|
|
 Expert
Posts: 1525
  
| After reading them year to year I realize why I see more and more girls deciding to rely on UPRA and other "ammy" associations more than WPRA....it's really frustrating how many good rule proposals come from the Elite in our sport and are straight up shot down because "that is the way we have always done it." Martha Wright suggested some really good rule changes...shot down. And several others regarding circuit rodeo count....all shot down. I know that PRCA's issues come from the board not listening to the Cowboys...wonder how long it will be before the WPRA encounters the same.....although I think that has already happened a few times, and is currently happening with the ERA. I remember a couple years ago I read them before buying my permit and I couldn't believe that hey were deny some very very good rule changes for almost half the girls that were at the NFR that year.......they just didn't even care to consider what they were trying to say regardless of thier standing in the sport.
http://wpra.com/pdfs/WPRN_Sept15_RuleProposals.pdf
Edited by MOTIVATED 2015-10-05 2:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 268
| yes it is sad you have so many members asking for the same thing and it is denied every single year. |
|
| |
|
 No Tune in a Bucket
Posts: 2935
Location: Texas | Cannot even believe that staking to the inside or outside of the barrel would even be a question. Staking to the middle is just so much harder and not consistant. |
|
| |
|
 Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | Literally I LOL'd at the WPRA responses. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1482
Location: on my horse | CJE - 2015-10-05 8:40 PM
Literally I LOL'd at the WPRA responses.
same, its ridiculous |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| I think the same almost every year that I buy my membership. I have been a WPRA member on and off for 12 years now. As soon as I was 18 I bought my permit...I've only ever had a couple horses that could do it...but being a trainer I only managed to enter a few times before selling them and starting all over. I haven't ever gone down the road with the intention of making a living...more or less just seasoning horses, seeing where they're clocking among the greats and then using that as a marketing tool to sell them. I do however have a pretty nice horse now, who consistantly runs in the top 15 or 20 at the bigger pro rodeos and just hasn't quite managed to be fast enough to pull a check. He is the king of "2 out of the money" hahaha, but he is getting better and better every year and I have decided to keep him...and one other...with the intention of GOING "one day". I am going to FINALLY stick it out with one or two and reap the rewards of my training.
I say all that only to say this....I am leaning (and have been for a while) more towards the UPRA's more than WPRA this coming year. Every year I see friends of mine who are consistenly in the top 50 made proposals after proposals after proposals that dont really "benefit" anyone....they just "make more sense" and see WPRA board members turn them down year after year after year. I remember not so long ago reading rule proposals that made TONS OF SENSE suggested by Lindsay Sears, Brittany Pozzi and Carlee Pierce all during the years that those girls were hauling hard and going to the finals and lets just say it....HUGE AMBASADORS FOR THE SPORT...and they were all turned down. ALL OF THEM.
By the end of every "year" I owe more in fines to the WPRA than i paid in entry fees hahaha...mainly turnout fines because I sell that horse, or have one get hurt...blah blah. Fines are just part of the deal....I get it. The problem I always run in to is that I need to turn out...but I'm up in slack...early in the morning...and I cant call the office 4 hours before my "performance" because the office is not open at 4AM haha...automatic turnout fine.
And now....if you have let your fees go into collections status....which is after 30 days then you are not allowed to enter any rodeos for 90 days AFTER you have paid those fines in full. So say I pay my fines today....I STILL CAN NOT ENTER FOR 90 MORE DAYS....so WPRA loses the fees to the rodeos that I would have entered had I been able to enter as soon as I paid off my fines (like in any other association).
But yes, to tell Martha Wright that she is wrong to think that setting the barrels on the outside of the stake is better just because is something "that sets the WPRA apart from other associations" is flat out LUDACRIS....just dumb. And then to also say that timing the runs to the Thousanths of seconds instead of Hundredths is "UNFAIR" is also...dumb. What in the world are these people even talking about???
|
|
| |
|
 Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | This one just rather floors me..................
