Strategic Fixtures Plan 2020 – Draft Tender Document – Organiser’s Responses

BE Organiser Responses to Draft Event Standards
July 2018

It should be remembered that from 2019 there is to be a new FEI 1* Class.  Our current 1* will be known as  2* and all other Internationals will shift up a number accordingly.

Listed below are the comments made by BE Organisers in respect of the Draft Event Standards Document. All comments are made by individual Organisers but where there has been duplication of points made, these have not been endlessly repeated.

What is evident is the wide variety of opinion being expressed by Organisers & that this should be considered a great strength within our sport.

The first bullet points are general comments made by Organisers.  This is followed by the notes Organisers made about individual elements within the document.  All comments are listed in the order in which they were received.

General Comments

  • Last year we ran at a loss because we watered the course.  All this just adds to the cost of something that is not making much (or making a loss last year) We aren’t doing online programmes because we don’t have enough signal.  Maybe we should have stayed just doing novice!!
  • I appreciate the necessity to ensure that events are of a high standard but it appears that no thought has been put into ensuring that events are financially viable.
  • I think that the wording of some points needs reconsidering as at the moment it is very slapdash
  • We want to produce a good event for riders but ambiguous wording just gives riders who arrive without booking a hook up a stick to beat us with.
  • Having read the list I think that we try our hardest to run to these standards and have had difficulty in the past understanding why other events do not do the same. I hope that this does not sound snobbish but we are regularly shocked when we visit other events and see the standards that they run to.
  • Most of these items were incorporated in the Agreement document produced between BE and the Organisers. The difference now is that BE wishes to incorporate this as part of the rules, I would suggest to BE where these requirements are reliant on BE performance to provide certain items to enable our adherence to these rules.
  • A number of these things are an additional cost requirement which have not been allowed for in any annual increase. I trust that we can correct that next time around.
  • More red tape & more cost to us the organisers.
  • I believe we should resist this going into the rule book. Can anybody think of a reason that this should go in the rule book. The only thing that I can think of is that all competitors will be able to see it and will want to advise us if we do not have an atmospheric location or a suitably dressed fence.
  • I have no problem at all with anything in the standards document.
  • This is incorrect in so many ways who put this together? If the BE Officials’s did their job there would be no need for half the things on the list and the others are a fantasy unless they have someone to pay for them. When we are in such poor state, why would they release a document that just shows how little they know about the sport
  • It seems perfectly reasonable to me. It is important that BE events should be run to the highest standards.
  • This is costing BE money to try to fix something which is already fixed, at a time when money is short. We have to be careful that we do not have something imposed on us that does not suit a lot of organisers.
  • I am in support of this new framework for use to evaluate fixture submissions. Something needs to change, and if this can have a positive impact on sorting the BE Calendar then so be it.       I think the proposal to open the International classes up for tender is a good move, and again I hope this will enable the fixtures team to get the right events in the right places and not flood the calendar with events of the same level running on the same dates! I cannot see how they can make the standards document rules as such, I see them more as guidelines (as per the cross country design guidelines).
  • A poorly presented document, shows a lack of knowledge as to what is important and not fulfilled by some BE events. The suggestion that it will go into the rule book with no defined quantifiable definition such as ”define good” or “define hospitality” or “define high quality” suggests that at best it will be guidelines and should be incorporated into the event evaluation.
    Much of text is in marketing speak with little thought of who is going to pay, which I would have thought BE Fixture Committee should thoroughly understand. I totally agree that pushing all events to produce the same standard would be admirable, this is not the case at this time. Poor standards should be dealt with by TA’s at events on the evaluation document and backed by the Regional Coordinators.
    Peripheral events (eg South West and Scotland) are struggling and cannot afford. In earlier times their entry levels were protected by ensuring little or no conflict of dates. BE must not lose sight of the fact that we have members in all areas that must be catered for. The fixture list is over loaded, whereas balloting is good for the sport and always spreads the entries.
    I feel that those organisers who manage to have a standard will be the ones that try harder and in fact it is the inadequate, below the present standards of BE, events that need the focus.
    We all wished the draft had been a word document then we could have gone box by box with our comments, there seems to be no logical order to follow.
    We run 5 events across all levels and I believe hit 90% – 95% of the standards required but I am fearful of how you expect this document to be received.
    If the intent, as stated, is to produce rules then much more work is required to quantify the requirements. The wording of the finalised document should be determined by the platform the Fixtures committee decide to use ie the balance between BE Officials’ evaluation, guidelines and rules.
    Suggestions to add

