Corrupt Judging Rewards Bad Riding: Karen Pavicic ‘Snatched’ Another Win
Corrupt Judging Rides Again
Corrupt judging is one of those topics that riders are not supposed to talk about in public. Yet every rider will tell you a tale about a judge who has openly judged them with bias.
Last week we talked about the corrupt judging in the Lovsta Future Challenge Class. We stated that Karen Pavicic won the class by sleeping her way to the top. Due to the fact that she is married to Thomas Baur the show manager at the Global Dressage Festival. Judges will do whatever it takes to keep Thomas, who is also the owner of Karens’ horse happy so they will be hired again next season.
The internet Karens of the crowd were shocked and awed that we here at Dressage Hub would humanize judges. When you humanize a judge you realize they are capable of pleasing their boss and judging in a biased manner for their own financial gain. Like most other people on the planet.
In a pandemic year, shows are few and far between, judges are thirsty and will do whatever it takes to win the spot at C. Who doesn’t want to spend part of the winter in sunny Florida?
A Different View
There is more than one way to adjust the scores at a show and today we have a special treat in store. When most people think about corrupt judging they think about that individual rider being over or underscored on any given day. There is, however, a different way that a judge can manipulate the scores, and that is by marking down another rider enough that it will change the rankings in the class.
When I look for biased judging I look at the overall trends from each individual judge. A high score is nothing to be alarmed about if that judge has scored all of the riders high and the place for each rider is similar to that of the other judges.
When I look further into the score sheet I look for inconsistencies or trends within the test. In some cases, you will see one judge
give a 4 for a movement when the rest gave that rider an 8. In other cases, like we will see today, a judge will consistently score a rider 1-2 points lower for each movement. In doing so there is nothing to draw attention to specifically. In doing so the score is manipulated and the rider is not able to appeal the score or file a complaint to the FEI.
Today we will look at the latter scenario.
Disney For Dressage
Disclaimer: This scenario is purely for educational purposes on Dressage Hub and may or may not reflect real-life events.
Once upon a time at the Global Dressage Festival in Wellington…
Karen Pavicic rides first in the I2 for the Lovsta Future Challenge. That means the judges know where the bar has been set. In this case, we see that Sue Kolstad has bumped up Karen’s score but not enough to be noticeable or stand out in any way shape, or form. Last week, in the CDI her score was 69% with a lot of mistakes. A 71% would not be questionable when moving down to a national level show with a judge known for her generously high scores. After last week’s scoring fiasco on Dressage Hub, trying to keep it subtle and fly under the radar is the name of the game. Especially with no live stream available as it is a national show and not a CDI.
Upon review of the rest of the scores for the day Sue Kolstad and the second judge at consistently within 1-2% of each other for every other test that they judged on Sunday.
Mistress Of Evil Judging
Next up, we have Charlotte Jorst on her stallion Grand Galaxy Win (who is a leggy majestic, and beautiful beast). Now it is time for
Sue Kolstad to shine. She knows what she is up against and needs to lower Charlottes’ score enough to put Karen Pavicic in the lead.
Sue Kolstad sent the score plummeting to the dark pits of dressage hell. Almost every single movement was scored 1-2 points lower than the other judge and significantly lower than it should be. Pay close attention to any of the scores worth 20. Those 2x boxes seem to be an extra delightful trigger for Sue and her Maleficent-inspired downward spiral. (Insert evil laughter)
The final score from Sue Kolstad was 66% and a whole 7.5% lower than the other judge. Anything over a 6% difference in scores is considered questionable and should be reviewed at a judge’s meeting. Not much to review in this case. They already know why. And now, you do too.
You could argue that this score was warranted if you didn’t see the test, right? Don’t worry internet Karen, we’ve got you covered. Since some of our haters think Dressage Hub already lives in the dark pits of dressage hell we hacked a copy of the video off the dark web and uploaded it onto the internet for you to see. You are welcome!
Note: The Intermediare 2 test allows for 1m of forward movement in the piaffe.
While Galaxy and Charlotte have a few mistakes in their test, there are not enough to justify a large discrepancy in the scores between the two judges.
Karen Pavicic and Totem have consistently ridden the same awful test without any flying changes all season. You can watch that ride here:
What do you think?
In my real life, I spend a lot of time analyzing numbers. I look for trends, consistency, and anything that looks out of place. Critical thinking and evaluating riding is an important element to the sport of dressage and the key to learning. It is up to us as riders to be able to assess our scores and hold the judges accountable for their job. When there are scores that are questionable, they should be called into question and discussed. Not just by judges but also by riders, regardless of the level.
I could get on board with Karen being ridiculously over-scored like she was last week if the placings were still appropriate for the class. What I cannot get on board with, is the unethical allocation of scores and Karen Pavicic ‘Snatching’ another win.
Do you think there is valid a reason for the 7.5% discrepancy in Charlotte’s scores between the two judges? Who do you think should have won the class?