roposed by Martha Wright - In regard to rule 12.12.9 that is worded “When setting barrels on the marker, center of barrel shall be positioned over where marker comes out of the ground” should be changed to “barrel will be positioned to the INSIDE of the marker”. There is absolutely no way to accurately determine if the barrel is centered on the marker because you cannot see it. This creates the possibility of inconsistent placement of the barrel not only from performance to performance but from runner to runner. It’s time, ladies, to come to the present day instead of living in the past. Justbecause “that’s the way we have always done it” doesn’t make it right, fair or accurate. - Proposal denied - setting markers under the center of the barrels is an important element that set the WPRA apart and differentiates the WPRA from all other barrel racing organizations. It is an important part of the WPRA identity. In addition several studies have been conducted that support you can have just as many miss- alignments when setting the marker on the outside the barrel adding up to as much as 1 foot difference. It would lastly have serious impact on all prior arena record times.
|
|
| |
|
 Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | More like "WPRA stupidity". What studies? Can you cite these? Who did these studies? What were the conditions? Because "reasons" is not really a legit justification for denying something the membership wants. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| What they meant to say was "Because we said so". If a rule change involved more regulation then it was approved, and if it involved being practical for the Cowgirls then it was denied. Period. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| This was my personal favorite
Proposed by Martha Wright - pg. 89 - In regard to rule 13.3.1 that reads “Read out
box times must be read and recorded by official timer in 1000ths of a second. One
timer will record the times that appear on the electric eye readout. Additional timers
will operate the backup manual clocks and will record the time shown thereon. They
will operate from the flag man’s signals, and record the time in tenths of a second”
should be changed to “Read out box times must be read and recorded in 1000ths of a second.
One timer will record the times that appear. They will operate from the
flag man’s signals, and record the time in HUNDREDTHS of a second”. Professional
means we strive to give our contestants the most correct and accurate stage to compete
on and that also means using the technology available to make it correct and accurate.
Proposal denied - With so many variables that can affect a recorded time,
moving to 1/1000th is not considered fair.
NOT CONSIDERED FAIR TO USE 1/1000 OF A SECOND LIKE THE TIMERS SAY????? WHAAAAAAAAAT???? Every single jackpot I go to is unfair LOL |
|
| |
|
 Wishing I were a Wildcat
Location: 'Hawk Country | There was research done before making these decisions. You should ask your circuit director. I'm betting the decision wasn't just made "because we say so" or "that's what we've always done".
The engineer behind Tanner Timers said there is no way to set barrels and timers up the exact same place over multiple days to be within 1000th of a second. 1/2 inch difference makes a difference to 1000ths of a second. Race tracks, where the finish line does not move, do not time to 1000ths of a second. The 3rd number after the decimal is 500ths of a second, not 1000ths.
So, wouldn't you rather split a check timed to 100ths, than be moved down a hole or two because the timers were set 1 inch off? Keeping the timing to 100ths, actually helps keep it more fair.
As far as setting the barrel centered over the stakes, it's not that big of a deal. The judges have been doing it for a long time. They are good at it. There is a way bigger possibility of a barrel getting set on the wrong side of a stake after being knocked over, than not being centered close enough. You are talking about being off the entire width of the barrel if moved from inside of stake, to outside. I've seen this happen all the time at ammey rodeos and jackpots.
Edited by ozcancrasher13 2015-10-06 1:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| ozcancrasher13 - 2015-10-06 1:36 PM There was research done before making these decisions. You should ask your circuit director. I'm betting the decision wasn't just made "because we say so" or "that's what we've always done".
The engineer behind Tanner Timers said there is no way to set barrels and timers up the exact same place over multiple days to be within 1000th of a second. 1/2 inch difference makes a difference to 1000ths of a second. Race tracks, where the finish line does not move, do not time to 1000ths of a second. The 3rd number after the decimal is 500ths of a second, not 1000ths.
So, wouldn't you rather split a check timed to 100ths, than be moved down a hole or two because the timers were set 1 inch off? Keeping the timing to 100ths, actually helps keep it more fair.
As far as setting the barrel centered over the stakes, it's not that big of a deal. The judges have been doing it for a long time. They are good at it. There is a way bigger possibility of a barrel getting set on the wrong side of a stake after being knocked over, than not being centered close enough. You are talking about being off the entire width of the barrel if moved from inside of stake, to outside. I've seen this happen all the time at ammey rodeos and jackpots.
