here, but this is the overview
because this is the level 4 finals.
Now there's a couple things thatshould jump at you Remember we
were at 85% in the go round, marked between minus half and
plus half. We're at 63% in the Level 4

(32:45):
finals, which tells you the depth of competition
automatically stepped up, and it's supposed to.
This is not like any overwhelmingly new news.
And if you look at using the scale, they step up by a
percent. There's one point, 1% of all
maneuvers in the Level 4 finals are getting plus 1 1/2.
Are they using it enough? I would tell you no.

(33:07):
Are they using it consistently across all five of the
individual officials? I would also again tell you, no,
it's starting to get used, but they've got to get more
comfortable and they got to get more confidence.
And it's the piece that you and I talk about because excellence
comes in different forms. And if they try to make the next

(33:30):
1 1/2 be as good or similar to the last one they just did,
which is comparative decision, you won't get there.
You got to teach yourself that it's a different form of
excellent and then use that. So it's just an interesting
piece. And then the same thing is going
to be true on on penalty and nonunanimous and crossing 0.

(33:51):
You had 6% of the runs in level 4 finals that had non unanimous
penalties applied and in a half million dollar purse does it
make a difference? The answer is yes, there's no
getting around that. So can we get better at that?
Because a penalty is a rule infraction.

(34:12):
The other one is 11.4% which is crossing 0 and that's about the
standard. And should they have been better
prepared and better ready or this set of finals, my answer
would be yes. And it appeared that they
weren't. Now, did they do as good a work
as they could? The answer would be yes.

(34:33):
But was it brought in and focused?
And here you go. And here's 35 at the best.
That's that's what it's saying. Yes, I, yeah.
And I agree. And I think that, like I said, I
think that there's some, you know, there's, you know, there's
ways to, there is, there's ways to prep.
I mean, there's certainly, therecertainly is and there's ways to
ensure accuracy. And, and I think that, like I

(34:55):
said, there's this is an official never goes and sits in
that chair with the intention ofnot being consistent, but I
think sometimes it happens. And I believe that.
And I've, I've worked with all kinds.
I've judged with all kinds. You know, I've judged with some
alphas, I've judged with some, you know, some judges that were,
you know, pretty quiet. They didn't say anything.

(35:17):
It just went on, did their job no matter what happened and
didn't get ruffled by anything. And had some that would, would
get their feathers ruffled, you know, pretty fast and and maybe
would have a hard time regainingfocus after that.
But I always felt like, I alwaysfelt like who's ever leading the
troops, that's their responsibility to ensure that

(35:38):
those guys are accurate, They stay accurate and they stay
consistent. And I think that I think our
industry standards certainly have changed in the last few
years. I mean, what was a what was a
plus half 15 years ago is no longer that right?
I mean, we look at old, we look at old, old scored runs that
were 220 fives and they're not, I mean, they, you know, they

(36:00):
might not make the finals today,right?
So anyway, I, I think that I think that the numbers that that
guys are guys and girls are sitting in the chairs marking
those horses. If there's, if there's not
something for them to fall back on that that tells them this is
what I did on day one. This is what I did on day 2.
This is what I did on day three.And here's my industry

(36:21):
standards. And I have to make sure that my
industry standard plus half on my card is the same at the end
of day three as it was day one or even at the end of the
finals. You're right.
I mean, I never, it never bothered me any if if my guys
had got to their 35 horse finals, guys and girls got to

(36:43):
the 35 horse finals. And because those horses fired
and they started marking and they were consistent because
they didn't have to look at 300,they only had to look at 31 or
32 horses. So I always thought that the
finals were easier to judge justbecause of the numbers.
But sometimes that's some some that's not the case too.