    • Control boxes to be manned with sufficient relief and all events to have traffic lights, again an evaluation topic.
    • CIC2* CIC3*CIC4* / CCI2* CCI3* CCI4*
    • The FEI have standards that must be adhered to at all levels and the draft document fails to understand some of the recent FEI rules.
    • BE Officials are responsible to see the standard is correct for the level with clear differences on the XC between the National class and the International sections.
    • I see that this document may be used as part of the tendering process for all FEI and Championship events for the 2020 Fixtures. BE has approximately 175 events (2018) that service approximately 15,000 members, event organisers take the financial risk and try hard to follow directions and comments but deserve the respect of the governing body when changing standards. BE must be more cognisant of the financial implications of introducing new standards. Many of the proposed standards will incur additional/new costs for the majority of events, reducing any profit margin, which needs to be balanced by an appropriate increase in income (cost to the competitor).
      The poor communications and the planning of change from the office needs much more thought. Organisers deserve better communication and should not feel fearful of what they receive
      If the event evaluation worked there would be no need for half the things on the list. Should a standard be set then all of the standards must be included in the event evaluation hence one form.
  • Having looked at the details, we entirely agree with what is proposed.  It is an excellent way forward and very necessary for events and eventing.  We must put on a proper high-quality offering which differentiates us from unaffiliated events.  There must be a high quality minimum standard in order for us to attract spectators, sponsors and competitors.  There is absolutely nothing in the standards which we consider to be unreasonable or unaffordable.
    I would very much hope that the BEOA does not advocate that these standards are watered down in any way.  Our event already meets all the standards, and having attended lots of other events, I know that most others are the same.  The fact that certain event organisers have not moved with the time and still offer the same poor-quality product (whilst also complaining about an absence of entries to their events) should not influence the standards.  If they cannot meet the standards they should not be allowed to run events.  XC fences should be properly presented with flowers etc.  There should be seating at higher level events to cater for spectators/owners etc.  If an event wants the privilege of putting on higher level classes, they must put the effort in.  They cannot be allowed to run Intermediate/Advanced classes as if they are BE90 classes – that is a flawed business model.  The only reason an event could not afford to meet the standards is through mismanagement and a failure to develop the event.  As such, there should be no tolerance shown to allow them to run events in the future.  It is the only way that eventing will grow.
    I very much hope that this drive to improve standards is welcomed constructively by the BEOA and that the process of designing a new fixture list is encouraged – it is badly needed as eventing as a sport is being let down by a minority of events which do not make the mark.
  • We already do 90% but good to have a checklist to work to and also we are keen to make sure our standards are in line with others and this will help
  • My concerns are that it is achievable, viable and not put Organisers off from running or indeed improving their events. That said it is probably overdue and a good opportunity to re-establish the calendar to benefit all stake holders
  • If this is coming into play, it must be implemented by independent stewards, enforced and events not complying – pulled up. We are investing time, money and effort whilst other events do the minimum to run.       This seems acceptable. The event report does not work. It should be a tool we can use to improve and make long term plans. “Adequate” plastered all over it is not acceptable. An event either reaches the benchmark or it does not.       If BE wants a standardisation lets have one we all use to improve BE
  • Most of these comments I would have hoped to have already have been covered by TA and Steward’s in the event evaluation’s. The wish lists as I would call them are probably unaffordable to a lot of Organisers. I am surprised that this draft Document was issued in the first place, as it has only upset a lot of people.
  • The beauty of the sport remains the diversity of what we all offer and therefore we must have the flexibility to tailor our events to what we know works for us, and especially so at our individual venues, be they grand or otherwise.
    We all know that well-presented grassroots, higher level  and international events attract full entries and troubled events less so, but owners and riders may also be prepared to pay for ‘premier’ standards across all level s of classes and so we should consider whether we are on the verge of establishing the freedom for events to elect to be self-categorised rather than have ever higher standards imposed in them.   Some events have fabulous resources on tap – be those sponsors, materials, machinery, public attendance or simply an over-subscribed entry book and may only need to run once a year to be viable. Others are completely different but therein lies the strength of the sport and I suggest this directs us to ensure variety is maintained at whatever level an event can provide.
    Riders currently have a very extensive list of events to choose from and pick carefully where they attend and for many different reasons – many of which have absolutely nothing to do with flowers, xmas trees, flags flying, prosecco bars, mobile phone masts or priority parking. We must be very careful making such things necessities or even desirables.
    I have just returned from officiating at an event which would be best described as ‘old fashioned’, probably missing many minimum standards but which made for a most enjoyable day and I heard not one serious complaint and indicates to me the degree to which owners and riders fully understand the event they have entered and set their expectations accordingly.  We must be careful to understand our customers.
    I trust that BE are wishing to raise standards entirely, rather than to eliminate those they may consider ‘poor’ (given the Minimum Standards Document is already in place to help any struggling events) and, that they recognise there may be unintended consequences such as standardising the look and feel of our events when exactly the opposite would be more appropriate to educate the horse and rider.  We need to greatly invest in more educational courses to ensure diversity of course design, offering a more level playing field for competitors in order for them to achieve & progress.  I think it is mainly a ‘marketing’ issue at heart by which I mean we need to focus on matching our Members to the right events and that we will need to be more insightful and flexible rather than less so if we are to do this.
    The whole principle of continuing to run our events within the framework of the recently updated BE Affiliation Agreement is actually to ensure the diversity, viability and sustainability of our events whilst all the while minimising the risks inherent in running a horse trial.  If BE wish to alter the equation by raising standards across the board then organisers should respond by stating the level of delivery they are content to provide and at the price they individually wish to set.  I cannot believe anyone would outprice themselves.  I do hope many other events have made their views known to you and the Committee.
    With regards the detail of the proposals, I think they simply represent what many events like ours are doing already.
  • I think the general format is good. It obviously does not go into huge detail at the upper end – I think one thing that needs addressed across all levels is medical & vet provision. I feel very strongly that we should be putting in base levels for doctors and vets – for example – 2 doctors that have relevant and current trauma training. I think what is acceptable at the moment is not progressive with the rest of safety within the sport at some events.
    It will also be interesting to see how the process is going to work – timelines, shortlisting process, communication of things, etc.
  • In my opinion good events are already doing most of what is in this document
  • Think we adhere to all of these already.
  • I think it is pretty fair and not unreasonable in aspiration
  • Welcome very simple specific guidance
  • As we already implement most of the proposed I don’t have too many issues other than they are adhered to and all events then meet the standard
  • Why do these standards have to incorporated in the rule book? I could understand if they were incorporated into the affiliation agreements – if these are “rules” then how will they be policed? Is someone going to go round and check each loo has hand washing facilities? These rules? are a little vague.
    I’ve focused on Novice and below – Looking at the intermediate class requirements I think that the additional expense needed to provide certain requirements (seating at the SJ arena and separate hospitality ) will raise a few eyebrows.
  • Overall more expense for organisers – where is the extra income for providing facilities coming from ?!
  • I am happy with the proposals in the document, for the levels we run we are already mostly fulfil the requirements at our events anyway.
  • I quite understand that BE need (and should) keep up a standard for affiliated events and every one should comply to at least the minimum. In our case I think the riders vote with their feet which means that we have to ballot out most years so we must be doing something right.
    I think we carry out most of the recommendations but am happy to discuss with our committee the importance of adding additional improvements (which we do not currently do,) which may not do much for the actual competing but will certainly cost more money to implement.
    I am very happy to comply with any standards that are set.
  • I am happy with all relevant recommendations except for the use of flowers at the dressage entrances and in the show jumping. I believe them to be an unnecessary expense.
  • I have no clear understanding of exactly how any tendering process for events is actually to work so my main comment therefore what they have in mind when they say these are to be incorporated in the rules.
    In the context of our rules, there are numerous questions. What are to be the consequences/sanctions for non-compliance?
  • Many of these proposals were included in the last attempt to bring in event standards which the BEOA managed to contain into a more user-friendly document – the Event Evaluation.
    There needs to be good consultation with riders to get an idea of their ideas of importance when considering a venue. Do flushing loos and hand washing facilities have more importance than the XC tracks and the ground preparation across the competition areas? Is a coloured programme cover and XC courses in colour a prime concern to owners. Would owners prefer to park near their horses or in a designated area, and are owners facilities used at one day events so further consultation with EHOA required as these additional items add to the organisers costs.
    Some of this is unnecessary expense to organisers, and the competitors may have different priorities. If I want to open a garden centre to demonstrate my ability with plants and flowers this may make more financial sense than decorating the dressage, sj and XC at a horse trial.
  • This is a step in the right direction, we would hope that all organisers are doing this as standard already
  • Wordage needs to be much better thought out. Some conflicting standards!


