CHAPTER 1. Enabling the bully

Many American breeders are not entirely familiar with the bully antics of the P.R.E. Breeders Association in Spain known as ANCCE but many are reporting small experiences that have made for unhappy encounters with either the ANCCE services or attitude. Concerning the “threat game”, only Americans that are able to read Spanish are much aware of ANCCE judges losing their jobs or the all important judge-categorization. The ANCCE Department of Silly Accusations works year round to pin down rumors, investigate undesirable associations, and take in reports on who dines with a judge, who drinks with a judge and all these really important kinds of things that detract from any meaningful progress for the breed. From all that I have been able to discern over the years, the grander majority of the ANCCE judges dream primarily of how to get away from this unpleasant tyranny, yet keep the jobs they treasure.

No telling how many hours are spent crafting out punishment for all of us bad little children, but a glance at the disciplinary chapter of the competition rules gives us an idea of the potential courtroom drama in store for just about anybody who crosses this organization. One judge has recently packed his bags and I applaud the brave departure of Rafael Ortiz Alcalá-Zamora, who refused to further stomach the misery of submitting himself to the ANCCE system of threats and punishments. American are sorry to see Rafael leave the scene because many have admired his skills and listened attentively to his clinics. We yet more admire his example of how to best deal with these characters that in no way to us, represent the true Spanish breeder personality.

The ANCCE Executive Game is more like a festering club of cheap suits that must constantly strive to maneuver to best advantage, this role they are seeking so desperately; one that so ill fits the world of the Spanish horse. Thus, it is a struggle to make criticism brief.

Following a review of historical highlights, this chapter will lead into the exciting recent addition to the ANCCE acts which not only reek of an unprofessional composure but also serve to undermine the quality and tradition of the Pure Spanish Horse which so many here have struggled to promote. I speak of those who volunteer their services, dig deep into their pockets, inspire public interest and are willing to drive themselves crazy to pull off an event that promotes the P.R.E., be they members of ANCCE, IALHA, or The Foundation. These groups and people deserve the praise and support of ANCCE, not the threats and unending petty politics. When competitions here take a final dive, the Spanish breeders will have lost their best avenue of trade.

This forum has documented numerous cases of actions which have been described by many as bearing a certain similarity to the organized control techniques of a certain family hailing from Sicilia. But I have also seen published here that use of that name in league with that of ANCCE’s has brought threat of lawsuit to this rare forum of free speech. Further, to be perfectly accurate, I cannot specifically recall that anybody has been reported as “whacked, hit, popped or clipped”, so we will have to skip the extremes of the comparison. Even in spite of those government connections so often alluded to between ANCCE and MARM, I am not going to use the word “shakedown” because surely there is some other reason for why MARM fails to step in and take over their responsibility of Technical Inspector for the P.R.E. Breed. Now, this ANCCE/MARM duo is changing the traditional definition of the P.R.E. breed using the new “Fast-Track system of legislative production”, wherein the resolution text is not even fully published in the legislative act of the State Bulletin (BOE). Instead, it REFERS TO THE MARM WEBSITE for further reading. Wait until you get a load of how ANCCE has now changed P.R.E. breed definition!

Term it however you may like, what successful threats actually do is kill SPIRIT. So, while refraining from too close an identification here, I will walk the line of elucidating my impressions and the reader can decide for themselves if these stories make them feel all warm and fuzzy. ...

One can skip directly to the news of COPA CALIFORNIA in Chapter II, or one can choose to savor the long and sordid history of the practices that have flourished on account of that much-employed word, “enablement”, a sort of “rolling over” that allows any organization to continue a reign of tyranny if they have anything to hang over your head, like for instance, your horse.

Only a few American Organizing Committees for P.R.E. Competitions have come to know that ANCCE has BANNED the most professional Spanish company around, from performing Technical Services. I speak of MELPI, the originators of both an online P.R.E. studbook and online competition programming. I am sure that most will not have seen the letter circulated in Spain by ANCCE which threatened any Organizing Committee who might have hired them with disqualification for participant entry into SICAB. But I have seen it and it was 100% creepy.

ANCCE even went so far as to launch a lawsuit under the guise of protecting “privacy rights” to try to stop the www.gescabonline.com operations of MELPI. Recently, a court has dismissed the merits of the lawsuit, which were ridiculous from the outset. MELPI offers the most useful tool to Technical Directors, while the ANCCE LG site is a real slug for the lack of indexing and that annoying demand for code entry to access every single horse.

Most likely many American P.R.E. breeders are not familiar with the “facia bruta” (ugly face) of ANCCE turned against the breeder Yeguada Torreluna in Spain when he met with their disfavor. But I can tell you that I have seen the letter sent to Organizing Committees in Spain threatening them with the punishment of having a competition not count for SICAB if they were to allow any advertising from this breeder to circulate in their venues. Yes, I am saying….. that one dare not allow a personalized pencil as a marketing souvenir of this breeder to surface in one’s show or you would be OUT OF THE GAME!

You would also have to understand Spanish to have learned that a reporter from a Spanish publication known as “La Voz del Campo” was sequestered against her will and in a most unfriendly manner by security during SICAB, under the instruction of ANCCE, for having exercised her rights of the press. In another year the canine breed name of “Rottweiler” was the word coined by Spaniards to paint the picture of how ANCCE personnel handled undesirable press in yet another incident at SICAB. When proper “socialization” is not formulated into the dog’s character, a ferocious and threatening nature can develop. Under the wrong leadership it can become the worst bully of the policed world. I came close myself to having being bitten by the U.S. variety of the species during my attendance at the March City of Industry competition when the U.S. ANCCE representative showed his teeth over some ancient article written by me. He not being able to properly pinpoint any accusation of mine that failed the test of truth, his conversation rapidly degraded to an ugly, growling personal attack, resorting to the type of name calling which is not at all appropriate either for a competition venue, nor an Official Representative of a civilized organization. Che peccato.

Astute observers may also have taken notice that the two Spanish breeders most affected by the attempts of ANCCE to remove their stallions from the studbook were coincidentally writers from this forum whose criticism of ANCCE can only be measured as obviously effective, in order for ANCCE to single out their possessions. We all know that so many horses in the studbook are of uncertain origin and that maybe only a handful of breeders would be able to produce old blood samples sent to FESCCR or ANCCE. Oddly, the threat to Spanish breeders took place right around ANCCE election time. The threat to “bajar” or lower these horses from the studbook was just a clever bluff. I just now found RUMBOSO VIII in the current ANCCE studbook so he never actually went anywhere.