(37:03):
Yes, and you're 100% correct because if you look at using the
scale, this is again the level 4finals, but look at the plus
half and plus one and this is measuring all maneuvers in the
finals. So you know plus half was used
47.2% of the time in 35 runs of an 8 maneuver pattern, plus one

(37:24):
was used 34.9 which is 35%. So that in itself tells you the
depth of the finals. And that's not new news.
We've been seeing this for threeplus years.
It's it's really about making the fine distinctions on how
good. And it's the plus 1 1/2.
And if they don't start getting used to using it to make those

(37:46):
fine distinctions, and I can tell you this is my $0.20, and
you can tell me to, you know, take a flying hike off the
Canyon. But in the Level 4 finals, there
were two key spots that were splitting up the fine
distinctions between plus one and plus 1 1/2 and a couple of
the moves. And the first one was the first

(38:07):
lead change, that big, fast, left circle, big fast change
leads, right circle, small, slow.
That is the most difficult maneuver in the whole sport.
That is very difficult. And so did they use, could they
see it? The answer's yes.
Do they have enough tools to be able to make those fine
distinctions? I start to question that.
We've talked about that a lot. Can we use some more tools?

(38:28):
The answer's yes. But again, you've got, you've
only got what you got. So do you have to make that fine
distinction? And then the other piece in this
pattern, pattern nine in the finals was you had four rundowns
and it's not the stop and or whether it's a stop and back up,
stop and roll, stop and hesitate.
That's where it used to be in that maneuver.

(38:49):
It's now in the rundown. And if you went back and studied
those horses, you would see veryfine distinctions in
acceleration because some would accelerate really fast in three
or four strides and then hit a peak, then go stop and do their
stuff. Others, the ones that do it
outstanding are the ones that are continually building all the

(39:09):
way to the climax of that stop. And I only say that because
everybody can see that what we're not able to do is have our
officials prepped and ready for that kind of stuff in a set of
finals. And I would tell you that's what
this set of finals showed us. That's what we saw.
And the rest of that story on those marks, the plus 1 1/2,

(39:34):
remember that for just a second,because there were in the
finals, there were 15 maneuvers that got a + 1 1/2.
There was only one maneuver thathad three judges plus 1 1/2.
It was in a set of spins, kind of like a no duh.
All the other plus one and a halfs were never, they were

(39:56):
never done by two at the same time.
They were done by the batch of judges on a given maneuver, but
kind of as standalones. And so to me, that would be a
key area that, again, the committee should be working on
because it has nothing to do with their competence and

(40:17):
ability. They're more than capable.
It has everything to do with helping them kind of harness it
up and on the focal point of where we are.
And I think your fatigue factor as well as your cognitive piece
that you were making reference to because again, you start
pouring all that data in there and it'll get messy.
What? Yeah, and I think that I think

(40:38):
that's interesting. And I, I've got some more things
that I'd like to talk about too.But I the fatigue factor I
talked about, and this doesn't mean that doesn't mean that guys
are perpetually tired and they, they, they struggle.
I mean, both you and I've sat inthose chairs at 2:00 in the
morning and I would have gladly paid someone the 50 bucks an
hour overtime to leave because, I mean, and because you don't

(40:59):
care. But I, I will, I will tell our
viewers that. Here's a key piece that I used
to use, you know, when I would monitor and I would talk to, you
know, the judges. And I would say that this this
information came from an August article in 2011, the ABA
Journal. And it was a study done by the

(41:21):
Israeli Parole Board on the concept of decision fatigue.
And it's a great article and it's easy to find.
You like, Google it and it pops right up.
But it found that the members ofthe parole board were more apt
to grant parole at the start of the day or after food breaks.

(41:41):
And I would liken that to my judges sometimes in the
afternoons, those guys, that's where the perpetual climb always
would start, like after lunch. And that would be the time when
I would, you know, I would talk about this and about this
article. And I would say, guys, hold your
line. Remember that you start to
fatigue a little bit. We'll take a break.
I mean, whatever, drag break, whatever.

(42:02):
But I mean, it's possible. And it's not saying that that's
an issue always, but this just tells you that when you're
talking about decision fatigue, a lot of times when you make
decision after decision after decision, sometimes you can lose
focus. And, and it happens not just in
the rain and pin, it happens in the world too.
So anyway, just an interesting piece of information I thought.