  • There needs to be good consultation with riders to get an idea of what is important when considering a venue.
  • I do feel strongly that the hospitality ideas for Owners at Intermediate is beyond the reach of most events and would need funding from a big hike in entry fees for these classes or a contribution from Owners membership fees that BE collect, especially if it is to be much beyond a coffee/tea service in part of a marquee.
  • Been through the attached document and it seems that we are completely covered. No WIFI at our event so we are still using old score boards but our Secretary and Scorer is updating the whole time on BDWP which very sadly will be no more!! (very worrying)
  • There is No mention of refreshments in this paper – a big mistake in this day and age!  A selection of Refreshment outlets, including healthy should be included!   MMC Championship is a prime example of shockingly under serviced event, they need to come up to the mark!  Good coffee outlet is also necessary.
  • Are these rules or guidelines, if rules, which are going to be enforced, need to be clearer to avoid different interpretations by the enforcer.
  • Pity this was not better thought through before sent for consultation but grateful for the opportunity to respond. Wording needs to be much tighter especially if to be a rule. Welcome a move for all events to achieve good standards. Concern about method of maintaining
  • Some of these ideas have nothing to do with the sport. The best bit about eventing in GB is how different each venue is. So much character & all so special in so many different ways. This is a strength that is protected by BE Standards. Don’t damp this quality down. Allow us all to do our own thing in a safe way.



Comments about Individual Elements

The following are notes from Organisers about individual elements within the document.

These are all listed in the order in which they were received.

Element / Class Novice & Below  
Cross Country Dressing with trees and flowers Refer to Cross Country Guidelines Not all fences need dressing and trees are placed where appropriate as discussed with the TA
Dressing where appropriate as discussed with the TASuggest – Fences of good quality, smart & appropriately dressed.
Guidelines are guidelines. If these are to be rules, you cannot refer to guidelines
Too prescriptive
We paint and dress our jumps. Our event report terms us as adequate. We notice many make no effort to either dressing or painting jumps. Having queried this with our Stewards we are advised the event report held no weight,and was just a piece of paper.
It seems that we shall need a florist shop as well.
Dressing with trees and or flowers.
Dressing is not always required and can take many forms, all of which will impact on the nature/difficulty of the element – the question being asked.

