All About Cutting Horse News

All About Cutting welcomes your "Letters to the Editor" with your opinions on any subject pertaining to cutting. However, no bad language will be printed. It is not necessary to identify yourself.

Dear Editor
It was interesting to read about possible Ethic Reform issues of the National Cutting Association in the Quarter Horse News back in 2009. I have pondered over the article reasonably prior to the writing about Ethics in the National Cutting Horse Association.

I participated in all classes of NCHA including the age events starting back in the late 1960's until the mid 1980’s. I had the give it up because of physical problems. However, what has always been a concern of mine is the ethics of the association, but more of a concern is the ethics toward NCHA allowing drug use in the horses.

At no time, that I am aware, has this issue been brought to the attention of the owners, sponsors, and trainers or to the public that just enjoy the sport. How many young horses have died because of drug use at the Futurity or other aged events? How many horses have been crippled by their owners or by the trainers because of drug use?
I question, do the Sponsors of NCHA allow drug use at there business? Do they close their eyes to the use of drugs on horses for the events they sponsor, and not for their own businesses and employees? I believe Fort Worth and their city employees would be included. Can they show up at work under the influence of drugs?

Why do AQHA, the State Racing Commissions and other well-known Equine Associations have a "no-drug use" policy and NCHA does not? Does NCHA have a drug policy for their employees?

How much are the total purses of the Aged Events, World Championship and Weekend shows? A horse could have received your share of the purse that was drug induced by its owner or trainer vs. your horse that was drug-free and was competing strictly on its normal ability and agility. There went a lot of money, but with current NCHA regulations, we will never know if drugs were involved.

I have always been amazed that when you open to the Table of Contents of “The Chatter," in small bold print, it says that NCHA is a proud member of the American Humane Society and the American Horse Council (AHC). Does the AHC ignore the use of drugs of their membership? Would that not be a good question to ask?

It is like everything else, you can get NCHA to have a drug policy in place and someone will find a way to cover it up. A drug policy would be good and if developed, it would be a long time coming. If you have ethics and ethical training for NCHA, it can part of the training to have a "no-drug" policy at all NCHA events - with testing. That way, we can see the ability and agility of a horse and not that of greed and abuse.

I wonder what are the guidelines of insurance companies are that insure these horses when the horses are injured and put down, and breathe their last breath as the result of the drug’s use in which NCHA allows?

The NCHA Code of Ethics: It could be a thick book. Could it include a Leadership Development Program as provided by the AHC?

Dear Editor
I would like to talk about the subject of "tipping the help." I have heard trainers tell cutters - especially the newcomers at the aged events - how they should tip the help, especially if they get a check in the run.

These are the reciprocally crooked parasites who use none of their own money to get there, stay there, play there or come home. And they also command a portion of the check should the owner's horse win one, while it costs them nothing if they lose all week long. So now the horse owner finally gets a check and he not only has to fork over part of it to his trainer in those trainer/rider classes, but now also "has to" tip the help if he gets a check in the owner/rider classes. Where does it stop????

The cartel has more gall than I have seen in a long time. They have the incredible nerve to tell the horse owner he is not finished spending money on the trainer community quite yet. Fees upon fees upon fees, and then percentages of checks and tips if they help someone. It is beyond disgusting. And they threaten you with banishment if you don't comply. "You won't be very well liked" or "it will be hard for you to get help in the future" etc. etc. Extortion. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be addressed and dealt with at the NCHA committee level.

You can go to certain private places of business and you will see signs "no tipping." In other words, they don't want the customers to be uncomfortable or unsure of what to do in the way of gratuities. So they clear it up quickly with the sign. No one is walking on egg shells. And they pay the help well enough to where the help is happy. How about a "no tipping" sign at the cuttings?? If the trainer doesn't want to help because he doesn't get a tip, then fine.

They talk about cutting camaraderie being one of the great aspects of cutting. Or did they confuse camaraderie with currency?

These are the dimensions to cutting as it exists today that run people off from the sport. They take the fun out of the sport. They alienate the membership and the backbone of the NCHA. And no one is talking about it. It's time for a cleanup once again!!