(42:25):
Man, I'll say, how'd you ever find that?
And, well, actually. Just make you go look for the
Israeli Parole Board on researchfor decisions.
That's fascinating in itself. Yeah, I'll I'll tell you that
because I was just looking for Iwas looking for every everything
that would that could possibly deal with judging or officiating

(42:51):
or fatigue. I I'll go you one better.
That's, that's, that's, I'm really kind of crazy, but I had,
I had a very, very good friend that was an airborne Ranger And
I, he was also, he was also a military sniper.
And I said, what in the world, Greg, did you do when you're
sitting in one spot and you're tired and you, you can't move as

(43:15):
a like a judge sitting in a chair, right?
And he said, well, one of the one of the first things that
we're taught and what we do is to tickle the roof of your mouth
with your tongue when you're fatigued.
And I've done that and it works.So, you know, I'm just looking
for anything that could help a judge when you're when you're
fatigued. Anyway, that comes from the US
military. So yeah, I looked at every

(43:36):
possible angle. So right on.
Anyway, that's no, never, never said that.
But anyway, that was a that was an interesting piece of
information to keep yourself awake instead of pinching
yourself. You know, I mean, it's like, try
that sometime when you're tired.It does work.
So anyway, but yeah, from the, you know, back to the back to

(43:57):
the Derby and, you know, back tothose, back to those guys
sitting in the chairs and I think, you know, back to those,
you know, did we did we use the scale we started to use more
plus ones? Absolutely.
Did we did we use it enough thatexcellent, like you said, we've
talked about excellent. A lot of times it comes in
different forms. I think that we can certainly

(44:19):
use some more tools. We have those.
I mean, I know that there's we've got some great ideas that
would help. I think that, I think that when
you look at each individual officials level of ties that
they had after the winter, you can see that the scale wasn't
used enough in spots because youcan't jam five or six horses in

(44:42):
into your second place through 3rd to 5th or whatever.
I mean, it's like it's, you know, there's, there's room to
separate. Yeah.
And we'll get to that one. But one of the things that I
wanted to touch on before we move on quick is because
everybody says, I think that this is one of the key areas
that NRA and the sport of reigning stepped away from

(45:03):
because in a horse show officiating, we call them judges
and judges make fundamental decisions or arbiters.
So that that's what they do In sport.
You're talking about a decision of who's the best.
And in all of horse sports, that's kind of the common
reflex, which is that's his, hisor her opinion.
I would tell you that in 1985 under Jon Snowblind and some of

(45:28):
those founders when they createdthis system and why this system
is one of several reasons of whyit's been so revolutionary is
because we shifted and changed one the definition into the
responsibility. And the point is, if our
industry today would start thinking about the officiating
scores as a report of what the exhibitor did, we would then

(45:55):
move faster, farther, quicker, end of story.
It's a report. It's not somebody's, so to
speak, opinion. Can we talk about the difference
between plus one and plus 1 1/2 all day long?
But when we're talking about only that difference, now you
can have your individual expertise and you're splitting
the hair. That's fine.

(46:16):
The difference between a plus half and a + 1 1/2 in today's
sport is distinctly different. That should be a very short
conversation because the plus half is too conservative and
whether or not the plus 1 1/2 was too liberal to be
determined. But, and you're very true, it's
generally in the middle when we see that.

(46:38):
So the answer is it's in the middle.
So it was really a + 1. So the accuracy is there.
My point on that whole subject is because you just hear
everybody bark all the time and their, their, their
justification is, well, that's their opinion and that's what we
hired them for. No, actually, we didn't hire
them for their opinion. We hired them for their expert

(47:00):
reporting on what the exhibitor displayed.
And that's where those two horses in the first ten of the
Derby go round that make the finals, they were reported
accurately incorrect and they went to the finals 300 horses
later. That's great work.
So I use that as a context. Now we know that that 219 to 221

(47:24):
is where the heart and soul of the aged event is now, and
there's a lot of work to do to have that accuracy and
consistency carry through. That's the rest of that story.
Yep. No, no, that's, that's yeah,
that's that's really, really, really, really good stuff.
To take you one more key step, because these are always ones
that they're kind of interestingand they'll show you something.

(47:48):
This is penalties. And So what this does is this is
the go round, OK? And this is penalty application,
which is the percent of runs. And it's showing you three key
things. One, which is the blue on the
left is, is telling you the percent of runs that had

(48:10):
penalties applied total. The green is penalties that are
unanimous. All 5 judges call the penalty.
The red is the non unanimous andwe've been tracking it and
marking it and this is one of mine and I've been on this one
for a long time because I've always disagreed.