‘Guidelines’ should not be referred to in a situation that is actually a rule.

Suitable sponsor materials?

Dressage Arenas on level grounds 





In a quite location
















Centre line clearly mown











Good separation between Spectators & Competitors

To talk about level grounds is a nonsense you would lose most of the events.
Sufficient warm up area not mentionedSuggest – Arenas in best possible area for the site, with adequately sized warm up.


Typo – Quiet

Events can only use the available land. We have a road running along the end of some of our dressage arenas. We would not be able to move them to a quieter place
Better clarity needed as one minute a ‘quiet’ location is asked for & the next ‘atmosphere’. Horses should be educated to cope with distraction/atmosphere at all levels
You state ‘quite’ location yet for International you ask for ‘atmospheric’. These are polar opposites
‘Quiet’ seems an odd thing to ask for as we are wanting to train & educate horses. This can’t be done if you don’t expose them to possible distraction.
I believe the wording should be changed to say that the dressage arenas should be positioned in as quiet an area as is practicable with a suitable even plain.


Not always possible or practical to mow centre line

Our landlord doesn’t let us do this. We wouldn’t be able to resite arenas
Forget the mention of centre lines as different sites & times of the year will dictate different requirements
I absolutely disagree that the centreline should be mown.
We move our arena’s each evening
FEI no longer insist on centre lines
Early events sometimes have to move arenas. A centreline mowed, restricts the movement and causes chaos!
Do the riders really appreciate mown centre lines? Not possible on surfaces
Separation for dressage arenas 10 m between 15 m from Spectators which we have always used as good practice across the sport.
Suggest – Good & safe viewing for spectators
Does this mean no spectators in the dressage warm up field at all?
I understand that good roping is necessary but the feedback from Owners has been that at certain events it is very difficult to watch ones own horse perform in the dressage and video them if the dressage arena has been roped off in such a way that the far arenas are difficult or prohibited to get to.
Wording I believe should change to make sure that consideration should be given to good viewing of all areas for Owners and connections.
Minimum separation distance would be clearer.

Footing Utilise BE ground care equipment when required through the site and all phases including warm-up areas 









Provide best possible ground through year-round ground and stock management plan

Partly depends on BE being able to provide the correct machinery when required.Where appropriate, as discussed with the TA
We had an event in April. Afterwards, when the weather, was suitable we harrowed and rolled – I presume that this refers to using an aggravator prior to the event – if that is what they mean then it should say so, as this is misleading and open to interpretation

Suggest – Provide best possible ground, including warm ups
This depends on the availability & if in working order
Unnecessary as some organisers have their own equipment


Some venues will also struggle to put in place ground management plan if they don’t have year round access or control over Land Management.
May be hard for all events to provide perfect ground due to stock management, but it has to be seen to have been attempted!
This is so dependent on weather & farming policy. Very difficult to guarantee. Might cost us more money
Footing, ground preparation and the management of the ground conditions is the most important consideration for all riders so this should be at the top of the list. Soil type, ability to irrigate, use of long term decompaction equipment during the winter months is a major part of ground care and should be understood and a priority.
Ground Management Plans in reality have to be extremely flexible to accommodate all the changes thrown at the landlord throughout a year. This is an unrealistic ask

Why through site, surely only needed on areas used by horses.

Unreasonable to expect landowners/farmers to provide ground/stock management plans.

Better wording. Suggest ‘Manage ground and stocking to provide best possible going.’

General High quality communication system 




Clean Sponsor boarding and signs




Clean and good tentage












Well and clearly laid-out site




‘High Quality’ is rather emotive. Communication equipment should be reliable & fit for purpose.Suggest – Communication system to reach all areas throughout the site & be of good, reliable quality


Suggest – Sponsor advertising to be well positioned & secure.



Suggest – Adequate tentage/cover for event business

Agree should be perfect, but some events might use an old hunt tent and is that really going to compromise the competition?
Aspirational. Not essential for the sport

Can’t write this in the rules as some have permanent buildings they used. Surely the message needed accommodation for event business (eg. secretary) should be suitable.
Suggest –


Suggest – Easy & safe access to all areas of the site, with good signage

Logical site plan
An obvious focal point to the event

What are the criteria for a well laid out site?

Scoring Live scoring (publicly available results on the internet) Live scoring is expensive & unnecessary.   We want to encourage folk to spend time near the trade stands.Suggest – Results produced & Scores posted within one hour of each competitor finishing each phase
There is something much more intimate about everyone gathering round a score board writer
I have lost a sponsor due to live scoring as they said the footfall through the show ground was so much reduced
What about sites that cannot get a signal.
This is an additional cost which needs to be incorporated
Events with no signal could bring in a tower at a significant additional cost
This should not be imposed on any site, without some help.
Poorly defined, live scoring that can be picked up on an event website is achievable eg or BDWP. Will this be the case with the new BE IT scoring system and website?
Live scoring is a problem due to lack of signal
Does this presumably mean using Miranda Collet’s system or what? It just says on the internet, NOT screens at the event
How is live scoring going to make any difference at all to a day of competition? \it’s simply a ‘nice to have‘ feature

Competitors attending events without live scoring do not feel disadvantaged.