The point is, the LG ANCCE can come a knock’in at your ranch asking for proofs you may not possibly be able to provide from old blood tests, dead horses, etc. Guess what? You do not have to! The carta issued from Spain is nowhere said to be “revocable” in the studbook legislation of Spain. But what an impact these horror stories made on the breeders.

Here in the U.S., we were introduced to the elimination tactic in an earlier year wherein a major California breeder was “taxed” by ANCCE suddenly removing a number of his horses from the studbook. Sadly there are a great number of breeders who truly believe and fear that ANCCE will find a way to make their lives miserable if they step out of line. True or not, when should one EVER have to even think this is possible with an organization that they depend upon so heavily?

Closer to home, a California breeder suffered a good round of “piacere” (pleasure to meet you) when he had the bad fortune to have bought a qualified stallion from Spain which was bred by a member of the ANCCE executive family and the stallion turned out to be shooting blanks. When the news was made known in this forum, rather than receive any remedy from any of the parties involved, he was treated to a threatening phone call from the U.S., made by one of those whose status in the organization is identified by “dressing the part”. A hankie in the breast pocket will often suffice but I understand that the pinky ring leaves no question. This unfortunate breeder was told to shut up about this bum stallion or he would incur a lawsuit.

Perhaps more subtle was my own experience with the Spanish magazine PURA RAZA which forbade any further criticism of ANCCE. This was certainly not the voluntary decision of the editor, in that he was prohibited himself from any Anti-ANCCE verbiage for the period of 12 months.

It is all a sad, sick commentary on what can become of an organization not checked by its members. These impressions defy the image I have always had of the Spanish. Having traveled to Spain nearly every year since 1983 and living there for three years, I absolutely refuse to accept the behavior of ANCCE as representing the breeders of Spain.

Following the latest ANCCE act of intervention in the appointed personnel of COPA CALIFORNIA, I propose that the first letter of that name be now equated with “Amenazar”, which in Spanish is “to threaten”. There is no doubt in my mind that they deserve it and these few chronicles listed here are only the tip of the iceberg. The impact of the ANCCE action against me is by no means as significant as others. What is truly beyond everybody’s belief here is that ANCCE would step in and so outrageously interfere with an American competition. Dumber still is that they must have calculated that I would say something about it, and they still, DO NOT CARE! Dumber still is that there is documentation of the act, and I have it. I was assured by both the President of COPA CALIFORNIA and the Show Coordinator that the “insistence” of ANCCE was so strong in having their way,that the Show Committee had no way out. Please proceed to Chapter II, keeping in mind that there is NO ACT beyond the capacity of the ANCCE Executive Game when it comes to this lightweight bullying. It has become their second nature and it is not at all attractive.

The stories are endless and I must ask the pardon of those I have failed to mention. More important is understanding how this perceived notion of veiled threats can effectively “do a piece of work” and how the successful practice kills the spirit of the innocent and encourages the enforcers.

Sincerely,
Maria McCarty

Chapter II – COPA CALIFORNIA gets a taste of the ANCCE Bully Treatment

COPA CALIFORNIA 2012 is the dream of a California breeder whose goal was to promote this magnificent horse in Northern California. The very first blight to the competition was the lottery draw of the same judge who was just here in California last March. Following weeks of committee campaigning, the competition was finally able to substitute the judge with the authorization of ANCCE. Justly so, since the earlier chosen judge cannot be allowed to judge in Spain in the week following a competition in the Americas. There was an actual conflict of timing. These small considerations in the rules are often overlooked by ANCCE when it comes to their selecto group of traveling “A” judges that somehow have a jinx on those wooden lottery balls.

When you take a good hard look, the only thing that ANCCE really sends to the competition is the judge. Nobody has been able to fathom what the “sanctioning” of your competition by ANCCE actually means, other than showing up in the Official Calendar with your name usually not spelled correctly. Little attention is paid to the rules because one area where ANCCE is exceedingly reliable is their failure to do any FOLLOW-UP on the competitions. There is absolutely no enforcement and most committees will not even spend the money on the ink it takes to print these 55 pages of ANCCE Competition Rules, plagued with several errors in the English translation that will probably NEVER be corrected. ANCCE has never noticed that some competitions still think that ANCCE competitions are run by FESCCR rules and this is what is published in their competition website. Nevertheless, breeders here will take it upon themselves to try to set up these competitions for various reasons.

Several months ago a representative of The COPA CALIFORNIA Competition for the P.R.E. came to me with the proposition of providing technical direction to a show, presenting the novelty that they would wish their show to be run correctly under the rules. With both a solid contract for services of Technical Direction, and a deposit in place, I began the work about three weeks in advance. My name was published in the premium as Technical Director, my flight was arranged and paid for and the preparations were underway.

On California soil, one must aggressively seek to qualify all horses well in advance of the competition. Otherwise, you have an assortment of problematic horses arriving in trailers from all parts and an Organizing Committee usually unwilling to turn down the entry fee or jump into argument mode with the breeder. This undertaking of “pre-qualification” is my own forced invention and has become necessary because the largest of ANCCE competitions here has been established under the initial conduct of the USPRE organization, where they sort of adopted the conduct of “everything goes”. Thus in earlier years, low standards were set by them in the largest of the ANCCE competitions here and now these sloppy habits are hard to change. Shockingly, I was once told that the organizers were allowing breeders to bring a horse and enter a class as long as they showed up AN HOUR before the section began. Naturally, you can about imagine how this leads to horses that have the wrong names, horses that have no carta, horses not owned by the entrants, and poorly organized sections and awards. Section results were not posted publicly. The candidates for Best Breeder and Exhibitor have NEVER been published for the public, in spite of the rules insisting upon this and the list of infractions is long enough to fill a book. ANCCE looks the other way because let’s face it, they have nothing else going in this country. If breeders are willing to round up 100 or so horses and call it a competition, ANCCE will bless it.