(48:32):
This is a self fulfilling false prophecy.
Penalties may or may not happen.No, they either do or they
don't. And I believe as a sport they
all should apply it or none of them apply it.
And should the officials make that decision?
Yes. So all this is doing is tracking

(48:52):
and and what you'll see in this as we go across the sport is a
very normal trend line and the trend line is the same which is
non unanimous penalties are making a difference in final
scores, which are making a difference in cut lines.
Whether you make the finals and whether or not whatever the
purse is true is that's what it's telling you.

(49:14):
This is looking at it across thego round.
The top is when you put the whole go round together. 10% of
all runs had penalty, 2.6% were unanimous, 7 point 4% were non
unanimous and you can look at the three sections, first
sections at the bottom, third sections at the top and you had
11% of penalties in the first section, 8 percent, 8 1/2% in

(49:37):
the third section. Were penalties splitting it up?
No, because again, they happen or they don't.
Are non unanimous penalties making a distinct difference?
And I would tell you the difference between a 222 and a
2/22 and 1/2. I'm not saying of those fourteen
horses a penalty is what was causing that.
I'm just telling you, you had fourteen horses that were half a

(50:00):
point right on that cut line. And will 1/2 point penalty make
a difference? The answer is yes and that's
what we're seeing. So that's the piece on the
penalty of the go round. I wanted to show you one other
one because this one is the samething, but it's in the finals.

(50:23):
So the two sections of finals. The top graph is a level 4
finals. OK, well, now I, I couldn't
agree more from the, from the, you know, penalties being
absolute. They either happened or they did
not happen. And and you have a solution for
that. You've told me and it's
fantastic. I will tell you that with the
current way that the penalties and major events are handled,

(50:44):
it's, it's not a good thing because no one, no one wants to
work with someone either from monitor standpoint or from a
judge's standpoint. When you have a single judge
that calls for review after review after review after
review, it's it's not, I mean, it interrupts the flow.
It's, it's not a good thing. And I've, I've had that happen
and I know that you have two. I would say that, you know, when

(51:04):
we're talking about a single judge judging a horse show,
penalties are absolute in a one judge system, either happened or
they did not. If you call that a penalty, half
it happened. Everybody gets it right.
But you get into this three to five, two to three to five judge
systems, then then we have an issue.
And I think that, you know, you're you're a technology guy

(51:24):
and you know, you got some greatthought and you know, you're
asking yourself if we're using technology to the best of our
ability. I do not think I do not think
that we are. I think there are huge ways to
improve it. And I think that that's a that
would be a key part of officiating, especially in
penalty applications. And are we, I'm not a technology
guy. I'm I'm driven to continue to

(51:45):
learn. So I'm trying to keep my mind
open and go with the rest of theworld.
And technology is definitely taking us to these new
frontiers. That's true.
So, so I'm just trying to embrace it and use it for what
we do. The answer is, are we anywhere
near using technology to our best advantage to make fine,

(52:08):
hard decisions and hand out thousands of dollars and
millions of dollars? And the answer is no.
And is it holding us back as a sport and therefore questioning
the integrity of our sport? I would say yes, because we're
not using all the resources around us to be able to do some
of that stuff and technology is a big one.
I think some of the other info when you made reference to that

(52:31):
parole board on decision making,that is a fascinating piece.
I'd love to read the whole research study because there is
a significant amount of researchand info out there on the human
mind and the advanced forms. How do you take experts and make
experts even better at what theydo?
That's a fascinating topic and there's a lot of science and

(52:53):
research on that, which fits right into what we're talking
about. We're nowhere near it.
And the barriers of the past wasthat we couldn't afford much it.
It appears we're beyond that. So it's not about affordability.
It's about what are we doing, How do we use them?
How do we get ourselves better? And it's not affordability

(53:14):
that's keeping us back. So I'm going to show you because
you brought this up and we are going to pull this together
because here comes the rest of the story.
Paul Harvey. Yeah, this shows you.
This is a color gram and this isthe we've only got the Level 4

(53:36):
finals. It would get very busy if I
tried to do them all. This is one key example because
it's the top of our sport. This is the 35 horses in the
Level 4 finals, all five individual cards and what it
colors is 1st through 5th. So the top five scores per

(53:57):
individual expert and you'll seetheir scores are in the white
hand column. The red column is score spreads.
So if it's red, it's 2 1/2 points or more between the five
and then the green is just showing you the top ten of that
batch. The what makes this significant,
the funky green is your top is your winner.