Live scoring ahs a negative impact on the footfall through the event for trade stands & the event atmosphere.

Loos Hand washing facilities 







At least 1 disabled loo


Adequate number of loo’s as per Purple Guide

Are you saying we should have a separate facility that enables handwashing. Surely all portable toilets are required to have hand sanitising systemLoos should all have sanitiser or basin with soap.  Most seem to have sanitisers these days.

All toilets have hand washing facilities so leave this element out


Suggest – Appropriate number of well positioned toilets for the site, all with hand sanitising facilities & to include 1 toilet for the disabled. Good servicing agreement.

Please reword to Minimum 1 toilet suitable for the disabled

Please use the word toilet not loo. This is going to be formal document
This should be covered on the event evaluation
Referencing the Purple Guide with respect the provision of toilets is inappropriate as it just adds another layer of admin for the Organiser. Those who have sufficient crowds will already be familiar with the requirements.   Most events would not justify using this guide which is available for all aspects of event management not just toilet use.

Really? Is this the most important item for our customers? To add a supported flushing toilet unit to my event will add a cost of £1000 to my event weekend – where would the riders prefer me to spend money – irrigation or toilets? 4* events only provide these facilities for members enclosures.

How about – ‘the appropriate number of toilets for the site, all with hand sanitising facilities, to include 1 toilet for the disabled & an adequate servicing agreement’.

Programme Coloured front & back cover 



















B&W route of all courses


B&W site map



Fence Listing


Health & Safety information




This should be covered on the event evaluation Colour is not a must have!
Suggest – Programme requirements should follow the rules as per the member’s Handbook & Event EvaluationGiven that most events seem to be going to online programmes why do the front and back and certain bits in the middle need to be in colour?
An additional expense which will do nothing for the competition
I thought we were letting the paper programme die as an old unnecessary part of the event.  It now seems to be a measure of event standard.  If the paper programme is something that is needed, and needed to be big and glossy (and mandatory colour for all) then that is fine; but it is the opposite of the minimalizing we have been discussing

What on earth does the colour of the programme cover have to do with our sport?!! Some B&W programmes are really attractive.


Does this mean you can’t have coloured ones if an Organiser would like


More care needed with wordage if these are to become rules

There only needs to be site map if necessary






Timetable needs clarity on detail. Is it to be by day, class, section?

Show Jumping Utilise a Showjumping set that meets minimum standards set by BS BS do not have a minimum standard for their showjumpsSuggest – Show Jumps should be clean and of good quality & variety
This minimum standard should be covered on the event evaluation
This is setting the bar really low, I don’t think there is a set I have seen anywhere that would fall below “club” standard; all this really means is wooden poles and safety cups.  Would suggest a “County” or “Championship” set if quality is wanted.  It is hard to be over prescriptive, as Jump for Joy have sponsored and had fences in major shows but a set of Jump for Joy fences would not hit the mark
Use equipment that is safe, suitable & smart would work. Can’t find a BS Standard
Signage Clear for Spectators & Competitors This should be appropriate as discussed with the TA for the evaluation form
Why only Spectators & Competitors.   Why not simple say ‘All signage must be Clear’.Suggest – Suitable & clear signage as necessary
Disabled Visitors Forward ParkingDisabled access map As discussed with the BE Officials for the evaluation form
Map not necessary at all events
Not necessary for our eventNot necessary




Element / Class Intermediate (Additional to Novice & Below)
Cross Country 1 additional warm up fences for class with 60% top spread
Dressage Flowers and plants at dressage entrance and markers Flowers at dressage on all markers and entrances at Intermediate is impractical when you have multiple arenas side by side.
Suggest – A smart area for arenas decorated appropriately
Flowers set between arenas is affordable and gives the inexperienced / young Intermediate horse a chance of becoming accustomed to them. Flowers are often not possible in March and April due to weather
At certain times of the year, flowers are totally a waste of money. Everything would either be blown away or drowned!!
An additional expense which will do nothing for the competition
Flowers at the dressage entrances are an unnecessary expense.
March??!!! They would blow away and just be completely impractical and un necessary!
Flowers and or plants.
General Separate owners parking and hospitality 





























































Seating at the SJ Arena











Event must have a website displaying general information for competitor and public









We do not have any capacity to segregate owners and ‘others’ parking.Agreed hospitality need separate parking but not always owners.

Some sites could not accommodate this & it is definitely not what many owners want.
Not a popular suggestion!

Most owners want to be as close as possible to their riders but this is not possible at some sites
Whose is going to be able to afford this?
Are BE going to contribute to the owners’ hospitality and what form does this take?   Are they expected to be catered for all day or coffee and biscuits?
Wanting separate hospitality for owners from Intermediate upwards seems excessive and expensive for the organisers.

