Episode 75: Sissy Wickes--A Lesson In Judging Principles from the Principal of Judging. Presented by Founders Federal Credit Union.

Welcome to Scope. I'm Jen Barker alongside my co-host Karen Tanner and Karen. You know how we just did our judging episode? Yes. So our episode went up. Yes. And just a couple hours later, I got a text and let me tell you, this text felt like I was back in high school being called to the principal's office. Do you ever have that feeling? I think I had a dream like that. And I was naked. But that's totally different at the principal's office. Okay. All right. So the text said, I need to get into this judging discussion to keep it from going off the rails. Oh. And I was like, man, are we in trouble? We definitely could be in trouble. But you know what? We kind of live in that space. Do you ever get called to the principal's office for the principal to tell you you did a great job? Never. You don't. So you don't think that could be it? And I don't think that's it, Jen. Because the person who sent me that text is our guest today. So we are officially in the principal's office. Yeah. Well, I hope we don't get detention. I hope not either. I don't want to stay after detention at my Catholic high school was saying the rosary on your knees for an hour. And the school building had hardwood floors that were like, I don't know, probably 75 years old. So they were uneven. And the numbness that happened. All right. So let's just hope that Cissy Wicks did not go to Catholic school because she's our guest today. And I think we might be in trouble. But, but this, if I'm going to be in trouble with anybody, let it be her. Cissy, what did we get right in our episode? And what did we get wrong? Well, I've called your parents and they're coming to pick you up. Oh, man. Not, not be going back to class. Okay. I figured that was the case. No, probably not the first time either, right, Jen? No, probably not. I have no qualms with anything that you guys said. I think that important thing is to have these discussions because I feel like most of the I or that surrounds judging comes from lack of education and lack of understanding of what the judges are actually sitting there to do, what the experience of a judging day is like. And for the judge, not only for the examiner, but for the judge, and also what the actual parameters of judging are. And Jen, I think you did a great job explaining, you know, why can a horse who makes a few mistakes, beat a horse that didn't make any mistakes because you're not starting from the same place in terms of quality? When the episode went up and when the social media clips went up, there were people who disagree with that. And there are people who didn't really know that, which was a little surprising to me. For example, someone said, if that's the way it works, then you have to have a top quality horse to have a chance of winning. Top quality means big bucks. So basically, if you don't have big bucks, you're so well, you're not going to win. What do you have to say to people who feel that way about the system of judging? Well, first of all, there is more than one level of horse show. So if you're going to attend the highest level of horse shows, then you're going to have to have a horse of the quality that is commensurate to the competition which you are participated. That's pretty simple. And you can liken that to anything else in your life. If you are, I mean, pick the scenario, but if you're going to participate at a level or have an expectation at a high level, then you have to come to that situation armed with the right quality and understanding and assumption of what it's going to entail. So to me, that's a very negative and fatalistic response. I know for me, I take my clients to a wide variety of levels of horse shows. And there are some horses that I say, "Here, a fourth place is a win for us just because of the quality of horses we're going to be showing against." Do you think trainers are dropping the ball and that's leading to this feeling of fatalism, if you will? I think in life in general, it's easier to tell people what they want to hear than the harsh reality of whatever the situation is. Do I think that when a client comes to a barn, comes to you and says, "I want to participate at this level," then you say, "Okay, this is the menu of items that are going to have to be accomplished for you to participate at an adequate level or a good level at that competition." So I think the important thing for a trainer is when a client comes to your barn, maybe it's a new client, maybe it's an existing client, but on a yearly basis, say, "What are your goals for this year? Are your goals to qualify for pony finals? Are your goals to qualify for the zone to jumper finals?" I'm from Zuma 2, once upon a time. Do you want to work all year to go to a show at Culpepper? There are a lot of different competitions. There are a lot of different finals. There are a lot of different. I want to participate in this one class one time and I've had plenty of people who wanted to do that. I want to qualify for medal finals even though I know I'm going to be an also RN, but I wanted to have that experience. Then to work backwards and say, "Okay, to get to that goal, we have to accomplish this. We have to provide you with this horse. This is what it's going to cost." If that's not within your reach, then let's do a different goal. I do think that trainers tell people what they want to hear. Myself included, I've certainly been guilty of this because you want to make their dreams come true. You want to make them happy. You want to believe you can pull a rabbit out of a hat when you have to. A lot of us have at various times in our lives unbelievably pulled rabbits out of hats and had an incredible situation transpire after a lot of luck and a lot of work. I think that being realistic about what this sport entails and the sacrifices which are not only financial. There are a lot of sacrifices within families and parents and trainers and the riders themselves. It's a hard sport. It's not that easy to just say, "I want to get here and think it's going to happen." Let me ask you this. Does that take away, though, the idea that sometimes the underdog can win? When I hear