Recently I received a letter from Craig Morris, a cutting horse trainer, who was responding to my an article that I wrote and published on this site on March 2, 2009 titled "Is the NCHA Executive Committee Balanced? The article was regarding the fact that currently trainers hold 58 percent of the seats on the NCHA Executive Committee, with half of the members coming from the Southeast, six being non-pros - while no amateurs or businessmen or women are included.

Feel free to respond to this letter by e-mailing your response to me at glory@glorykurtz.com. If you prefer, I will not use your name.

March 6, 2009
I like many other trainers have been sitting idly by for the last year while many Amateurs, Non Pros and now the Media goes on a trainer bashing frenzy. I will attempt to write a rebuttal to your article "The unbalanced make up of the Executive Committee" that is not full of stereo typical assumptions and is free from the hurt and anger that most trainers have felt from the latest round of trainer and trainer family bashing.

Let me start by asking you a question. Who do most ask for advise when purchasing a horse? Who do most ask for advise on what stallions to breed their mares to? Who do most ask for advise about what shows they should show in or what class their horse would be most competitive in? Who do most ask for advise about whether or not their horse is good enough to even warrant training? The burning question that needs to be asked is, who is the person that most Non Pros and Amateurs go to for guidance or to answer questions they have about their horse? The Trainer.....the person who possess the EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE to help you make the most prudent decisions about your animal. Opps! Almost let my emotions get into the text.

This same person is also the person who has made their living and provided for their families by running a " HORSE TRAINING BUSINESS". This business also requires that you wear many hats. Horse trainer, investment advisor, vet, bookkeeper, cattle man, business manager, counselor, coach, truck driver, just to name a few. Most of the trainers that I have been aquatinted with over the past twenty five years in this industry are very intelligent, fairly well educated people who have a real passion and love for horses. They also posses that same passion and love for the industry that has helped to provide for their family's throughout the years. Most are at least second generation cutters while many many more are invested three and four generations deep to this great sport. They are not millionaires or captains of industry but they are professional horsemen who are knowledgeable about horses, the horse business and the sport that they compete in.

For you or anyone else to insinuate that we lack the intelligence, education, training or general wisdom to make decisions regarding what is best for the entire industry "that we have grown up in" is ridiculous. I do agree that guidance from CPA's, lawyers and other professionals are needed and gladly accepted. NCHA has an accountant on staff as well as an attorney on retainer who are at the disposal of the EC. I also agree that we need representation for all the members but to say that this cannot be accomplished with a majority of the EC being made up by trainers is not at all true.

Remember that we make a living by catering to all members of the cutting horse business and by maintaining a healthy diverse organization. Not all trainers compete in aged events, not all in weekends, some have amateurs and Non Pros and some do not. The mix of trainers that we currently have on the EC is definitely a cross section of the entire industry and do attempt represent the entire membership. Cutting is still HORSE BUSINESS and can be run by HORSEMEN.

I attempted to write this to you on "letters to the editor" but the links were not working. I hope this finds it way to your column.

Thank you,
Craig Morris
Professional Cutting Horse Trainer

(Following is response from the Editor)

I really appreciate your sending your letter to me and I will definitely post it. You are the first trainer who has responded to my article, other than Chubby, who sent word with a friend of mine that he was "educated."

My meaning may have been misconstrued, as I certainly did not intend that my statements should have been taken that trainers were uneducated. If so, what I really meant to say is that most trainers do not have the kind of education and experience to run a multi-million-dollar non-profit association. It’s definitely different from running a training operation. Doctors are well educated, but not many doctors have the education to run a large company.

With that in mind, yes, you are all very educated in what you do for a living - and most trainers do a very good job of it. I realize your job is all encompassing and you have to wear many hats to be successful. We all know that some trainers are successful - and some aren't. I'm certainly not lumping all trainers together, anymore than you can lump all customers or members of the NCHA together.

We all know that football players and coaches are very knowledgeable about football; however, I don't think they would be considered "educated" to run the NFL. The same goes for other sports, such as basketball, hockey, and even the PBR. In today’s specialized world, it takes a very “specialized” education or experience to take care of promotion, legal issues, contracts, financial investments, budgets, employees, etc, that go along with running a multi-million-dollar association. Each one of the above sports is run by businessmen.

However, when it comes to rules, that's something that trainers know a lot about and certainly they should have a major voice in the decision making.