We like to think that all horses in the ring are P.R.E. , but when you have a horse in Section 7 of four year old mares that is noted in the results to be in the “Pre-Inscription phase” you know we have some serious misconduct. Perhaps this is why ANCCE has still not been able to process the CIRCUITO PRE results from the City of Industry 2012 Competition in March. It is the only competition that has no results mounted in the portion of the ANCCE website dedicated to reporting of results in this time period. No wonder….We have a problem of THREE horses without carta. There are double-ownerships recorded, which I guess is like a “sharing” of title for those who fail to notify the studbook of a change of ownership. There will always be some “creative approach” to modify what the rules prescribe. We see a totally incomplete list of Special Prizes in the website of www.circuitopre.com that has not yet been remedied for this March competition, not by today’s date anyhow. And last but not least, we have a company not even recognized by ANCCE for the position of Technical Secretary because they do not have this “homogenized programming” of ANCCE, which is MANDATORY for all competitions. I think if they did have it, we may not see the errors in the computation of the stallion scores in sections 8, 10 and 12 of their website. It is evident that horses are not researched in the studbook. The entry names are simply taken off the entry forms filled out by breeders who will often misspell their horse names or not know what year they were born.

So what is the ANCCE answer to our dilemnas? Bring further havoc to the scene.

For the National Competition of IALHA in Fort Worth Texas last year, ANCCE put their blessing on allowing the Technical Director of the show to actually compete heavily in the show, while taking control of the scoring back at the hotel, after the competition day concluded. Nearly the entire staff was comprised of participants and by allowing the Technical Director to take charge of the results, we had some stellar manipulation of the show results favoring the horses of this T.D./participant. Breeders complained to ANCCE and last I heard, there was never any response. Welcome to the special world of ANCCE P.R.E. competitions in the U.S. – a genuine spectacle of incompetence!

Back to California, where COPA CALIFORNIA is entering the crucial phase of gearing up the sections for June 14th and breeders start asking questions because of course, NOBOBY WOULD EVER READ THE RULES! When it comes to the issues of one year olds, the rules clearly ask for the registration certificate, which though poorly translated into English, is implying the production of the “Pre-Inscription document” which allows the Admissions Panel of the competition to know that the horse has had blood sent off for the DNA match. More importantly for competition purposes, it allows the admissions panel to identify the horse by microchip or the described markings. This is not even saying they are of the P.R.E. breed, but the rules have made this accommodation.

Just one week before the competition was to begin, I am suddenly noticing interference of USPRE in this competition and breeders are beginning to quote incorrect statements regarding competition rules, dictated by USPRE personnel that have absolutely nothing to do with the competition conduct or rule interpretation. However, this was not the view of Alexander Zilo, who is in charge of the ANCCE studbook in the United States. He sends a letter to the President of the COPA CALIFORNIA Competition, explaining that a certain breeder shall be allowed admittance to the competition, though the fillies are clearly two years old and have no carta. Alex had been granted absolutely no authority or title within the competition, yet seeks to interfere with the operations of the Technical Direction and communicates false rule information to the breeder as well.

USPRE sends another letter to a breeder explaining that indeed NO Pre-Inscription document is needed for one year olds to participate, so I have yet another false notification to unravel with the breeder. Upon my challenging these statements made by USPRE, the area being outside of their jurisdiction, I finally receive a USPRE email reversing that position and referencing Jacobo Rojo as the ANCCE Director of Competitions, which indeed he is. Further, I am informed by email that USPRE will not seek any future dialogue in the interpretation of competition rules, (in spite of already having done so upon two documented occasions). Good choice, since they do not know the rules of competition.

What indeed IS their job is to get out microchip kits on time to the breeder. The website of USPRE publishes the mandate of MARM which allows 7 days following receipt of the application for inscription services and payment in which to mail out the kit. Yet the competition office is hearing from breeders that they have been unable to get this kit timely and for one year olds the absence of that document which comes with the kit, prevents their participation under the rules.

Now if this is all happening at the BEGINNING of a competition, it is no stretch to imagine where we are going later with this, given that USPRE was scheduled to have a booth at COPA CALIFORNIA. It would appear that they are trying to make a case for “involvement” with the ANCCE competitions but the reality is that all they have ever provided is confusion, a bad plan for organization and a “Technical Director” who has finally been removed from the USPRE Breeder Advisory Committee. Even here, a person’s reputation, once it is shot from coast to coast, demands remedy of some sort.

New names appearing on the USPRE list are Sabas Trujillo of Yeguada Trujillo and Gustavo Aldana, who is named as the “Technical Director for Morphology” although there is not a single occasion where such title has been granted to this person at any competition here in the U.S. An interesting development is that Gustavo is now working with Yeguada Trujillo, who enters numerous horses into the competitions. This might later make for an intriguing conflict of interests. In conversation with Gustavo about the horses that Trujillo was intending to bring to the competition we touched upon some “ownership issues” that I hoped to see clarified prior to admissions. I was told by Tanya of USPRE that the process of changing ownership is now expected to take 5-6 weeks in the U.S. Many who have paid the old Florida office of ANCCE for this service are now stuck with a separation of accounting between these two administrators. It is easy to see that our competitions are still riddled with many problems and delays born of studbook operation, part of the loveliness of services “Made in Spain”.

The COPA CALIFORNIA Organizing Committee made a solid statement to me in regard to their desire to follow the ANCCE rules and their desire was to model an exemplary show. All quite wonderful sounding, but I do not think they could have truly anticipated what ANCCE is capable of, though it personally comes as no surprise to me. As we are proceeding with the qualification of entries, there is a negotiation taking place behind the scenes where ANCCE seeks to replace the Technical Director, but they are going to call it something else.

I have in my possession a letter from Jacobo Rojo expressly stating to the COPA CALIFORNIA President that ANCCE will be providing their own Technical Director in the person of a Manuel Lopez Cano. This came to my attention following a phone call from the Show Coordinator who was genuinely distressed to impart the news to me that ANCCE had strongly insisted upon this change and in spite of a week long battle, the decision was being FORCED upon the competition. My having a contract, a deposit, even a paid flight did not make any headway in the argument because essentially an ANCCE sanctioned competition can fall victim to a variety of threats. Just like a judge can lose a category, a competition can lose categorization. If it really gets funky, the most radical remedy would be simply for ANCCE to not allow the judge to attend.

However this argument may have genuinely played out, the result is that ANCCE is now sending a computer whiz who currently works in the Bio-Technical Industry, for VITRO SA, in Seville, Spain, to be Technical Director at a competition where he was clearly never invited by the Organizing Committee. The competition will not have to bear the cost but I do not think they entirely understand what they are getting. In the letter from Jacobo, the services described for Manuel Lopez Cano are those of the Technical SECRETARY and indeed this highly-experienced programmer will most likely excel in the operation of computerized results and scoring. But in this letter, Jacobo does not call Manuel the “Technical Secretary”. They have named him Technical Director, (with the job description of Technical Secretary). So, who will be the Tec. Sec.? None other than CIRCUITO PRE.