Having to set up and run a specific marquee for Owners when you do not know numbers either seems absurd.
A nice to have wish list. For instance, “Separate owner’s parking and hospitality”- parking would cost a few signs and stringing but owner’s passes and badges would be required and how do you assess who is an owner when the riders seem to be the registered owner more often than the real owner to cut down their costs? As for separate hospitality – tent, picket fence, tables, chairs, refreshments & staff to manage (clean, refill, serve, check badges etc.) an unnecessary additional cost, as borne out by the owner’s tent at Rockingham which had a total of 4 visitors.

This is so dependent on the ability to manage available space. Most would prefer to stay with the lorry but only possible if safe.

It is very nice for the owners to have their own parking but most would rather be by their riders’ lorry, and there is not often room for this and more so another parking area.
We try to do our best for our sponsors but to add another area is out of the question.
Nice to have a tent for the owners to have their tent but this again costs money and time. Mine in Sept costs an extra £200 or more.
Fine for car park but not hospitality at an event that is running from 90-Int.  Do not think this is likely to be possible at every event but should be aimed for.
An additional expense which will do nothing for the competition

Most owners want to park at the horsebox. The EHOA tent is often empty at events where it is provided.
Hospitality for owners. Looked through 2017 programme:

Proportion of Novice and Intermediate riders who owned and rode horses: those

riding horses owned by others was roughly 50:50. 43:57 for Advanced. That adds up to a lot of people as most horses have two or more owners. Do we know if all the owners have BE Owner Memberships? What would hospitality entail? Hiring Marquees and hospitality costs could be prohibitive, especially on top of building/maintaining an expensive course. Could BE help provide the hospitality from part of the Owners Membership fee. Organisers provide the parking etc. Otherwise the money would have to come from ‘profits’ made on Novice and lower classes.
It has been mentioned numerous times that riders like to entertain their Owners at the lorry sometimes or some elderly Owners cannot get to the lorry to see their horses without the use of their cars. I do believe it is important to have separate Owners Parking and of course hospitality but a certain amount of flexibility should be given to Elderly/disabled Owners who would like to or invited to the lorry.

How are officials going to identify owners and will extra staff be needed to control access to these areas.
Does this mean chairs in a controlled area?
Not necessary

Whose is going to be able to afford this?
Is there a benefit?
Seating at SJ for Intermediate unless they count straw bales will not happen
Not necessary or practical to have seating round arena at Int events, usually no one except connections to watch!


I do not feel the need for a website other than what we do on facebook, it is another expense that at the moment I do not feel we would benefit from.
Not necessary. So long as information is easily accessible, this is all that should be required. This will surely be part of the new package offered in the new website
We have a Facebook Page. A website will be an additional expense which will do nothing for the competition
An active Facebook Page is sufficient
There is nothing worse than an out of date website
Thought BE had promised each event a dedicated page on the new website./ Why do we need an additional website?

Loos Toilets – please!
Programme Coloured route of all coursesColoured site map Adding further coloured pages adds further printing cost. Adding course description and rider biographies/CD design notes will add further pages, cost and time.
Not required as has no impact on the sport or event
This would take a ridiculous amount of time to organise for no benefit to the sportIn order to recover the additional print and time costs the price to the competitor and visitor will need to rise.

Why? What is the benefit?

This is an area that all Organisers are trying to cut back on. To add extra colours, extra lists is just more cost.

Show Jumping 50% of course suitably dressed with flowers or plants 









SJ to be held in an arena using as a minimum 6mm diameter rope








Builder needs to be Level 4

SJ judge min Level 2

Flowers in the show jumping are an unnecessary expense.
50% is too prescriptiveMarch??!!! They would blow away and just be completely impractical and unnecessary!
Suggest – Show Jumps dressed as appropriate
What does suitably mean? Concerned that poor or neglected specimens will look worse than no flowers


An additional expense which will do nothing for the competition

At all our higher level events we use 3 or 4 strings round our arenas, so we can keep them tight and looking good for several days, with heavier rope that is not always possible or practical.

SJ arenas, most already fulfil these requirements.


Judges and designers for eventing can be very difficult to find. Some BS ones are not that Eventing friendly. The BE officials will soon say if the courses are not up to scratch
There is often a shortage of good designers & judges. This move will not help.

Have the fixtures committee looked into this are there enough BS Judges / Builders at the level to fulfil this requirement throughout the season. If you run against a major SJ championship you would not be able to conform to this if a rule. If TA’s know that the Builder or Judge does not do a satisfactory job they should be stronger with the evaluation form

It is difficult enough finding designers & judges. Those not up to the job are quickly identified & not asked again
Is this suggesting Show Jumping is not being run satisfactorily at the moment. I see very little evidence of this, so why the need to make it more difficult for us?