What I was trying to convey was that the NCHA is no longer just a small association - it's the same as a multi-million-dollar company that its stockholders depend on to do the right thing for their investment.

Yes, you are correct - trainers are definitely professional horsemen who are knowledgeable about horses, the horse business and the sport that they compete in. Without the trainers, the sport of cutting would not be professional. However, like you said, trainers make their living and provide for their families by running a training business, but all this is made possible by the cutting horse industry and members of the NCHA.

In contrast, amateurs, non-pros and owners put money INTO the industry by buying the horses, paying the trainers and basically financing the association through membership fees, entry fees, and gambling their money by putting on shows. With their numbers greatly outnumbering the trainers, it wouldn't be possible for trainers to make a living without them. Don’t you think they should be equally represented in the decision-making body of the association? All facets and niche groups within this business need to try to work together. They all need each other to make this industry successful. I don't think its "us" and "them."

I'm sure your response will put a spark in other people who would like to express their opinions. I completely see your side of this argument - just like I see some of the non-pros’, amateurs’ and owners’ side of the argument. Most everyone sees a problem from their own niche or prospective, which is entirely normal.

I have no axe to grind - I'm only trying to convey what I hear day after day from various NCHA members - including amateurs, non-pros, trainers, owners and show producers. Bob and I don't show anymore and we no longer use trainers; this is not a personal thing. However, we have done all of those things for years, so we basically do know what goes on.

I am sorry that you didn’t get through to put your letter on my site. I am in the midst of making upgrades to my website which will give readers a much easier way to post their opinions or letters – as I think that is very important. It should be done the first or second week in April. However, I will tell you that I can count on my fingers (one time around) the number of people who are willing to sign their name to a criticizing posting. They feel they will be "dealt with" if they express what they feel. All the years I was with Quarter Horse News, I had that same problem. I think that is sad.

Thanks again for your letter, Craig. I appreciate it and admire you for standing up for what you believe.

Glory Ann Kurtz, Owner/Editor
www.allaboutcutting.com

Glory Ann;
Thanks for taking the time respond to my email. Your position is understood and has merit. I do also agree that all niche's of the organization be represented in the decesion making process however I feel that having a majority of trainers on the board, who's means of feeding their familys depends on the health of the entire
organization, is not a detriment.

The other professional sports organizations that you made mention of all are run by successful businessmen who hire a legal team, a promotions team and good office staff to run those organizations. Just as we have at NCHA. I would also direct you to the fact that many of the successful business people you speak of run their horse opperations very different from the businesses that made them weathly. Emotions and not good business seem to take control. Funny how that is sometimes.

Thank you for being the sounding board for many who are unhappy within our organization so that we may quell some their worries with the truth.

Sincerely,
Craig Morris

Dear Glory Ann,
I just wanted to let you know that I liked your response to Craig's letter very much. I thought it was unemotional and professional and hit all the salilent points.

And BTW, in my opinion (for what thats worth!) while its true that most horse trainers are also running their horse business, very few trainers that I have met, cutting or other disciplines, do it well! Of the 10 or so that I can think of that I have had horses with over the past 15 years, I can only think of two that I would call good (not great) business people. About 10 of them were terrible business people, and maybe 3 were OK. Among the terrible business people were some very successful trainers - they were successful because they were very talented trainers , but they would have been a lot more successful if they were also good business people. Please do not use my name.

March 21, 2009
Anyone using spell check anymore???

Moving on, let me say that the presence of education provides no guarantee that things will be well managed and decisions will be good ones. Look at Capitol Hill and the stimulus package. We have highly educated people in Congress and they all voted for a 600 plus page piece of legislation without reading it. I rest my case.

But if a business or association is going to be well managed, it needs the expertise to run a business and not the expertise to train a horse. A business is not a horse, period.

If a business is going to be well managed, it needs managers with high ethical standards, and dedication to the goals and objectives of the business being managed. And we must all remember that we talk here in generalities while realizing that there are exceptions to everything.

These are the major rubs that I believe most have with the NCHA power positions. Trainers as a whole are not trained to run businesses like the NCHA. Business managers as a whole are not trained to train horses. Some gifted individuals can do both and do them well. But they are clearly the minority.

