Molly Sorge: What inspired the creation of the North American Riders Group?
Chris Kappler: I remember clearly at the Gold Cup in 2008. We were having a riders’ meeting, and I think the frustrations of the riders and whoever else was there in that meeting finally hit an all-time high. It seemed like, for the first time, people were really willing to band together and attempt to do something about the problems we saw. From there, a small group of us—Beezie Madden, Jimmy Torano, McLain Ward, Kent Farrington, Norman Dello Joio and myself—started slowly trying to put a group together. We’re all a lot of strong individuals; you have to be very self-centered and focused if you want to be a successful competitor. But everyone was willing to set that aside and make a group that was willing to work together to make a difference and effect change. I really felt it. And we’ve kept that energy.
MS: How did you make the transition from frustration and desire for change into action?
CK: I think back to our first annual meeting in February 2009, and everybody left that meeting frustrated, not really knowing what to expect or how we hoped to make differences. It was sort of the announcement of a group, without any plan going forward.
But that meeting evolved into actually developing a group and a working process. The addition of Murray Kessler to our board—he’s a Fortune 500 CEO—has given us incredible organization. He’s really helped us think about how to get results by developing processes to getting things done. We’re making real progress, and he’s been instrumental in organizing us.
We came up with some very focused initiatives to work on so we weren’t scattered and trying to be all things to all people. We decided to work on a few things very thoroughly and let people see our accomplishment, and then we can grow from there.
MS: What are the goals of NARG?
CK: Our mission is to unite professional riders and trainers to use their collective strengths to make show jumping in North America the best in the world.
As part of that, we’re looking to give riders and trainers a voice. It seemed that more shows were lowering their standards and at the same time getting more expensive. There was no communication between horse show managers and exhibitors. We felt like the federation was more on the horse show side than on the exhibitor side.
So we wondered, “What’s our best plan of attack to start communicating with show managers and the federation about the things that we want?”
MS: What kind of response have you gotten from show managers and USEF officials?
CK: In the beginning it varied from show to show, with some show managers being almost irate about our involvement to some show managers being open to what we said.
ADVERTISEMENT
But when they saw that we were offering up what we felt were our most constructive criticisms, with solutions, they warmed up to us. We’re trying to offer up solutions about what they can do with their assets to make things better, instead of just complaining.
As this process has evolved, I think we’re doing really well. Show managers are getting a unified voice and a clear opinion from the riders, and I think they’re starting to see and understand that if they make some of the improvements we suggest, going forward they’ll get results from it in terms of attendance.
MS: Explain the Top 25 horse show list.
CK: From the about 1,400 competitions the USEF holds, we came up with 50 we wanted to evaluate. Then we designated NARG-approved people to start rating the shows. Most of the shows surveyed had at least one evaluation from a NARG board member, but there are a lot of other people who work with us on the evaluation sheet and go from show to show. We try to get four or five people to evaluate per show so it’s not just one person’s opinion.
We have a very detailed survey of each show, covering everything. Our evaluation is based on creating big events—putting spectators in the stands, how much went into advertising the event, how much prize money is there, right down to footing, stabling, food options and hotels in the area. It covers a broad range of things, and in the end, you come out with a percentage based on the scores.
At the end of the year, the shows get our evaluation, so they can see and have a chance to respond to it. They really get the most direct and open comments from us, complete with praise and criticisms.
MS: You’ve taken a verbal stand against the USEF’s mileage rule. Why do you think it’s so harmful to U.S. shows, and what has NARG done in an effort to revisit the mileage rule?
CK: I think that the USEF has allowed the horse shows to go basically unregulated. There’s a virtual monopoly, and yet there is no regulation to go along with the monopoly. I understand why the mileage rule exists, but it’s allowed many of the shows to become stagnant and even to be able to do less and ask more. That’s directly opposite of what we want going forward.