Well maybe Javier Buendia was busy this week but it would have been a much grander gesture had ANCCE decided to send somebody with some actual experience in the ring for the position of T.D. I am pretty sure that it is going to be the judge who ends up answering a lot of questions on competition conduct while Manuel Lopez Cano tries to show CIRCUITO PRE how to operate the ANCCE program for competitions. Whatever they have in mind here, it is a deception. They are technically SWITCHING AROUND the functions described under their own rules for Secretary, changing that position to Technical Director so as to force my contracted services out of the competition.

Last March at City of Industry, the team of CIRCUITO PRE decided a tie was broken by changing the score on the ficha and apparently this was advice they sought from the ANCCE judge! So if ANCCE was anxious to replace somebody, it would logically be the Technical Secretary, CIRCUITO PRE. But instead, they assume nobody knows the difference and thus assign and name positions totally opposite to what their own rules describe. Thank you, this is JUST what we needed.

I have been paid per my contract and cannot say I will much miss the stress of this upcoming 3-ring circus. But what readers will hopefully discover in the pattern of these stories here is that American breeders are facing a very creepy situation. For ANCCE to impose their choice of Technical Director upon an American competition is unheard of and rather outrageous. Where was ANCCE when the T.D. in Texas was also participating in the show? Where was ANCCE when this T.D. stole off with both fichas and results to the great dismay and ruination of the ERAHC competitions for the P.R.E.? Where has ANCCE been when no T.D. has even been identified for these competitions? WHY, is it only now, that ANCCE decides to interfere?

The letter from Jacobo gave no justification for the replacement and they would be hard-pressed to imagine one. The idea that they would prefer to pay the flight, services and expenses of a guy who is totally foreign to the horse world, other than in the computerization of numbers and systems, is sure sign of their fanatic endeavor. This person who leaves their desk at a Bio-Technical Office in Spain, speaks computer programming languages like Java, has developed software for hotel reservation systems, urban traffic control, etc.…….. and there is an impressive history of all that techie lingo. Horses are not listed as a hobby, but we might carefully consider that he IS a salsa teacher, which is always fun at a competition, likes “ultimate Frisbee” and travel. He has had a freelance contact with ANCCE, listing them as a 2012 client for programming and software development.

If somehow this is the new mold for ANCCE Technical Directors, we are in major trouble. ANCCE just got through letting go of Javier Buendia, and THIS is the replacement? Does the job come with ANCCE providing a pair of boots?

Though I enjoy Technical Direction and was the person to first initiate the title and the tasks here in the U.S. under the 2005 rules, getting people to respect the rules, or even read them, has just been an insurmountable obstacle. Prior to that time, the title was never used and the panels listed under the rules were not even published. Since that time, the title has been granted without qualification to preferably a person who does not charge for their services, or who knows how to pretend like they have read the rules.

Next, we will no doubt have some USPRE representative as they are just dying to extend their control in this area, but have never earned the respect of the breeders for endeavors in Morphology and Functionality. They are a dressage-oriented organization.

In the eastern states, just like every other state in the U.S., except California, the ANCCE competition has been abandoned. It now boils to down to just two organizers for 2012, both in California. IALHA has gotten fed up with ANCCE and now joins The Foundation for their National Championship in Texas.

If ANCCE is trying to win over hearts here, then they must learn to respect the rights of others and to offer competence and uniformity to the competitions. Bullying the committees will only start a new path of resistance, and breeders will one day wake up and say. ANCCE? What show organizer really needs them? They have no Book of Merits and American horses are certainly not headed to SICAB.

Sincerely,
Maria McCarty

To All Concerned:

As President of the IALHA, I would like to take the opportunity to correct one statement in Ms. McCarty's explanation regarding the IALHA's relationship with the Foundation for the Pure Spanish Horse and ANCCE.

Ms. McCarty erroneously states that the “IALHA has gotten fed up with ANCCE and now joins The Foundation for their National Championship in Texas.” In the spring of 2011, the IALHA Board of Directors was presented with offers from both ANCCE and the Foundation to participate in our 2011 Nationals. The Board struck a balance and, in recognition of the difficult relationship between the two associations, decided to alternate years of participation, ANCCE being in 2011, and the Foundation in 2012.

The experience with ANCCE at our 2011 National Show did not play any part in that decision as the show had yet to happen at the time of the decision. After the show this year, the Board will have to consider how to go forward. The board has made no commitments past the 2012 National Show.
Sincerely,

Julie Alonzo, PhD
President, IALHA

Dear Forum Readers;

Here is exactly what I have said and it is simply copied from the contents below, (minus the goofy grammar error); “It now boils down to just two organizers for 2012, both in California. IALHA has gotten fed up with ANCCE and now joins The Foundation for their National Championship in Texas.”

The National Championship in Texas is where many breeders of the P.R.E. often will choose to bring their horse to compete, rather than go to California. Texas has a good share of P.R.E. breeders and the show has traditionally offered a Spanish judge in attendance. But this is only one competition of IALHA. Bringing over a Spanish judge costs a lot of money and their last National Show actually had two judges from Spain, one ANCCE judge evaluating the Andalusians (not required to be registered with ANCCE) and another judge for the ANCCE Morphology and Functionality Competition.

Without the support of the breeders who participate in the classes for the P.R.E., it is pretty difficult to sponsor the expenses of a show with a judge from Spain.
The service fee of a judge is almost $1900 USD, plus all travel expenses from Spain, hotel, transportation and meals while in the U.S. When a competition does not have enough breeders interested in competing within the Spanish sections, then the money does not come from entry fees. It has to come from breeders willing to sponsor the classes. When the breeders, to save money, decide to use the participants in positions of competition staff and the results are unsatisfactory, these breeders will not want to repeat the experience. This show was the first occasion where I heard of breeders actually writing to ANCCE to express their displeasure over a show where rules were violated in major and obvious ways. These breeders are the ones you would be asking to come to another ANCCE show and from the participant’s point of view, they were certainly “fed-up”, I would say they were more like “livid”.

But there are other shows that IALHA has been involved in with ANCCE, not just Texas.

For 2012 it may very well be that the IALHA show committee decided on alternating organizers for their P.R.E. show. I doubt that anybody would have registered for an ANCCE class there this year, so lucky for the alternating of choices. But this is not the sole reason for my making the comment.