Let's not be in denial that the rulebook is rife with provisions that most members feel favor the trainers and trainers' families. Self serving decisions are never popular. I suppose you cannot expect anyone to stop making attempts to feather their own bed. But the conflict here is one of provider and customer once again. The customer pays the bills, the provider collects the money, but the provider also wants to make the rules under which the business is conducted and the rules by which the customer must play. And in many cases the provider's family members may end up with even more of the customer's money since they could be competing against one another.

Do members of companies in the business world compete against their own vendors? Do vendors try to defeat their clients in the business world? Or do they try to nurture the relationship so that the customer sees value in the vendor and remains loyal over the long term. It is healthy that way. Vendors who don't BENEFIT customers cease to be vendors. Herein lies the flaw in the NCHA structure and mechanisms. Vendors are running the customers' company. And the vendors are still making decisions to favor the vendors and not the company or the customers.

If there is expertise in the "trainer industry" that needs to be recruited that can always be done via advisory committees or retainers. But vendors cannot run the industry or the companies that make it up. The conflict of interest will be the death knell.

ASTOUNDED ABOUT AMATEUR PROPOSAL

June 1, 2008
Regarding Bronc's proposal to eliminate the amateurs, I've looked at the statistics provided on the NCHA website, and I think they incomplete and therefore misleading. Also, although it doesn't purport to be unbiased, the implication is that it would be, and fairness dictates that it should be. However the numbers are clearly designed to convince people that getting rid of the Amateur class would be harmless. Just a few examples:

1) Bronc's statistics say that "less than 10%" of trainers family members win (checks I assume) at the Nationals and are area leaders etc, and "less than 20%" of the Finalists in the Triple Crown events are trainer's families. Since trainer family members make up approximately 3% of the total number of amateurs and nonpros, they are placing in the national and world finals and as finalists in the aged events more than 3 to 6 times as much as their numbers would dictate. Interesting choice of words too. "Less than" implies that the number is smaller than expected. It is equally correct to say "Almost 10%", which implies the number is larger than expected. If you want to be fair, give the exact percentage; how hard is it to type 9.3%, or whatever the real number is.

2) Bronc tells us that 40% of Amateur cardholders earned checks in 2007. He doesn't come right out and tell us what percentage of trainer family members earned checks, but one can figure it out - its 65%, that's more than 50% more. Just a coincidence?

3) Another example: he tells us how many Amateurs showed a horse in one of the triple crown events and how many of them earned a check. Why doesn't he give the same figures for trainer's families? Could it be because the numbers would again show a big difference between the rate at which Amateurs pick up checks and the rate at which trainers families do?

4) Another example: in big bold letters he has the figures for how much Amateurs earned in Non-Pro or Non/Amateur classes (it isn't clear whether he is including the $2000 limit, which are overwhelmingly amateurs, in some of these figures but not others). Never mind that there are 4 (or 5) times as many Non-Pro classes as Amateur classes, or that 75% of the NP classes are added money classes, why doesn't he tell us how much the Non-Pros earned in those classes, or better yet, how many checks were earned by Amateurs and how many by non-pros in those classes.

May 14, 2008
I Know that we need to be concerned about what is best for every member in the NCHA. I am astounded, from a business standpoint that, we would risk changing the Amatuer format for 162 riders. The Amatuer is not broke. Its the Non Pro that seems to have a problem, when it concerns 162 riders,according to Broncs statistics.

This just baffles me. If I have 6480 customers and 162 of them don’t like the way I do business with them, do I change the format for all 6480?

We need business people running the NCHA, not trainers. This is just absurd.
Astounded

April 27, 2008
Although I have not shown a horse for several years, I plan to show again someday and am still very interested in the actions taken by the NCHA. I am a Non Pro that is, also, eligible for the $50,000 Amateur.

I really think that the NCHA has a very poor system of determining who should be able to show against who.
And why is it the business of the NCHA how someone earns their living?

When the Non Pro first became a class, it was merely to be a place where people (usually business people) could show without having to compete against the Pros. All of that changed long ago. For years, we have had Non Pros who do little but train and show their own horses. To me, the fact that these people ride all the time and develop substantial skills abuses the whole concept behind having a Non Pro class.