The few really good events that we had in the United States are struggling. We’ve lost our best show in America [according to the NARG Top 25], the Syracuse Invitational. The American Invitational is on the verge of going away, and the American Gold Cup has been struggling. We lost the Charlotte Jumper Classic. It just seems like one by one, these unique, special events are dying away. I think it’s because we’ve allowed a corporate culture to come in and take over show management. It’s more about business than creating sport or real competition.
If the shows are going to have protection, we want them to be regulated with regards to quality. Show management has to prove that they’re willing to create an infrastructure for and invest in future big events. We’ve got to clean up the calendar a little bit of a lot of the shows that are clogging the system and preventing new shows that want to create something bigger and better.
Bill Moroney at the U.S. Hunter Jumper Association has created the giant work of show standards. For the existing shows, the show standards have to be enforced aggressively by the USEF. A $500 fine here and there doesn’t cut it. These shows are making good money, and there has to be some severe discipline, such as losing dates, if they don’t meet the standards.
That’s one of the things we’re hoping to be able to assist with—evaluating a show’s adherence to the show standards. We’re in support of building a good infrastructure of new shows that offer good prize money and focus on creating competition instead of just business as usual.
ADVERTISEMENT
MS: It seems like NARG is primarily comprised of names from the bigger shows. How do you represent and benefit the grassroots level of horse showing?
CK: Our group feels that we’re in a trickle-down kind of situation. Anything and everything we can do at the higher levels only benefits the grassroots level as well. Devon show management upgraded their footing, not only for Devon, but for every other show that’s happening at that facility, whether it’s hunter/jumper or dressage. Everybody’s benefiting. We feel that what we’re doing is going to help everybody in the end, and that’s our goal.
MS: What are NARG’s goals for the immediate future?
CK: Our forward strategy is a five-point scenario. No. 1 is to continue the Top 25 horse show rankings. That’s where we’ve seen the most improvement in working with the shows.
No. 2 is one of our biggest points, the prize money realignment rule. Pony jumpers competing for $25,000 and adult amateurs competing for $50,000 is the wrong message. We believe that prize money should be a reward for height of jumping.
We’ve sent in several rule changes to encourage the USEF to give higher prize money to the bigger divisions. We believe in using prize money to reward height and difficulty. That’s a big reform we believe will help create an atmosphere of wanting to improve your skills and wanting to move up.
Now, if someone competing in the low amateur-owner jumpers sees that at the next week’s show, there’s a $25,000 adult amateur jumper classic, they’ll drop down. We don’t want people dropping down and poaching. We want people moving up and getting better and being rewarded for it with higher prize money in the bigger divisions.
No. 3 is show standards implementation, which works hand in hand with our first initiative of working with the shows through the Top 25 list, but we want to expand this by working with the USEF on show standards enforcement.
Our No. 4 is exciting; this year, at the request of our membership, we are going to be hosting open meetings, one during the [FTI] Winter Equestrian Festival (Fla.), one (date and location to be determined) on the West Coast and one during the Hampton Classic (N.Y.). That will allow our membership to have some time face-to-face with board members and help come up with some strategies and initiatives.
Our No. 5 initiative is a new project this year for us: the owners’ pride initiative. We really want to develop pride in and recognition of owners of both international team horses and developing young horses for U.S. riders. We think both the USEF and competitions should help reward American ownership for U.S. riders. It’s our goal to make owning horses for U.S. riders special again. That has to be a real priority, to bring back a sense of nationalism to our country and a desire to support our American riders.
MS: What would you like to see NARG accomplish in the next 10 years?
CK: It’s frustrating to feel you have to go anywhere in the world but the United States to compete at a really high level. In the summer, riders spend thousands of dollars and go all the way to Spruce Meadows (Alta.) or to Europe because it’s just so much better. It’s not just a little better there—it’s miles better than any other show during the summer. There, it feels like you’re actually competing and being rewarded for it when you do well. We don’t have that—it’s just business as usual here in the United States.
If I saw that in 10 years, the rest of the world was coming to the United States to show, I’d be really happy.