the conversation about really having to have a certain kind of a horse to be successful at a certain kind of a show, and I'm not a defeatist at all, but to me, it makes me wonder, even if your rider works, they're absolute hardest, completely dedicated, sacrifices, all these things and has a great relationship with their horse. They're not going to end up on top a lot of the times. If they are going to shows where they're not at the same level of a quality of horse. Is that true? Yes, that's true. However, the quality of horse has a range. You can have a horse that, perhaps, if you break it down by confirmation, way of movement, way of jumping, temperament, attractiveness as they're doing their job, their expression, etc. If you break all of those things down and you have strong points in various areas, you don't have to have all of them, but you have strong points in some of those categories as I just mentioned, and you put together a beautiful round. Maybe the favourites didn't put together a beautiful round, you absolutely have a chance. However, I can't drive my Ford Paurus on the indie track and think that I'm always going to be able to compete against that. Again, you have to come with a realistic expectation of what horse you have, what your abilities are, and what level you're competing at. Having said that, if you end up with an 82, or an 80, or a 78, or whatever it is, and your goal was to get an eighth place, then great. Make your goals, again, make your goals realistic, understand what's going on. Don't be disappointed in your horse. Don't be disappointed in your trainer. Understand what the odds are, what you're up against, and what's a reasonable expectation of success, which isn't always a blue ribbon. It sounds like you're just trying to set your rider and your horse up for the most success they can have. It sounds like there's a lot of things that go into formulating. We're going to compete in an effort to set yourself up for that kind of success. It's hard for me to get back to the trainer thing. Again, just like a lot of other things in life. If somebody comes to me and says, "I have this horse," and I want to go to Devon and Winnie class and I say you know what that's like going to happen or The horse I bought to you as it is as good as I thought it was which we've all done that right Jen? Oh, yeah And then it's been there And then they go to the next trade and the next trade was like well, I can make that happen for you Right, so again You're out the new guys in and so it's and as we're all trying to keep our numbers Reasonable in terms of the horses in our care and trying to make a living etc. etc. It's it's sometimes it's very Alluring to kind of tell people what they want to hear. Yeah, I circling back a little bit to the judging I also think people should understand and for better or worse quality is a very fluid term and from judge to judge and please correct me if I'm wrong from judge to judge What one judge considers to be quality another judge might prioritize prioritize something else when they think about quality For example, I had lovely horse that was probably kind of average in quality at the bigger horse shows and Some judges they didn't love to use him and then some judges They really appreciated what he was which was a very suitable horse and he would get great ribbons in front of those judges So I think that if you can look at it that way that you might you might get lucky and a judge might say I just love that type What are your thoughts and the complexities? I think that's very true and the complexities of judging involve What division you're judging and what the qualities of the horse for that division are in my mind as a judge And keep in mind that not all judges bring the same experience to the judging booth and What what I admire in let's talk about it and adult amateur horse or a Children's horse or a short start pony or you know a junior hunter with a young kid on it the qualities I admire I may bring from my experience as a trainer where I want a horse that looks like it loves its job and it's taking care of the kid And they look very much in sync and maybe it's a bad mover, but boy, it's a great jumper or you know Maybe it's this or that, but it's beautiful and it looks you know the whole thing looks the party smooth So I bring that to the table a lot of judges don't so the scenario you just posed I could absolutely see doing that where Maybe he's not the highest quality horse in the in the horse show or in that class But boy, he suits that job the trainer did a great job matching this this rider up with this horse They glided right around and I'm gonna I'm gonna reward that I think part of our what we're facing with judges right now and This will certainly get you some comments is that Some some judges are coming to the judging booth with not a lot of experience in terms of being In the trenches of buying horses putting horses in the ring bringing along young horses watching Thousands of hours of horses going around learning at the knee of some real Real masters of the sports, you know all elements of the sport and I think that It at times it becomes easier to judge the The appearance so sort of what's on the outside rather than evaluating the entire trip and the entire Package of what's in front of you again with the the rider and the horse and the the The level of class there in the height of the jump et cetera, et cetera, so I think that Most of the answers to judging come from experience and come from Hours in the booth from hours on the horse from hours at the in gate and and I think education is sort of the answer To most of the evils most of the problems with with judging So to that end are you part of the task force that is reworking the The judging requirements or the the licensing requirements. Is that are you a part of that this year? So I was part of the task force for USCF that so just to clarify USCF does all the licensing USAJ does all the education so dumb we It's a little nuts. I am with you on that because both being a large in it organizations The right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing which is understandable because again There's a lot going on at every minute of every day But I was on the USCF task