(54:20):
That was Cade McCutcheon, an allnight partier and it was obvious
by the entire system, by the team of experts.
He steps up, he wins it. That was obvious.
When you start to look at second, third and 4th, it's a
different story. And all this is showing you is
the top five S the top five out of 35.
You're going to hand out a half million dollars a purse and what

(54:42):
this is showing you is they didn't see it the same way.
They all saw their unique way and then you have to put that
together and distribute the purse.
That's what this is saying. I'm going to show you one more
that makes it just a smidgen more clear.
And I do have the data points that go with this, but this will

(55:03):
clean it up just a touch becausethis is only showing you the top
three, the first, second and third scores by all 5 judges.
And when you put them together and it begins to let you see it
clear, but you're talking about 3, you're talking about a half
million dollars. It's going to pay out 35 spots.

(55:23):
You really you have to have a system that can sort out
accurately and consistently a half million dollars for 35
paychecks that that's what you're after.
Because I would say 35 is just as important as one, not the
same dollar value, but it just as important to the breeder, to
the owner, to the rider, to the trainer, to the groom, to

(55:45):
everybody. And so this is only showing you
second and third spot. And what it's exemplifying is
the lack of focal point, lack ofunanimity amongst the team,
which is what you were talking about with them.
If you look at their scores, they're in the same batch.

(56:07):
It's just who they put in a batch and then how many got
bunched up in there. That's what it's showing you.
Yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a that's just great charted
information right there. That is just fantastic.
I mean it's like it's, it's so easy to see that is that's
remarkable right there. It's it's great work that's like

(56:31):
you see laying in bed awake at night trying to think of think
how to chart that stuff where guys like me can understand it.
It's like, holy cow, look at that.
But yeah, I mean, it, it was that is a prime example, you
know, consistency. And I mean, it's OK, you get to
have an opinion when you're an official.
I mean, you do, you get to, if you're if you work for the NFL,

(56:53):
you get to decide whether or notthat was a hold or rather not
was a push off or you know, whatthat was and and how close was
it for you to throw the flag? I mean, you get to have that,
you get to have an opinion, but you know, only to a certain
point, right? I mean, because you have
somebody looking at that and saying, hey, you missed it or
you got it. But you know, somebody, somebody

(57:14):
needs to be consistently in, in a group like this.
We've got good enough horses, we've got good enough
officiating. We got good enough ground.
We got a second, a third, a fourth, a 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th,
9th and 10th place horse. And I think if, I think that
those, those become easier to separate if we, if we do a
better job, I think, you know, Imean, instead of tying, tying so

(57:39):
many horses on your cards, I, wegive you some more tools, we
give you better information, you'll do a better job.
I 100% agree and again, what do we as an industry bark about?
One, it's their opinion. No, it's their expert reporting.
Two, it's their chair position. No, there is no good and bad

(58:00):
chair position. God that one just drives me
crazy. That one drives me as crazy as
Crossing 0 does to you. But the the chair position,
that's the biggest piece of hot air there ever was.
Every chair has a unique perspective.
Are there things seen and not seen uniquely?
The answer's yes. Do they have the tools by which

(58:22):
they can make those decisions? Yes.
Is it going to be the same? No.
And that's why the world gets wacky on score spreads.
I would tell you that the score spreads have very little to do
with anything. When you look at it, it where's
the accuracy and the consistency.
It's in maneuver application andit's in non unanimous penalties

(58:43):
and because of the depth of our competition now the non
unanimous is a big deal and are we paying any attention to that
and looking at better ways by which we can be officiating our
sport? I question that.
So, you know, those are some of the myths that are out there in
our industry and we're reigning did step out and away from the

(59:08):
rest of horseshoe judging. Those are some of the key areas.
And it it's that expert reporting because it says
something about what the exhibitor did.
If you got a plus half on your stop and it on your approach,
you're stopping back up on pattern 9 3/4 of your
competitors are getting plus oneand plus one and a halfs.