It is notable that in 2012 there are NO competitions of IALHA associated with ANCCE. What happens is that over a period of time, those participants who were totally disenchanted with a competition conducted under ANCCE rules, stop coming. But when I say “conducted under ANCCE rules”, I have to say this means absolutely NADA. The rule thing is usually just theory and hearsay and the committees sort of do whatever they want, knowing ANCCE will never check in on them. But when breeders walk away from a competition unhappy over its conduct, it takes a whole of salesmanship to bring them back.

Money being tighter these days, if attendance was miserable in one year, very few will bank on spending money for the next year, especially after all those disappointing cancellations from 2011. So maybe the show committee does not get as “FED UP” as the breeders who had the bum experiences, but IALHA has a lot of members and nationwide, they certainly made some noise about their dissatisfaction over several ANCCE competitions that were linked to IALHA venues by sharing the same dates and venue.

How long will it take these breeders to forget about what happened in these recent ANCCE competitions? We will see. The danger in an organization linking their show to an ANCCE show is that when participants are unhappy, it becomes a nasty little problem for the overall organizer and there is really nobody standing up to take the hit for ANCCE. They are in another country and all you can do is write! Which does not mean they will answer.

Another important show was the Burbank show known as Fiesta of the Spanish Horse where the largest classes, are of IALHA. This venue had been ANCCE territory up until last year when so few entries showed up, that the competition was cancelled. In the two prior years the attendance in the ANCCE sections was also so low, that one judge from Spain took pity and actually donated his service fee. In 2012 this competition held a show with The Foundation and there were 52 P.R.E. signed up as of May 1st, 2012.

In 2011 IALHA did not opt to join up with the Tour Novo ANCCE shows and those shows were cancelled and moved around so many times it may have indeed been impossible to join up with them. Luckily we are not seeing any of those pop up this year.

IALHA IS its members and when the breeders, for as much as they want a P.R.E. judge to look at their animal, are discouraged by the conduct of an ANCCE competition, the future competitions are simply too risky. Show committees have to assess what the breeders want in order to schedule classes.

ERAHC is one of the oldest competitions in the U.S. for Andalusians and Lusitanos and they are not having an ANCCE show in 2012 in conjunction with IALHA classes.

ANCCE has shown no plan nor demonstrated any intentions to clean up this mess that has been created from ANCCE lack of supervision and communications. But they do know that it looks pretty bad when they only have TWO viable competition organizers in 2012.

Now, they have proceeded to administer the bully treatment to one of them and I have yet to hear somebody say that they LOOK FORWARD TO MORE.

It is the P.R.E. breeder who populates these shows. A lot of these breeders may belong to IALHA or to The Foundation and in 2012 neither one of these organized supporters of the P.R.E. or Andalusian Horse have signed up with ANCCE Competitions in any state, anywhere in the U.S. This says something. It says something to the Spanish breeders wanting to sell their horses here because these two well-established organizations have active websites, their own magazines and are the channel for many promotions that lead to horse sales.

The two California organizers who remain on the map with 2012 ANCCE shows tend to draw attendance from breeders that may not have a true affinity for either group, but they DO KNOW when a show is screwy. To not have the rules applied uniformly causes arguments. It cannot be done one way in March, and then another way, in June, unless the ANCCE rules have changed. They have not.

If an organization is going to claim to be “international”, then one must tend to business in many languages. The bully language may work in some cultures but a large group of Americans have said “no thank you” and as much as they have not wanted to break with Spain, it was the only choice. Other cultures will put up with this jive because they are too weak to stage the battle or are accustomed to being bullied. This does not make it right, or admirable.

Sincerely,
Maria McCarty

Chapter III – THE ANCCE EFFECT

Dear Forum Readers;

Well, in case you were unable to start from the beginning here and understand the set-up, you are now walking into the real action. As the first day of the competition begins, you will be able to take some lessons in how ANCCE can come in and totally set up your show to not follow the rules.

I have never heard of any other competition having to accept a Technical Director sent and paid for by ANCCE to their competition, especially now in these poverty days of less money from MARM, the great government fountain of funding that is rapidly drying up for ANCCE. But what is going to be truly interesting is to watch how this arrangement set up by the ANCCE Competition Dept. is going to unfold.

The brief version is that Jacobo Rojo who directs the ANCCE Competition Department for ANCCE in Spain has literally imposed upon the Sacramento, California ANCCE competition a brand new Technical Director from Seville, Spain, and has described in his letter to the competition President that this person, Manuel Lopez Cano, will be “running the competition computerized program” . Jacobo has also noted that it has been this person who was responsible for this particular software development. Now this is not at all the job of the Technical Director as described under the rules of ANCCE. Jacobo has actually just outlined the work of the Technical Secretary. But the event program names CIRCUITO PRE from Mexico as the Technical Secretary.

So now what we have is a Technical Director who knows the scoring program but not the rules…. and a Technical Secretary who does not have the ANCCE program, nor know the rules, but will post the competition online in their own version. To play this game you are going to have to follow the websites of www.circuitopre.com which has a pretty simple home page, just go to “concursos”, then select the 2012 COPA CALIFORNIA. The section numbers appear across the top of the page and for now please have a look at Section 3. Toward the bottom of the list you are going to see the horse name NAILA, belonging to Vargas Ranch. Section 3 is two year old fillies. In the ANCCE competition rules it is clearly stated that all horses must have cartas and be in the studbook of Spain. An exception is only made for the one year old, wherein the Pre-Inscription Document is accepted. Nowhere in the rules does ANCCE provide for ANY OTHER EXCEPTION. Now they want us all to use these rules and the concept of uniformity is boasted right within the very preface of these rules.

So what is NAILA doing in Section 3 when she does not have a carta? As of just this morning, California time, the name does not appear in the ANCCE studbook online at LGANCCE.com. If any of you can find it there, we would sure like to know about it and please state what time you found it, because such a revelation would shatter all records for ANCCE production of an American breeder carta.

Here is what the plan appears to be. The competition sections are going to be mounted into the website of CIRCUITO PRE. The reason? This system will accept anything you want to feed into it. The competition programming system brought over at great expense by Manuel Lopez Cano of Spain is not even being employed thusfar. As of this morning if you go to www.ancce.es, then click on the English side, going to “Competition”, then “Conformation”, then “Calendar”, you will see the June competitions all pop up on the screen. For the big Valencia competition that has three judges you will see the word “online” which means that the Technical Secretary for the competition has loaded in all the participating horses into their sections and the first round of scores are already appearing and there are 20 horses in section 3.