The NCHA Non Pro and Amateur classes have evolved a long way from what the Non Pro was in the beginning... and the two things that bother me the most about the evolution are:

1) the fact that, as an Amateur/Non Pro, I am unable to show a horse that does not belong to me (except under very restricted circumstances). Why is it the business of the NCHA if an Amateur or Non Pro wants to borrow a horse?
and
2) I cannot let an Amateur or Non Pro show one of my horses. Over the years, I've had several horses that I had no desire to sell but lacked the funds to either show them or have them shown by a Pro. So they went unshown most of the time. It would have been good for an Amateur or Non Pro and me if I could have loaned a horse that I did not want to sell and could not show myself. What would have been so bad for the NCHA if I had loaned a horse to an Amateur or Non Pro?

I think there is a big problem with the way the NCHA deals with the Non Pro and Amateur issue... today, the NCHA is mostly concerned with who owns the horses... not trying to make the Non Pro and Amateur into classes where non-trainers can have fun showing their horses while competing against others of the same level of showing skills
.
Perhaps, rather than adopt any proposal I’ve seen, a better idea would be to get rid of BOTH the Amateur AND the Non-Pro and fix another problem at the same time. The NCHA has never made much of a place for trainers to hone their skills without having to compete against the best showmen... and I think that there is a need for places for not-ready-for-prime-time trainers to show.

If we are thinking about re-doing the Amateur, why not fix the problems with the Non Pro and give the unskilled Pros a place to show among other unskilled showmen at the same time?

To fix all of these problems, I think the NCHA should have all riders, regardless of what they do to make a living, be allowed to enter classes according to the amount of money they have won. Perhaps we could have an Unlimited (or Open), a $500,000 Limit Rider, a $50,000 Limit Rider, a $10,000 Limit Rider and a $2,000 Limit Rider class (or whatever amount limits that could be agreed upon). Then, it would not matter who owned the horse or what someone did for a living... everyone could compete against others of the same skill level as long as they could find a horse to show.

We could still have Novice horse classes (with or without rider limitations) and Youth classes, too. As it is, now, we have Non Pros and Amateurs who are more skilled at showing a horse than many Pros (and most other Non Pros will never be able to compete against them)... And, at the same time, we have Pros who will never be able to show well enough to be competitive against the top Pros (or the top Non Pros, either)... so why not make a place for everyone to compete against others of similar skills?

Further, I think that the higher entry fees and the bigger purses should be for those that compete in the highest level class or two. This would encourage those who are very good (or those who think they are) to show against their peers while, possibly, winning more than is currently paid out at cuttings.

We could also make the lower classes inexpensive to enter and not pay very much to the winners. We could let these classes be for fun. Not winning much money but let these classes be a place for winning buckles... and other awards... and for learning
.
We could, also, allow more horses per rider to be shown in the "Unlimited" (and make the entry fees, added money and purses high) and for the lowest several classes, do not allow riders to show more than one horse... because, when a person showing more than one horse makes the finals (or even the next go-round) it eliminates from the competition someone who may not choose to continue cutting... and we don't need for people to quit showing. We need to make it be as fun as possible and it is a lot more fun, especially for someone just that has not advanced before, to advance to the next level at a show. We need to encourage everyone to continue to show… and what better way to do that than to level the playing field?

I think that the only ones that might feel, in any way, punished by this would be Non Pros that have earned enough to have to show in the Unlimited class but I think that it would be a good deal for them, too, because these people almost all go for the money... and the money would be in the Unlimited class.
Anyone cutting for the money would want to get in this class.

I know that this needs some fine tuning and some kind of consideration needs to be made for horses that have won a lot, too... but if any part of this could be utilized, it would be better than what we have, now.
I can't see how doing any of these things would harm anyone, at all, and I think that it would help most of the members of the NCHA... regardless of what they do for a living.

A concerned member

Dear Glory Ann
Okay, now I'm really irritated. Regarding your article on Western Bloodstock holding 2-sales during the NCHA Futurity for 2-year-olds only sired by select sires, the NCHA Futurity is the biggest show in the cutting industry, drawing contestants, spectators, buyers, pinhookers, from all over the world. I believe that some people would be willing to take a loss on a 2-year-old, taking the chance that it might end up in a top trainer’s barn, either through pinhooking, or savvy. Now they can’t even put their 2-year-olds in the sales.