 Agree to disagree. I think when some of the best in the business make a suggestion it should be taken into consideration....especially if "its not that big of a deal". And would like to add...that YOUR explanation would probably have made A LOT more sense than the one given for the denial... I can see it both ways NOW actually....but to say its unfair just sounds silly....to say, as you just did, that its not possible to do it that way and be accurate would have been a lot more helpful of an explanation.
Edited by MOTIVATED 2015-10-06 2:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Wishing I were a Wildcat
Location: 'Hawk Country | MOTIVATED - 2015-10-06 2:21 PM ozcancrasher13 - 2015-10-06 1:36 PM There was research done before making these decisions. You should ask your circuit director. I'm betting the decision wasn't just made "because we say so" or "that's what we've always done".
The engineer behind Tanner Timers said there is no way to set barrels and timers up the exact same place over multiple days to be within 1000th of a second. 1/2 inch difference makes a difference to 1000ths of a second. Race tracks, where the finish line does not move, do not time to 1000ths of a second. The 3rd number after the decimal is 500ths of a second, not 1000ths.
So, wouldn't you rather split a check timed to 100ths, than be moved down a hole or two because the timers were set 1 inch off? Keeping the timing to 100ths, actually helps keep it more fair.
As far as setting the barrel centered over the stakes, it's not that big of a deal. The judges have been doing it for a long time. They are good at it. There is a way bigger possibility of a barrel getting set on the wrong side of a stake after being knocked over, than not being centered close enough. You are talking about being off the entire width of the barrel if moved from inside of stake, to outside. I've seen this happen all the time at ammey rodeos and jackpots.
Yes, I didn't word that very well....the "it's not that big of deal". I was meaning that it isn't hard for the judges to set it centered over the stakes; that the judges aren't screwing the pattern up for people from one perf to the next. I've been watching them since this rule proposal has come up, and they are careful when setting them. They place the barrel on its edge and tip it and look. At least the judges at the rodeos I'm going to do. |
|
| |
|
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | ozcancrasher13 - 2015-10-06 1:36 PM There was research done before making these decisions. You should ask your circuit director. I'm betting the decision wasn't just made "because we say so" or "that's what we've always done".
The engineer behind Tanner Timers said there is no way to set barrels and timers up the exact same place over multiple days to be within 1000th of a second. 1/2 inch difference makes a difference to 1000ths of a second. Race tracks, where the finish line does not move, do not time to 1000ths of a second. The 3rd number after the decimal is 500ths of a second, not 1000ths.
So, wouldn't you rather split a check timed to 100ths, than be moved down a hole or two because the timers were set 1 inch off? Keeping the timing to 100ths, actually helps keep it more fair.
As far as setting the barrel centered over the stakes, it's not that big of a deal. The judges have been doing it for a long time. They are good at it. There is a way bigger possibility of a barrel getting set on the wrong side of a stake after being knocked over, than not being centered close enough. You are talking about being off the entire width of the barrel if moved from inside of stake, to outside. I've seen this happen all the time at ammey rodeos and jackpots.
If the judges are that 'careful' to center it....then surely having a firm guideline of which side the stake should be on should be no problem for them. It simply eliminates the guesswork.....not trying to figure out if it's truely in the center. As more and more arenas move to 'laser precision' marking the pattern.....wouldn't this at least be a step in the right direction?
The last time I had the opportunity to watch slack at a rodeo in Sinton - the judges set the 2nd barrel on an old stake that was totally wrong and out of line with the pattern after then ran about 10? The girls tried to talk to the guy - he yelled and threatened to start fining everyone that didn't shut up and run. Walked out in the arena and yelled at the spectators as well....wanted to know who was complaining. The next drag - they happened to unearth the correct stake again.... difference of about 8 feet. Then they had to give the girls that had run on the wrong pattern the option to rerun...
(I was just watching - absolutely no dog in the fight). The unprofessionalism of the judge was amazing. You're not going to convince me he gave a **** about whether or not that barrel was even close to centered on the stake.
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| MS2011 - 2015-10-06 3:06 PM ozcancrasher13 - 2015-10-06 1:36 PM There was research done before making these decisions. You should ask your circuit director. I'm betting the decision wasn't just made "because we say so" or "that's what we've always done".