For the competition in Salamanca, the word “inscritos” means that the entries are already inscribed into their sections but this competition does not begin until tomorrow. The Murieta competition known as COPA CALIFORNIA is said to be in development but you do not see an indication of either inscriptions or scores underway. Why is this? Well, there is a problem with the ANCCE system when you try to enter horses without carta. The easy way to explain this is to direct you to the Guatemala competition which is toward the top of the ANCCE June list and you can open it up and see Section 1. This is your one year old filly class. FOUR OUT OF SIX entries do not have cartas. The names that are underlined have cartas and if you click on those names, you go into the studbook information. The names that have no underlines have no cartas. If you click on those, you go nowhere. Being one year olds they do not have to have cartas yet but it is interesting to note that outside of Spain there are other countries besides ours that have plenty of one year olds without cartas.

What will be interesting to watch is to see how ANCCE is going to be able to enter NAILA into the Section 3 of their online competition version, or even the final competition results. I believe that the ANCCE system will not accept a horse that has no carta beyond the one year old sections. But we are going to find out today because most likely they will get to Section 3 in Sacramento. The question is ARE they going to mount this competition into the ANCCE website so that we can watch how they totally screw up this competition? I can already see that the programmer Manuel Lopez Cano has been into the system and inserted the COPA CALIFORNIA logo, but that is about all. He may still be working on how to plug in horses without carta and also horses that are not registered in the studbook under the current owner. I have already found at least three such incidents of wrong ownership just doing a spot check, and only up to section 8.

We will get to ownership problems later but the larger infraction is certainly the inclusion of a horse without carta. NAILA belongs to Vargas Ranch and this breeder was sent a copy of a letter from Alexander Zilo of USPRE, the ANCCE studbook connection in the U.S., addressed to the President of the COPA CALIFORNIA competition. In this letter, Alex is pretty much instructing the competition that this horse has met the criteria competition. Only,.. this is not true and Mr. Zilo is mistaken. It takes more than a name and a microchip number and a letter from somebody who is not even on the competition staff.

There are only two things that can be true here. One, would be that the Pre-Inscription document was faulty, though completed by an authorized vet, and the horse was actually born in 2011 and they just have it in the wrong section. Two, would be that ANCCE is going to produce a carta for a horse that only submitted the Pre-Inscription information and presumably the blood sample in the beginning of May 2012. Either, they remove this filly from Section 3 or they produce a carta by today! Otherwise the horse should not compete and I challenge anybody to locate the rule that allows two year olds into the competition under these circumstances. Committees are strictly forbidden from making up rules that conflict with the ANCCE rules, so what do we have here?

What happens is that breeders all come with their sad stories of their miserable experiences with the studbook. But do we allow entry based upon the quality or drama of the LG horror tale ? Does the LG personnel need to step in and do emergency operations to accommodate unhappy LG customers? Where do we find ANY of this in the rules?

The Technical Director is sent by ANCCE into the frying pan. His job is to interpret and try to uphold the rules. If this horse without carta (as of this morning) should win Best Movements or Champion Filly against other horses that DO have cartas, that have proved that their DNA matches up, that have obeyed the rules, there can be protest. But then is too late because the horse will have been judged. What these actions force upon the participants is that big defeated feeling of coming to a competition, paying the entry fee, expecting a professional conduct under the rules and you are shafted before you even begin.

This case is probably not important enough for ANCCE to try to rush through this carta and if the programmer tries to include it into the registry by slapping a codigo on it, the breeder is still supposed to present a copy of the carta for the competition records and this would be quite miraculous. These are the reasons ANCCE sends a Technical Director who will turn the other way or help the committee see the rules some other way than what the words express.

But now let’s get to the fun and games of the ownership issue. Here is the rule in English. Please let me know what part may be unclear in this article from the current ANCCE rules: Article 25.- Breeders may only enter only those horses they own. For identification purposes, only the breeder code shall be taken into consideration, with all horses competing under that breeder code, whether or not they were bred on that Stud Farm.

Many competition organizers that use the ANCCE program for competitions actually begin their entries by just going to the list of horses owned by the breeder. In the computerized program, such a list is available to the Admissions Panel. It is invaluable for the Best Exhibitor or Best Breeder Award because all horses entered on that list must be under the same breeder codigo.

If a horse is not owned under the breeder code, the breeder is not considered to own the horse. The rules do not talk about accepting bills of sale, signed owner transfer cards, etc. New owners must register their ownership with the studbook and they must think of getting this done well in advance of a competition. Otherwise you have breeders lending horses, taking them back for the next competition and all kinds of games.

The first acid test of ownership is submitting documents and payment with an application to change the title, but even this is not the final determination. The reason is, that sale documentation can be lacking, even payment information can fail and there are many, many breeders who do not successfully get their ownership transferred for really dumb paperwork reasons. The final acid test is that the registry receives all in good order, collects that fantastic sum and eventually you see your name as the new owner in the registry. All else does not count. If it does, please locate that sentence in the rules for me. The registry is the only sure thing for the Technical Director, the other participating breeders and the public.

The CIRCUITO PRE system will allow anything the committee feeds to them. But ANCCE has sent a Technical Director who is supposed to guide the Admissions Panel into following the rules. It will be interesting to see what comes up in the ANCCE site, since all of the following owner names are currently not registered correctly. But you will be able to compare what is posted on the CIRCUITO PRE site with what is in the studbook as of today.

CHECK OUT -

INGRATA ANG of Section 3 shown in the studbook as still owned, by of all people, YEGUADA DEL HIERRO DE ANGEL, but entered in the competition by Rancho Los Perez.

In the same section we also have ARTISTA PM II whose recorded owner is Hermanos Marti Verdia, but the entry comes in under Rancho Afortunado.

In section 4 we have NICOLETO MSL, still in the LG under Monte San Lorenzo, SL, but entered to compete by Rancho Afortunado.

What is likely to happen here? If the programmer is able to go into the studbook and make a title change to the studbook, which links to the competition results, we will know it has been done by the programmer because as of today these horses are in the names of the old owners. Maybe the results will never actually appear in the ANCCE website and we need not worry. But then why did ANCCE send this competition software expert all the way to California from Sevilla if not to demonstrate and set up the program to show online results for this competition? This was the goal stated in the letter from Jacobo, so we really should start seeing some results posted at www.ancce.es in the next few hours. Then we will see how they are going to handle all these illegal entry issues. The two other competitions running on the same dates in Spain are up and running.