Building a produce record on a mare, or stud, is a long, and arduous process if you are not deep pocketed. Again, it feels like the NCHA and sale company are catering to the "chosen few," and leaving out the rest of us. I would love to hear a debate on this issue.

Very few people make money in this business; in my opinion, it is more about bragging rights. Why not let all of the membership have the same chance in exposing our 2 year olds to a captive audience.

Katie

WHY DESIGNATE BETWEEN PRO & NON PRO?

March 20, 2008

The idea of classes based on riders earnings is as fair as it gets. This would level the playing field in my opinion. However why stop there. Why even designate between Pro and Non Pro? As far as that goes why designate who has to even own a horse? Think about it, if you did not own a horse you could rent or lease horse at the show like they do in PRCA. This could create a new business within the industry. Thank you for your unbiased articles and forum to kick around ideas.

Sincerely,

Thom Childress

Glory Ann,

Since I have already been hit this year with the change in the Change of Status rule here's my 2 cents on changing the classes. It should go over big with the people that have the big moneys to spend on made horses even in the lower classes.

This would do away with all novice horse classes and doing so a lot of younger horses or sub top end horses. Also with the way the horse market is today the a low 70's marking horse would be worth little or nothing. Because they wouldn't be able to compete in any class.

The current structure may not be perfect but money should not be the main factor in who wins most of the classes. Everyone dream is to walk in the next Doc Bar, Highbrow Cat, or Smart Little Lena from out of nowhere and win big. This may not change in the age events but you would have no chance in the weekend cuttings. It's tough enough now.

Thanks,

Glory Ann -
Good letter, but there are a couple of obvious questions. I agree within the nonpro there should be no amateur. It should all be divided up based on earnings only. However, that does not solve the problems of non-pros cheating-training horses and riding other people’s horses. The only way to avoid that is to make no distinction between open and nonpro and have everything done based on earnings.
However, trainers and assistant trainers can ride horses not owned by them.

If everything is simply done based on earnings, can the so called non-pro ride a horse not owned by the non-pro. I see this as two big issues or problems to be solved. So long as you have a non-pro definition, you will have a cheating problem. But if you try to solve the cheating problem by getting rid of the non-pro definition and have everything done based on earnings, what do you do about the fact that trainers can ride horses they do not own and yet non-pros have traditionally had to own their horse. This is all an issue that certainly deserves serious discussion.

March 15, 2008
Dear Editor,
I read the Whitmire posting on your website and the only thing I can surmise is that without a complete airing of facts in court, the membership will never have the knowledge to motivate positive changes the NCHA needs to prosper.

As I see it the Whitmires are "done". I think there is a festering "boil" in the general membership regarding fair treatment of it's members and it would have been better to lance it now.

Thanks for your wonderful coverage of the Whitmire/NCHA lawsuit.

I have been looking back through my Chatters (the official publication of the NCHA) and I can't seem to find a single mention of this lawsuit. Aren't we as members entitled to know how OUR money is spent. This is a terrible situation for the NCHA, and from what I have read they are going to get their asses kicked in court once again..

I can't believe that our current Executive Committee is this naive. It looks like to me the Executive Committee has been bulldozed by Mr. Goins. Good luck to the Whitmire's. No one should be put through this over a non-pro card.

By the way, do you have any information concerning any civil or criminal suits that might be filed in regard to them confining Mrs. Whitmire, the NCHA doesn't respond to any of my requests.

A long-time NCHA member

To All Concerned,
Someone called this morning, New Year's Day, and later I received calls from a few others, about a certain person in our industry who wants to stop prayer at all NCHA-sanctioned events.

You say, “How can one person make a difference?” Well, Madeleine Murray O'Hare did and now we suffer and our children suffer. For some, it was the only knowledge that we have of God and a Creator. We loved our sorry selves so much that He gave His only son to pay for our sins.

Some individuals in top positions of the NCHA have, in the past, also wanted and thought business and religion should be kept separate. If it was not for God, we would not have a world to live in, much less business. Should we keep denying Him, we may lose our souls – much less our association.

We have looked away on many, many matters and a few in high places have allowed a minority to determine what will be. The Federal Court (High Place!) thought Madeleine Murray O'Hare was justified in taking prayer out of the schools. Even the almighty dollar says, “In God We Trust.”