The engineer behind Tanner Timers said there is no way to set barrels and timers up the exact same place over multiple days to be within 1000th of a second. 1/2 inch difference makes a difference to 1000ths of a second. Race tracks, where the finish line does not move, do not time to 1000ths of a second. The 3rd number after the decimal is 500ths of a second, not 1000ths.
So, wouldn't you rather split a check timed to 100ths, than be moved down a hole or two because the timers were set 1 inch off? Keeping the timing to 100ths, actually helps keep it more fair.
As far as setting the barrel centered over the stakes, it's not that big of a deal. The judges have been doing it for a long time. They are good at it. There is a way bigger possibility of a barrel getting set on the wrong side of a stake after being knocked over, than not being centered close enough. You are talking about being off the entire width of the barrel if moved from inside of stake, to outside. I've seen this happen all the time at ammey rodeos and jackpots.
The last time I had the opportunity to watch slack at a rodeo in Sinton - the judges set the 2nd barrel on an old stake that was totally wrong and out of line with the pattern after then ran about 10? The girls tried to talk to the guy - he yelled and threatened to start fining everyone that didn't shut up and run. Walked out in the arena and yelled at the spectators as well....wanted to know who was complaining. The next drag - they happened to unearth the correct stake again.... difference of about 8 feet. Then they had to give the girls that had run on the wrong pattern the option to rerun...
(I was just watching - absolutely no dog in the fight). The unprofessionalism of the judge was amazing. You're not going to convince me he gave a **** about whether or not that barrel was even close to centered on the stake.
 This same thing happened in Bowie last year....third barrel. Then instead of giving the girls that ran on the wrong stake a re-run...they instead decided to just have two seperate pay-outs. So instead of paying 4 holes it paid 2 and some of the girls that would have placed didnt. BIG WRECK...unfortunately, the judges, are not as careful as everyone would like to think. Although....I do APPRECIATE the explanation and wish that eplanations like that were given in the denials for proposals for "minutes." or whatever....that way it doesnt just sound like WPRA is making decisions based on the "thats how its always been done" reasoning.
|
|
| |
|
 Veteran
Posts: 254
Location: Kaufman, Texas | One of the things that bothers me is when they have a huge display clock not turned on!!!! It has the red lines on there so you know it's working. |
|
| |
|
| It would seem to me that placing the barrels correctly, in the middle OVER top of a stake would be just as impossible to place perfectly each time as it would be to place timers in the same place each time, if that's their argument. A black vertical line to line the rope up on is pretty darned accurate, in my estimation But I'm not a WPRA member, so it's none of my business (said Kermit as he drank his tea.
P. S. it's always aggravated me that they don't clock down to the one thousands of a second, like the timers are able to do. Electronic eye timers do measure to the 1/1000ths of a second in the third spot after the decimal, by the way. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| runs4fun - 2015-10-06 6:05 PM
It would seem to me that placing the barrels correctly, in the middle OVER top of a stake would be just as impossible to place perfectly each time as it would be to place timers in the same place each time, if that's their argument. A black vertical line to line the rope up on is pretty darned accurate, in my estimation But I'm not a WPRA member, so it's none of my business (said Kermit as he drank his tea.
P. S. it's always aggravated me that they don't clock down to the one thousands of a second, like the timers are able to do. Electronic eye timers do measure to the 1/1000ths of a second in the third spot after the decimal, by the way.
I just have to say thank you for the decimal clarification...for a second i thought that I'd been duped for 25 years and so had everyone i knew. |
|
| |
|
Gettin Jiggy Wit It
Posts: 2734
| Ok I am confused... they obviously denied the 1st preference or draw out proposal but then I read this.... New Preferences Proposed by Dillon McPherson - Add “out if slack” entry option like PRCA has. - Proposal accepted - this will give our members greater flexibility with working their schedules
Doesnt this mean the samething??? Now we can say as our second preference if slack draw out? How is that not like, if not first preference then draw out? Just that we can draw out if we get slack but we cant draw out if we get a 2nd performance we cant go to? Most times I've either gotten my 1st preference, which is usualy a performance, or if I dont get my 1st preference I always get thrown into slack and my 2nd preference never happens. Does this allow us to call into PROCOM and say like, 1st preference 3rd performance blah blah then say 2nd preference draw out if slack.... then we get drawn out if we get slack??? HA HA I want to make sure because if so thats pretty sweet. Helps with turn outs big time!