Signage Signage and disabled facilities have already been addressed in previous years.
Disabled Visitors



Element / Class Advanced (Additional to Intermediate)  
Cross Country Good public viewing requiredThe design and layout to engage the public This should be the back bone of all eventsThese are both nice to have features but not essential

Design & layout of what?
Be clear what you are asking for

Dressage Continuous boards 

Warm up arena to be available for











Difficult to steward only advanced competitors into a 10minute warm up at multiple level events
Not always possible to have a ten minute warm up area due to space restrictions
Hard to find space for an extra long arena near Advanced arena.

Could it be 20 x 40m?

Probably not possible at many events



Footing No activity to take place within 3 months that could potentially jeopardise the Event. Who is going to tell the landlords that they cannot have any activity within 3 months before a BE event. Does this include farmers who could damage the area collecting their crops?Correct the spelling!
Should this read ‘good relationship with landowner needed’?

Being flexible and managing the situation should it happen, with your TA, is the only solution unless you wish to pay rent for the 3 months before
I don’t think venues should be too regulated as to prior use of site for other events as Horse Trials will not be amongst the top end of profitability for many venues.

There is no way that I am going tell the owner of the ground to keep off it for 3 months before our date. Surely this is the quickest way to lose events.
We do not own the site and would not be in a position to prevent activities that could jeopardise it.   If a line was added to reinstate footing to an acceptable standard then could comply!
This is fairly meaningless, and I think could not be enforced on National Trust type properties.  “Agree a management plan with BE in case there are any events in the 3 months preceding the event that could cause issue” would be more sensible

Hard for anyone who runs an equestrian business/establishment not to use area big enough to run an Advanced course including Dressage and Show jumping for 3 months.
If most landowners had to choose between a festival or a horse trial, they’ll pick the most lucrative & horse trials will lose out.

Completely unworkable at most venues, as the Estates need to run numerous events to be viable

General Must have a SM/Press manager 




Wifi available to competitors and owners or strong

3G or 4G coverage














XC tracks to be uploaded for viewing

Now I’m to be a Press Officer as well as everything else!
Add Press Officer to all the myriad of tasks I already have to doNot necessary


It simply is not possible to have WiFi in some places

Houghton, Bramham?

Not necessary
Website not a problem but you either have Wifi coverage or not.   Erecting masts at an Advanced event will not be cost effective

I don’t see loads of people complaining they can’t get a connection if this is not possible. Great if possible but unaffordable if not .

No a necessary must have.

Wifi  provision is expensive !

This will knock out most current international venues yet alone the national ones.



This should only be done once the course is open for inspection.
Do Organisers have the time to upload pictures at the busiest moment of the event?
This is just for marketing & will not enhance the sport
It is a marketing tool for visitors but can be dangerous when used by competitors
BE should pay a one off fee to cross country app for all events and provide them / designers with access. CCA will be charging for this in the future and it would be consistent and cost effective if that route was adopted
Can XC tracks be uploaded on BE App? Or from event website.

Programme Some background information (achievements, results & awards) on selected Advanced riders onlyMore than just a fence list, description of fences with notesfrom CD or top rider










E programme

Good to have description of fences with notes, but unlikely to get a top rider to comment on fences – more relevant at an international?
These are becoming a P.I.T.A.   Less people are buying and costs increasing.Getting background info on riders is a slog and expensive – BE could assist by having a central record updated.

I really don’t think riders at most levels use these. They just want the course

Will riders give info with GDPR problems?

Isn’t it dangerous to give too much information out. Should the competitor walk & decide a course for them selves. Who is this going to benefit?


The cost of designing and hosting an e-programme could possibly contribute to further losses in sales of traditional programmes that BE are asking us to spend more money on

Show Jumping Builder needs be Level 5SJ Judge min Level 3









75% of course suitably dressed

with flowers or plants

To bring in a level 5 show jumping course designer is a cost issue, especially in regions where there are very few available and travel costs will be higher.
I really think this could be more of a hindrance than a help.  There are plenty of inflexible level 3 judges.
This is not British Showjumping, this is Eventing Showjumping.  It is far better to get a judge with BE experience than one on a higher BS list.  Same with course builder, an over enthusiastic course builder building a “strong” BS track would cause carnage
Seems like a bit of an ask!
75%??? Is this to be another rule to be ignored!
Disabled Visitors



Element / Class CIC2*
Cross Country Well dressed high quality fences and flags 

Min of 3 warm up fences – 1 fence to have top spread for class (Max 60%) and a narrow option
Course stringing – appropriate for level of spectators and site layout
20% of Jumping Efforts to be exclusive to CIC class from National equivalent

Suggest – Fences of good quality, smart & appropriately dressed. 








Difference should be more

20% difference in course does not seem a lot.
Should be different to national classes with different questions.

20% is not enough difference Competitors pay a significant amount more (approx. 60%) to enter an International. A 20% difference in the course does not seem right

Dressage Arenas on level grounds in an atmospheric location 



Centre line clearly mown


Good separation between

Spectators & Competitors


Continuous boards


10 min arena


Flowers and plants at dressage entrance and markers

I do not think you need as much atmosphere for International dressage as you are intimating. Polar opposite to the request for National 









Not always possible to have a ten minute warm up area
Where should 10 min arena be located?