Please keep in mind that this was not the planned or desired structure of competition conduct that the California organizers had in mind. Their original plan has been altered and derailed by ANCCE when the simple thing would have been to just hand over the Technical Secretary duties of CIRCUITO PRE to the competition programmer, Manuel Lopez Cano. Instead, they will have conflicting online systems. CIRCUITO PRE cannot run the ANCCE scoring program on their website and ANCCE cannot dare record the entry information as it stands from the online records of CIRCUITO PRE into their ANCCE online competition program. The system of ANCCE is most likely designed to not allow the organizing committees that use this program to manipulate changes but ANCCE has sent to Sacramento the person whom they say has developed and improved this program, so we shall see what all is possible.

Sincerely,
Maria McCarty

mariaaaaaaaaaaaaa

tienes mucho tiempo libre,noooooooooooooooooo

jajajajajaja

CHAPTER IV – Systems Collide

The problem with having two technical secretaries at one competition is that they will each have their own system and they will not interface correctly either in format or information.

What we have at COPA CALIFORNIA is the competition program of ANCCE brought over at special expense of ANCCE, which shows the current owner in the studbook, and the system of CIRCUITO PRE from Mexico which has the name of the owner given to them by the organizing committee, displayed in their website with various versions of the namestyle. Final results in ANCCE are therefore giving credit to previous owners, many of them in Spain, who are obviously not in California entering their horses to compete.

Next we have some entries in CIRCUITO PRE sections that do not appear in ANCCE, and vice versa. This is true of Section 11 and with back numbers only being used in the ANCCE system, there is also a very odd relationship of numbers, some missing.

What happens when a horse without carta goes into an ANCCE programmed competition? The system will let it in, even if it is two years old. At www.ancce.es under the Murieta competition, finally online (after missing the entire first day), check out section 3 and you will see the name NAILA, only it has no underlining beneath the name indicating it has no relationship to the LG when you click on the name. So this means that the filly is NOT IN THE STUDBOOK. This means that the blood sample has not yet verified that we have a PRE. For the three entries placing below this horse in the competition, they have lost out to a horse that should not have even been in the ring.

Under the rules, Organizing Committees can actually be fined by the ANCCE Follow-Up commission for any one of the numerous crimes enumerated in the disciplinary section of the rules. However, when ANCCE insists upon sending over a Technical Director to show the competitions how to NOT follow the rules, there is no section dedicated to the theme.

Learning that ANCCE has allowed at least five horses to come in under ownership names different from that of the entrant, teaches the breeders that it is OK and so this will become impossible to enforce at other competitions where an organizing committee attempts to follow the rules, which are very clear as to ownership. The LACK OF UNIFORMITY is what is killing the integrity of the competitions and even ANCCE does not encourage uniformity in the application of their own rules. Is there some explanation for this?

Yes, I am taking the time to go into great detail here because we are getting down to our last surviving competitions and there is only one left in this year for ANCCE in the U.S. When ANCCE is going to pay to send us personnel that is supposed to uphold the rules, what kind of example is this? Breeders are not often aware of the rules, but when they are not enforced, it affects the next competition. ANCCE has now established that horses over the age of one, may enter an ANCCE competition without carta if they secure a letter from Alex Zilo. It teaches competitors that one need not sweat getting their horse registered in their name because it is child's play to slip into a competition with the horse still in the name of the previous owner.

Today at the competition begins functionality and later in the day we will have the morphology sections for stallions. There will be another collision of the two formats being used by the Technical Secretaries. I have to suggest following the ANCCE online version over the CIRCUITO. One, because the breeder and all other horse information is named. Two, because the computation for the stallion scoring is properly stated.

YEGUADA DEL LAGO of the Girona province in Spain will have their horse JALEO XXX being seen in section 12, so somebody please let them know that they are competing in California!!

Sincerely,
Maria McCarty

CHAPTER V -

No results,
late results,
conflicting results
and another ownership infraction

Dear Forum Readers;

It is Saturday, when the Special Prizes are being awarded and I have already heard of two breeders that have left the competition mad. I am at home following this online, where there are only photos and videos of the animals, and not the adults. So I can only provide an accounting of what is visible online and that is keeping me busy enough since we have two technical secretaries at work here with two different versions of competition reporting, each with errors.

At this point I am feeling more than grateful to ANCCE for providing my paid vacation away from the confusion evidenced online. Here is what was happening as of last night, still not straightened out as of this morning around 9 a.m.:

The stallion sections reported by ANCCE have the correct 75% of the morphology score showing at www.ancce.es. Those reported by www.circuitopre.com are not correct and it appears to me that the reason is due to the structure of the reporting columns set up in the website. Nevertheless, any participant in this show will see that the morphology score and the functionality score do not add up to the total shown at CIRCUITO PRE. The incorrect column is that of “C. Parcial” because it fails to go three places beyond the decimal. Yet, I have seen in this website, scores running out into four places beyond the decimal without rounding into the third and this is definitely the sign of a Technical Secretary that needs to study up on scoring practices.

Yesterday, both reporting systems were shut down for about 10 hours. Here’s what we ended up with:

A six year old mare taking Best Functionality (awarded by age group) from the four year old stallions in Section 8, according to the report in www.circuitopre.com . See section 8. The format for this website probably did not have a place to insert the morphology score for a mare. But nor does ANYBODY seem to know that you do not measure the functionality score of a section 9 (5 and 6 yr. old) mare against section 8 (4 yr. old) stallions. The comparison would take place against the section 10 stallions which are of the same age group. Then, in the ANCCE version the section 9 mare is awarded MF for Best Functionality score within her section which is also contrary to the rules which only allow this award to the highest score of the AGE GROUP and this mare did not beat out the section 10 stallion DISTINGUIDO ARM. What a mess. And guess what? Most of the participants would not even be aware of what is going on because they do not know the rules either.

Some delay would also be caused when each secretary posts different lists for section 10. All of a sudden we have an additional stallion that was not in the original entry group of CIRCUITO PRE, usually signaling a late entry, a practice said to be forbidden by the competition rules under the ANCCE seven day deadline. By the way, for as much as I am fond of this particular ANCCE rule, the breeders are so used to coming to venues at the last minute, that short of not allowing their participation, it seems there is no way to retrain them from the standards set by earlier competitions. To see that this late entry would be from the President of USPRE, Kim Boyer, makes lots of sense. Further, the ANCCE LG shows the horse to be in the name of Hampton Green Farms and the Competition Secretary has it entered under the ownership of a Cindy Ramirez S. If USPRE staff cannot even get ownership recorded on time, there is a real problem. But who knows, maybe the secretary has entered the name of the rider as the owner. Anything is possible here…

The information for section 14, the Cobra of Five, is not even available in the website of CIRCUITO, but you can see that indeed there was one, since the score for Yeguada Armendariz is seen in the ANCCE report. But what would really chap my hide if I were the breeder, would be to see that CIRCUITO has failed to show the results of the highly important Section 13 for the cobra of three. Their version is showing NP for “no participation”. They have failed to report that the cobra of Armendariz took 107.500 points, against the 99.500 of Trujillo.