(59:28):
That says something about what you did, not what they did.
Agreed. And I think the other piece is
the standard because it's the standard.
Let me just show you this one for fun sake.
This is the data point behind the color gram of the top five

(59:49):
scores. And if you just look at that big
box right in the middle, becausetop five scores, that should be
first, second, third, 4th and 5th place.
And what that's telling you see those numbers, thirteen, 13814
and 17, that's how many horses were in those five spots, which
is about tools. That's one.

(01:00:10):
And two, it's about fine distinctions.
And so that's where there's workto be done because that's you're
talking about 5. If you talk about between 13 and
17 horses, that is half the finals is in the top five spots.
So no, it, it, it can't be right.

(01:00:31):
It can't be because you got 35 of them.
You're going to write 35 checks.So right.
Without question, yes it is. And, and believe me, you, that's
the whole bottom line. Getting the right checks to the
right people, that's your job. Right, right.
Well, that's ultimately our job.It's job.

(01:00:54):
The sports job, an officiating job, you know, to have a real
sport. Yes, I completely agree.
And I thought that's what where we were headed.
And now that purses are coming, the economics are changing the
industry and I hope they're changing it for the better,
right? Yet to be seen so.

(01:01:16):
No, no, I'm, I'm really good. I mean, I'm, I'm, I this is so
much fun to talk about. Obviously, you know, I mean,
just because it's, we're both passionate about the officiating
and when we, when we get into, when we get into a show like
this, it's like you could, you could go and talk for hours and
hours and hours about what aboutwhat went on, because we're,
we're passionate about it. But you know, it's, and I think

(01:01:36):
that you know, from the feedbackthat we get there is, you know,
it's it's industry wide because we get so much feedback about,
you know, when we talk about officiating at these events and
you know, we talked about the scoring system, they like that.
So we we know that we know that they think along the same lines
that we do, maybe not as as intense, but they are thinking

(01:02:01):
the same way for sure. Yes, and all they've ever wanted
was just the pertinent right It it's just the real info.
And as a organization and industry and association, are we
putting out frequent enough right info even when we're
wrong? No, we're not.

(01:02:21):
And we haven't been. And that's where all they're
left to do is interpret. They have to interpret what
those scores say and then try and sort it out with friends and
family and colleagues and whatever.
And are there many that ever do?Why do most people say if you go
to a judge's seminar, all exhibitors should go to a judge,

(01:02:44):
a seminar? They've always said that because
at least they got the real info and they understood what
officials were trained to look for and how to make those
decisions. Great educational format.
You have to do that. In today's time, the answer's
no. Is there way more, better ways
to disseminate information, factual information?

(01:03:06):
Is the industry going to be perfect?
No. There's no sport that's perfect.
Can we hit excellence? Because that's what always drove
us. We were driven to excellent from
1966, and I would tell you we still want excellence today.
There's no part of that that anybody wants.
Does any exhibitor want a check that they're not supposed to

(01:03:26):
get? I I don't.
My answer would be no, because it's not.
That's not gratifying to the hard work of everything that a
competitor has to do. They want what they earn and our
job on this side of the sport isthe officiate.
It's to report it. To report it, use experts that

(01:03:47):
can understand degree of difficulty, make very hard find
distinctions and report it accurately, aeratively,
consistently. And and now we got days and
weeks and so that's the chore. And here we are.
And yes, we've got to address the tools too, because we know,

(01:04:08):
we know the top of 0 and the bottom of 0 are distinctly
different, but when we put it onthe score sheet, it's the same.
All right, without question. And like I said, that's, that's
the that's the tool part that wetalked about forever.
And yeah, those those like I said, and and if the if the
system doesn't change, then the information that is received has

(01:04:31):
to change. Because, you know, our our
officials want to know, you know, they want to know.
I mean, it's like they they wantto know what they want to know
what to mark that approach that you talk about, you know, that
horse that is, is excellent in his approach.
Well, we know, we know how to mark that we but they want to