Footing Utilise BE ground care equipment when required through the site and all phases including warm-up areas 

Provide best possible ground through
year-round ground and stock management plan

General High quality communication system 

Clean Sponsor boarding and signs


Clean and good tentage

Well and clearly laid-out site


Comprehensive facilities

Event must have a website or SM Platform displaying general information for competitor and public.


Must have a SM/Press manager

XC tracks to be uploaded for viewing











What does this mean?


Doesn’t the programme & notice board provide all this?





We are lacking a SM/ Press Officer as we have always covered it ourselves

Scoring Live scoring (publicly available results on the internet) BDWP does this quicker than most but if the chief scorer takes her dogs for a walk instead of updating scores after XC you end up with the Bramham issue after the CIC – no final scores available for the live TV broadcast.
Loos Hand washing facilitiesAt least 1 disabled loo Adequate number of loo’s as per Purple Guide
Programme/ E-Programmes Coloured front & back cover 

B&W route of all courses


B&W site map

Fence Listing


Health & Safety information



This has been done time and time again. E programmes are much easier to get large amounts of information across but are useless if no phone signal. 
Show Jumping Utilise a Showjumping set that meets minimum standards set by BS
50% of course suitably dressed
with flowers or plants 

Mowed arena


Informative commentary
SJ to be held in an arena using as a minimum 6mm diameter rope




50% – really?




Only if necessary

Trade Stands
Disabled Visitors Forward ParkingDisabled access map



Element / Class CIC3* & CIC4* (Additional to CIC2*)
Cross Country 20% of Jumping Efforts to be exclusive to CIC class from National equivalent This is not enough.   International entries are much more expensive than National – way over 20%. Competitors need to be given their money’s worth
Footing No activity to take place within 3 months that could potentially jeopardise the Event.
General Separate owners parking and hospitality 

Seating at the SJ Arena

Programme Coloured route of all courses 

Coloured site map



Show Jumping Utilise a Showjumping set that exceeds the minimum standards set by BS
75% of course suitably dressed with flowers or plants
Trade Stands Suitable and varied for Public
Disabled Visitors Specific mobility & disabled plan in place



Element / Class CCI2* & CCI3* & CCI4* (Additional to CIC3* & CIC4*)
Cross Country 20% of Jumping Efforts to be exclusive to CIC class from National equivalent What are you trying to say here? ?’exclusive to CIC’?
Dressage Recommend having a surface available if required due to weather conditions We could not provide a surface
How many current venues have all weather arenas available? This requirement opens the doors for permanent show centres to host international fixtures at the expense of the current 3*& 4* venues?
Completely unpractical at Osberton, Bramham, Badminton, Blenhiem, Blair, Houghton for starters!!!!
General Wi-Fi available to competitors and owners or strong 3G or 4G coverage 




High quality stabling, temporary or permanent



On site catering during the period that the stabling is open





Loos and showers during the period the stabling is open






Hook up must be available to all competitors


24h stable management

Wifi is important at 3 day events – because actually Riders/grooms/owners are normally at these events for at least 5 days.  A strong 3G or 4G is an option but should be plan B.  Houghton Hall is a prime example of NO internet connection or phone signal.  Competitor is normally there for nearly a week!!!! 

Describe ‘high Quality’

Suggest – Stabling smart, fit for purpose & well managed


Suggest – Ensure good catering facilities available

Whatever level there should be a good catering

Does this mean the days that the stables are open, or the hours that the stables are open?



Showers available when competitors/grooms staying more than 2 nights
Suggest – Toilets & washing/shower facilities available when overnight stays are necessary

Showers available when competitors/grooms when staying overnight

The first seems logical, but the latter is ludicrous, when the stables are open from 5am until 11pm.


Hook up should be available to all of pre-ordered!

Makes no mention of payment or a need to pre-book.


Move this to other stabling reference

Programme Some background information (achievements, results & awards) on selected Advanced riders only 



More than just a fence list, description of fences with notes from CD or top rider



E programme

Dictating programme content regarding rider background information (achievements, results & awards) seems very odd. Has that been requested by riders, or BE, and what is the rationale behind it?Really? Why?


Do the course designers want this? Isn’t that part of the sport – to make decision for yourself not be told how to ride them.

Will the rider have the time & want to commit?


Surely this is in addition to a printed programme

The insistence on an e-programme for CCI2* and above undermines the important revenue stream of the printed programmes.

Show Jumping Arena must be fenced with a solid rail(CCI3* and CCI4* only)



100% of course suitably dressed with flowers or plants




Recommend to have surface available if required due to weather conditions

Some rope can be very effective and safe
Too prescriptive
Reconsider please 

Not all fences (b/c elements of combinations) would be appropriate for flowers
Too prescriptive

Reconsider please


The recommendation that a surface is available for show jumping is certainly not a financial possibility
I would be surprised if the owners or trustees of any of UK BE/FEI historic house venues would agree to a surfaced arena in their grounds.
We could not provide a surface
This will restrict the number of available venues.

Completely unpractical at Osberton, Bramham, Badminton, Blenhiem, Blair, Houghton for starters!!!!

Trade Stands
Disabled Visitors