I was at a show this weekend, announcing, and several issues and conversations arose in regards to “fillers.” It got me to thinking, and I honestly don’t know where I stand on the issue. On the one hand, as a rider and a horse show worker, I really want the medals to fill; on the other hand, as a judge and an association officer and delegate, there’s something that just doesn’t sit well with me about using them.
What is a “filler” exactly? A filler is a rider that gets put into a qualifying class so the class will meet the minimum number of riders needed in order for the class to “count” and the winner to qualify (and I’m talking about hunt seat equitation medal qualifying classes because that is my only experience with fillers). Often, the riders that want the class “filled” will split the cost of the entry fee for the filler and sometimes even pay for an association membership for the filler. In turn, the filler is supposed to purposely make an error that would prevent them from winning the class; usually that means they will do a circle somewhere on the course or break to a trot or halt in order to be dropped to the bottom of the pinning.
What does the filler get out of it? The filler gets a little extra mileage in the ring, but mostly they get the gratitude of their fellow horse-show enthusiasts and the possibility that the favor will be returned to them some day.
This also really helps the show managers. They want their shows to have a reputation for always filling their medal classes. That reputation will help ensure that their shows are successful. A show that has a reputation for never filling their medals will slowly get less and less people showing there. Riders and trainers will save their money for a show where they know they have at least a chance to qualify.
So everyone is happy, right?…..well, not everybody….
I was at a recent horse show where there was a lot of scrambling to fill a medal class. Some one offered to be a filler if another rider would pay the entries. In exchange, they would help fill another class….lots of complicated deals and arrangements were made on the sidelines and the class was filled. But then the filler, not knowing she had to “throw” the class, actually won the class. Later that day, the filler was checking out at the secretary’s booth and finds that the entry fee for the medal class is on her bill. The secretaries have no involvement with the filler deals—that is arranged by the trainers and the horse show manager—so if no one tells them, they charge the rider for the class. They tell the filler to go get the trainer of the rider that had promised to pay her entry. The trainer comes over and angrily declares that her student is not paying because the filler won the class. The filler also refused to pay saying she would never have gone in the class if she was going to have to pay, and she wouldn’t even be in the state when the finals will be held! So you can see the types of issues that can arise.
Then there’s the issue of fence height. In a lot of cases where a filler is used, the fences are kept lower than the specs for the class just so the filler can make it around. So, for example, the Maclay is supposed to be at 3’6″, but if a filler has never jumped that high or has an older horse that shouldn’t jump that high, the show manager may agree to keep the fences low (there are often juniors around that compete at 3′) so the class will run. Does it seem fair that one rider qualifies for the Maclay finals jumping 3′ fences and another works really hard to qualify in stiff competition over fences set at the maximum height? Who is the more deserving rider to qualify?
But beyond that, if some one qualifies by using fillers, aren’t they cheating themselves? Are they really qualified to ride at that medal finals? Are qualifiers really the “cream of the crop” that the medal finals organizers are hoping to get? If it takes 3 riders in a class for it to count, and a rider pays for two fillers, they win no matter how poorly they ride and then “qualify” for the finals. They could be woefully unprepared to actually compete at those finals. Doesn’t it also lessen the thrill and prestige of qualifying if basically anyone that can get a couple of fillers can qualify?
Of course I’m playing devil’s advocate here and sounding pretty hypocritical. I can’t honestly remember, but I’ve probably qualified at least once with a filler in the class, and I’m grateful for that filler, and I probably will another time to come. I want shows to be successful so I want the medals to fill. If we made more stringent rules about fillers, would we only have a handful of riders at the end of the year who have qualified for our medal finals? It’s a double-edged sword.
I don’t see how we can ever eliminate the role of the filler in smaller, local shows, but I would at least like to eliminate the lowering of fences for fillers. If a filler can’t be found that can do the specified height, then the filler shouldn’t fill. It may seem like you’re helping the winning rider by filling the class at all costs, but I don’t believe you are. You should qualify at the height you will ultimately jump at the finals. You have to be prepared to show at those finals. You have to belong there.
But I DO understand that in most cases the rider that qualifies really is prepared and really does deserve to be there, it’s usually just necessary because there aren’t enough riders at the shows to fill the classes. That’s a problem with our local shows or with the economy or something—I don’t know. If I think about all this some more, I might just change my mind and flip-flop on everything I’ve just said.
I’d be very interested to hear what other people think about this topic.
Tags: horse, horse show, horse show judging, horse shows, horses, Judging, local horse shows, Mary Beth Masse, RIHA