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 591
| It is just as easy to mess up setting a barrel when the ropes are on the inside or outside versus the middle. Even if you have a mark on the outside it's pretty easy to get it rotated up or down and have it even further off then trying to set it in the middle.
When setting barrels over multiple perfs it's not possible to get them in the exact same spot every single time unless it's an indoor pen with the laser stakes. To attempt to make the situation as fair as possible timing to the 100/ths is used. If a barrel is an inch off it can effect times to the 1000/ths. Someone getting bumped out of a check because a barrel was an inch off seems more unfair?
For everyone that's complaining, I am pretty sure the position for WPRA president is up for grabs this year. Since your ideas are better, why don't you run for the position and make the changes that are "better". Or run for a circuit director position and find out what goes on behind the scenes before bashing associations for what you think happens. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1767
Location: California | WetSaddleBlankets - 2015-10-06 8:29 PM Ok I am confused... they obviously denied the 1st preference or draw out proposal but then I read this....
New Preferences
Proposed by Dillon McPherson -
Add “out if slack” entry option like PRCA has.
-
Proposal accepted
- this will give our members greater flexibility with
working their schedules
Doesnt this mean the samething??? Now we can say as our second preference if slack draw out? How is that not like, if not first preference then draw out? Just that we can draw out if we get slack but we cant draw out if we get a 2nd performance we cant go to? Most times I've either gotten my 1st preference, which is usualy a performance, or if I dont get my 1st preference I always get thrown into slack and my 2nd preference never happens. Does this allow us to call into PROCOM and say like, 1st preference 3rd performance blah blah then say 2nd preference draw out if slack.... then we get drawn out if we get slack??? HA HA I want to make sure because if so thats pretty sweet. Helps with turn outs big time!
Yes. You can say 1st preference is Sat night and then "Out if slack" (because slack is on a Thursday at 9am and people work!)
The 1st preference or draw out option is kind of ridiculous because how often do you get your 2nd preference if it's a performance? I have never gotten a 2nd preference. It's always 1st preferance or slck. I am very excited about the "out if slack" option. |
|
| |
|
Gettin Jiggy Wit It
Posts: 2734
| Calibarrelrcr - 2015-10-06 11:39 PM WetSaddleBlankets - 2015-10-06 8:29 PM Ok I am confused... they obviously denied the 1st preference or draw out proposal but then I read this....
New Preferences
Proposed by Dillon McPherson -
Add “out if slack” entry option like PRCA has.
-
Proposal accepted
- this will give our members greater flexibility with
working their schedules
Doesnt this mean the samething??? Now we can say as our second preference if slack draw out? How is that not like, if not first preference then draw out? Just that we can draw out if we get slack but we cant draw out if we get a 2nd performance we cant go to? Most times I've either gotten my 1st preference, which is usualy a performance, or if I dont get my 1st preference I always get thrown into slack and my 2nd preference never happens. Does this allow us to call into PROCOM and say like, 1st preference 3rd performance blah blah then say 2nd preference draw out if slack.... then we get drawn out if we get slack??? HA HA I want to make sure because if so thats pretty sweet. Helps with turn outs big time!
The 1st preference or draw out option is kind of ridiculous because how often do you get your 2nd preference if it's a performance? I have never gotten a 2nd preference. It's always 1st preferance or slck. I am very excited about the "out if slack" option.
I am too! YAY!!! |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| 3 To Go - 2015-10-06 11:31 PM It is just as easy to mess up setting a barrel when the ropes are on the inside or outside versus the middle. Even if you have a mark on the outside it's pretty easy to get it rotated up or down and have it even further off then trying to set it in the middle. When setting barrels over multiple perfs it's not possible to get them in the exact same spot every single time unless it's an indoor pen with the laser stakes. To attempt to make the situation as fair as possible timing to the 100/ths is used. If a barrel is an inch off it can effect times to the 1000/ths. Someone getting bumped out of a check because a barrel was an inch off seems more unfair? For everyone that's complaining, I am pretty sure the position for WPRA president is up for grabs this year. Since your ideas are better, why don't you run for the position and make the changes that are "better". Or run for a circuit director position and find out what goes on behind the scenes before bashing associations for what you think happens.