Including the late entry, there are now six horses competing in the name of the wrong owner. At least two stallions have left the competition field, evidenced by the lack of a morphology score and confirmed by the breeder representative who was just fed up with how the competition was going.

And just when I was thinking the ANCCE version should be superior to the CIRCUITO scene, since ANCCE has paid so much to provide (in effect) a second Technical Secretary, bringing that wonderful “homogenized” program,.. I see that section 8 is a disaster. The section has put the second horse in first place because the morphology score of ORFEON DE TORRE is missing from their computation. But if you look at the CIRCUITO report you clearly do see a score for ORFEON. So how does ANCCE miss part of this equation? Who knows? There is a picture of this stallion at www.circuitopre.com and it is definitely pictured at this venue so whether we have a lost morphology ficha or just two secretaries not communicating, this needs to be straightened out, since the ANCCE results will be the official records. If the horse was somehow eliminated, then CIRCUITO would not be able to report the points seen in their section 8. It is now an entire day later without remedy and when they put together the candidates for Champion Stallion; somebody is going to be out of place and perhaps out of a special prize! Is there actually a Technical Director at this competition?

The Special Prizes usually do not post candidates or even videos, but if I can get a straight version out of either website on final results, I will post it here.

Sincerely,
Maria McCarty

Dear Patient Readers;

SPECIAL PRIZES AS COPIED FROM CIRCUITO PRE results are below. You will note that the Champion Filly is missing (sub-campeona joven) but customarily this website fails to post all the prizes. Best Breeder and Exhibitor should be known by now.

The ANCCE pages have no Special Prizes recorded at all, nor do they have anything for section 11 and they still have not corrected section 8 where all the morf. points for a Trujillo stallion have been left off, from YESTERDAY'S scoring.

The CIRCUITO site fails to mention the Section 13 and 14 cobra scores, but you can see them at ANCCE. One would think that between two technical secretaries we could get the results posted correctly. So much for the magical ANCCE formula.....


Nombre / Ganaderia /Premio

Jerezana CA ANDAURORA RANCH Campeón de Mejores Movimientos Joven
YACA DE LUNA YEGUADA TRUJILLO Campeón de Mejores Movimientos Adulto
PETENERA DE LUNA YEGUADA TRUJILLO Campeona Joven del Concurso
Bandido RLN YEGUADA TRUJILLO Campeón Joven del Concurso
Conde de trujillo YEGUADA TRUJILLO Sub-Campeón Joven del Concurso
Triguera VI YEGUADA TRUJILLO Campeona del Concurso
Amanecer ARM RANCHO ARMENDARIZ Sub-Campeona del Concurso
DISTINGUIDO ARM RANCHO ARMENDARIZ Campeón del Concurso
Remendado VII YEGUADA TRUJILLO Sub-Campeón del Concurso
Remendado VII YEGUADA TRUJILLO Campeón Absoluto de Funcionalidad
Jertes DORADO ANDALUZ Sub-Campeón Absoluto de Funcionalidad

The highest point of all the sections went to Yeguada Armendariz for his cobra of 3 mares scoring 107.500 points, all bred by this breeder. The highest point in an individual section was 101.438, also going to an Armendariz creation, the stallion DISTINGUIDO ARM. The judge was Ignacio Bravo Garcia.

Congratulations to all the above horses, breeders and owners!

Sincerely,

Maria McCarty

Dear Forum Readers;

Well, just when we thought it was all over………ANCCE published a pdf version of the Murieta results in their webpage at www.annce.es that CONFLICTS in several areas with the results relied upon at the competition, those posted at www.circuitopre.com.

Hard to say which of these two entities does not know how to add up fichas. Would it be Circuito PRE who conducted the only competition with absolutely no results listed on the ANCCE website for the March competition? Or would it be the technical expert that ANCCE insisted attend the competition in order to share with us the wonders of Spanish technology?

The most important question is; WHO IS THE REAL CHAMPION OF FUNCTIONALITY?

According to the ANCCE pdf version of results, we see JERTES with a score of 24.750 points in section 12 for functionality. This clearly is above the 24.250 points of REMENDADO VII, awarded champion at the competition and with his score of 24.250 confirmed by the results of Circuito PRE.

Two other entries have different scores in the pdf version of ANCCE, than those reflected in Circuito PRE reporting. But here is the real exciting part. We are going to have to wait to see if the breeders are able to actually GET their fichas before we are even able to know which of these two professional parties needs a new adding machine.

What will be most shocking will be to see that the ANCCE system is in error, especially in view of the big promo letter written by Jacobo Rojo of ANCCE stating that the competition truly NEEDS this software developer guy to bring this highly sophisticated scoring program to the competition and share this wonderful system, all its new improvements etc. Well I can tell you that the online reporting of results through this system was a total flop, actually taking days to record information, having all kinds of errors and demonstrating an inability to properly record the mare functionality results. But what is really going to hurt is if the pdf version of ANCCE, entitled “Clasificaciones Finales” is wrong. You might observe that it does not even agree with their own online version!

If, on the other hand, the final ANCCE version is correct and Circuito PRE is wrong, then somebody will be coughing up a major trophy and this is no fun at all. It appears that until the breeders are able to get their hands on their fichas, it is hard to say which of these two technical secretaries has taken correct notes on the scores. But the really smart thing would have been TO COMPARE NOTES before publishing numbers that do not even jive between these two systems.

I have now gone over to reporting on the Spanish side of the forum since all the breeders in Spain will be far more amused. Also, down the road, these breeders of Spain will understand why there are fewer and fewer PRE competitions in the U.S., drying up the best promotional tool for expansion of the breed into this market. A large thanks could go out to their beloved PRE association who bring us these disasters from time to time and I believe this last ANCCE- go'round was free of charge to the competition.

Stay tuned. And the next time any of you decide to attend one of these affairs, would you please bring some extra ink for the printer so that breeders can get their fichas?

Sincerely,
Maria McCarty