(01:04:52):
know then what happens if that'san excellent approach and it's a
plus half stop and a zero rollback.
They want to know that, right. So you don't have five different
opinions. You know, I mean, they say, OK,
well, what is that? OK, what if they ask what is
that? So, but it can't be poured, it
can't be good at the same time, so.
Right. And now we're at the spot of the

(01:05:14):
the distinction between how gooda good and an excellent are
distinctly different. Can they be that at the same
time? I'd say no, you know, 4 beats is
A4 beat good in a small slow circle.
No, it's not. It makes for a it's bad.
So you got to sort that stuff out.
Tail jobs that that's still a conversation.

(01:05:35):
And do we ever, you know, spend any time talking about that?
No, we don't. And I would tell you there's
more to that conversation. You got to get a bunch more in
there. But you know, why we even do the
tales still fascinates me because I think as an industry,
we've gone way beyond it. But I'm sure that there are

(01:05:57):
advanced guys that would probably and the concept of, and
I heard this long time ago, because it's, it's the the
concept of not allowing a horse to learn a bad habit is better
than having to fix a bad habit. That's the concept.
And so, well, part of that is now we got life to aged horses.

(01:06:20):
Do we do we have to do what we used to do in the older days?
No. Do we have to go as fast?
No. Can we take our time?
Yes. Can we develop them better?
Yes. Is there more rewards for them?
Yes. Can they earn a significant
piece in the future? Yes.
Those days didn't exist in old time.

(01:06:41):
So I only bring that up because they're common pieces around the
competition and that pleasing towatch is a big piece because a
horse that's intimidated, you'renot hiding it at all.
And so that's very different than a willing that willingly
guided and dictated to completely.
And that's been there since 1966.

(01:07:04):
Absolutely. And yeah, there's no question
about it. Like I said, I don't want to
beat the beat the tail to death because that's been beat to
death over the years like crazy.But I agree with you and that's
another piece of information. It bothers me bad knock down
tails banging around. It's just I, I, I prefer to see
a horse even use his tail a little than I do one that is

(01:07:26):
knocked down. But again, our officials don't
have the information. What are we supposed to do with
that? How much does it affect the
maneuver evaluation? Where do we go with it?
And until someone says that, here's what we're supposed to do
with this example. You get 100 different opinions
you know well. So well correct.

(01:07:47):
Which would be similar to a horse not being in the lead.
And that's not hard to see either.
And that's a fascinating recent conversation because when they
do the Bunny hop, they're out oflead.
So period, yes, those are all the things that we are.
That's where we are. And it's a fine distinction.

(01:08:09):
So it's going to be interesting to see.
We're halfway through the year, but not quite halfway through
the aged events. So it's going to this, it's not
going to get easier. I know that much the the
pressure is going to stay up right.
Yeah, absolutely. And like I said, we we've got
some, we've got the youngins coming, which we'll get to here
in just a second. But man, oh man.

(01:08:30):
I mean, with the, yeah, the old,the old ones, the young ones,
it's woo, I mean. Yeah, so that's what you're
talking about with the young ones.
It's a fraternity season. Yep, exactly.
It's going to be coming soon. Well, we hope you've enjoyed
this show. If you got any questions, go to
cowboyoffice.com, drop us a note.
We're happy to address it. Put it into a show, We'll return

(01:08:50):
it direct. And until we see you next time,
enjoy the ride. Absolutely.
Yep. And until we see you the next
time, thanks for watching. Stay in the middle.
In today's episode is brought toyou by 40 productions in
cooperation with the Consultant Agency, a full service agency
that helps bring forward thinking equine brands into the

(01:09:11):
21st century using digital skills and services such as
website development, graphic design, social media, and media
production such as the podcast you're consuming here today.
Thank you so much for riding along with us today.
Sign up at cowboyoffice.com to be the first to know about
topics affecting the industry welove so much.
You can reach out to us with topics you care about by finding

(01:09:34):
us on TikTok, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, and
all podcast platforms. And remember, share this episode
with someone that may enjoy it, because the more we can share
our horses with others, the better our world will be.