So you are saying that none of the members should even bother proposing changes or having an opinion...they wont be heard... unless we are on the board or are a circuit director or are the President....GOOD TO KNOW!! That's as dumb as saying that no one should even gripe about what the President of the United States does because they are not willing to run for President or work for him.
Secondly...I wonder why so many...TONS...of other asssociations haven't taken the WPRA's "expertise" and continued to set stakes in the middle of the barrels for the BIG three and four day barrel races that most often add WAY more money than the average rodeo to the barrels??? I mean, if it is the MOST ACCURATE WAY and WPRA is such the ELITE association that it has had "research" and "studies" done...you would think that others would have followed suit. AND BESIDES...what do the big names like MARTHA WRIGHT know? They are only the top trainers, authors, equipment designers and experienced people in the sport! So you cant set the barrel in the same exact spot (especially in the center)...heck sometimes the judges cant even set the barrel on the CORRECT STAKE, LOL, and there is no way to place the timers in the same exact spot either....so are you saying that you CAN keep ground conditions the same from perf to perf? What about weather conditions? What about dragging every five? The fact is RODEO IS RODEO IS RODEO and there will ALWAYS be SEVERAL different variables from performance to performance that will affect times.........the same with every big barrel race out there and people are still entering because that is just how it goes...that doesnt mean that you dont use the technology that has developed over the years...that doesnt mean you dont try to improve.
FYI I very clearly stated in one of my above posts that if explanations like yours were given they might make more sense to those who read the rule proposals and denials...who are members...and have been members for over a decade...we are not saying what "we think happened"....we are going by what you report in the WPRA report of the RULE PROPOSALS on WPRA WEBSITE and if the WPRA doesnt want people to make assumptions on why the denials then they should provide more accurate answers to why something was denied just like YOU did....I can actually see both sides of this when I hear YOUR EXPLANATION....it makes A LOT of sense. BUT YOUR EXPLANATION WAS NOT POSTED....and the explanation is pretty vague. Variables such as what..ground, weather, draw, drag position...what???? THEY SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC. PERIOD. >>>>Proposal denied - With so many variables that can affect a recorded time, moving to 1/1000th is not considered fair.
Edited by MOTIVATED 2015-10-07 9:19 AM
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| On a more pleaant note I think the "out if slack" option is great.... and by far one of the most helpful "accepted" proposals for the Cowgirls that there was. YAY for that. GOOD CALL WPRA ;)
Edited by MOTIVATED 2015-10-07 10:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
BHW's Simon Cowell
Location: The Saudia Arabia of Wind Energy, Western Oklahoma | All this barrel setting and how many digits are really not that big of a deal. Now not letting more of the members have a chance to run at the big indoor rodeos is a big deal. You don't see too many of the "Big Dogs" fighting for that, Myself, those small little details with barrels are insignificant. Now keeping a huge percentage of the membership from even getting a chance to run at the good rodeos, that is big deal. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| ksjackofalltrades - 2015-10-07 10:27 AM All this barrel setting and how many digits are really not that big of a deal. Now not letting more of the members have a chance to run at the big indoor rodeos is a big deal. You don't see too many of the "Big Dogs" fighting for that, Myself, those small little details with barrels are insignificant. Now keeping a huge percentage of the membership from even getting a chance to run at the good rodeos, that is big deal.
I agree with you 150% I think the majority of the members are just trying to get heard about ANYTHING at this point. Trying to change the big stuff is like  ya know...if you wont listen to us on the little things then you will probably never listen to us on the big things. But hey, we did get the "slack thing" this year LOL...and who knows, maybe its just because someone got sick of answering turnout calls after callbacks and decided it would be easier administratively.....either way I would say it was win win for both. Now...how do we make an adjustment for the limited rodeos sound like an administrative benefit??? If we can figure that out THEN things might change. |
|
| |
Have you ever taken the time to read the Rule Proposals for WPRA??