force. I've actually chaired it that That was some licensing issues. You know, we made some great changes in terms of the rules pertaining to Abuse of judges because that was getting out of hand. So we did some great rule changes there we also Did a lot on what we thought needed to be changed in the educational process So that the barrier to entry to the licensing portal was higher So that people had to have more experience before they even entered the educational portal to get licensed Now what they're working on they've they've called a moratorium and all licensing right now until they Complete the revamping of the educational process. So they're they're looking at curriculum They're looking at the in-person clinics that they do so it's it's all very Interwoven that licensing and the education so now what the focus is is on the USAJ Educational part of it and then once that that gets organized and approved and Operational then the licensing through USCF will continue Do you see a future in which we do have standardized deductions or more standardized judging system? So that's one of the things that our task force Came out with was the idea of having Parameters not even standardized not even a hard number But parameters of deductions. So for example, and this for me Which I've said over and over again and for the people that supported it We're really for the less experienced judges because I'm sure you've noticed that For some some judges who are swaps off at a jump and it doesn't dive It just swaps off at a jump and they are thrilled to give you a 70 something for that right right because I think the Less experienced judges judge can make at times judge the mistakes without looking at the quality of the horse and the quality of the round Which is more subjective and I think more experience space more opinion-based you can The mistakes are objective but to evaluate those mistakes within The entirety of the round is more subjective and takes more skill. So what we tried to do was say, okay A swap is anything from two to five points not 15 points, okay? Disunited a mislead change, okay, so if a horse is Disunited so it's on one lead and front one lead and back for a couple of steps Deduct a point per step. So he's just a little late on his lead change Don't deduct 10 points unless he's you know racking around and it's heads up in the air But just a little bit of a late lead change on another yet another wise great trip. Take a couple points off So it just gave everybody an idea of Don't and also the the exhibitors and the parents and the trainers I mean if we can say these are the parameters of deductions and if you look at your round and look at the score, maybe you can make some sense of it knowing what we deducted So just on both sides of the in gate trying to get some Semblance of transparency and consistency was the reason now people went crazy The judges were like how a lot of them how dare you tell me what I can deduct and we weren't We were just trying to again give a little bit of structure to the less experienced judges that maybe We're deducting too much or too little That makes sense. Yeah, and it's honestly it's upsetting for me to hear that because I feel like That's exactly what we need and I know that Karen agrees not to speak for her But as a parent who's not as educated of course Karen's not a horseman That's exactly the type of thing that she was looking for for her son's entire career And when you say that the judges went crazy over that and really opposed that it makes me a little upset as a trainer Especially as I know I'm not a young trainer anymore, but as somebody who is on the a little bit younger than a lot of the the long-time Judges and I'm like you you guys are gonna mess this up for everybody if you oppose things like that because it's truly what we need and I think that's Very short-sighted honestly Well, and I think that one of the real hot button issues In the hunter-jumper world is this idea of transparency and you hit on it a little bit to see and I think that crosses all sorts of Topics right that we're dealing with right now especially within the USCF and I just feel like this whole idea of Making the sport better you know nighting, writers, trainers, judges, owners, you know, across the disciplines, is transparency in everything, right? In pricing, in judging, in competing, all of these things, I feel like, and I can say as a consumer because I was the one, you know, paying the bill, right? It is important if you don't really understand what the standards are, then it is difficult as a spectator. And as I finance my kids' writing endeavors, it's difficult to be able to understand, how do you engage, you know, folks and draw folks to the sport that weren't born into it like, you know, my family wasn't, if they really don't understand what their goals are specifically. I mean, it's just difficult. Now imagine this. This is one of the things I wanted to do, and maybe they'll still do it, I don't know. But imagine that you log into USCF membership portal, and on that membership portal is a whole videoed, you know, module of about judging, right? And it shows you rounds. And so you as a parent can watch around, and then you can hear the judge judging the round, and then you understand why that horse got a 75 or an 85 or whatever. And then you could have a situation where you can watch around, and then you can score it yourself on your little computer. And then you can say, okay, well, I watched that, and I thought it was an 85, and then you flip the page, and there will be the judges card, and you think, oh, my God, I missed all that. Or, oh, is that what hanging its legs means like? Or is that why, you know, oh, it left off three legs, and when it does that, it gets a 60 something. So again, and kids could do it too, where they can actually, you mean they love the games, right? They could go online and learn how judging works, what the standards are. I mean, you know, we're talking about the average horse versus the above average horse and the scoring. Well, we judge to a standard. And people, you have to know that because if a horse walks into the ring, and there's no other horse, you know, if scoring is supposed to be comparative, so I'm putting them in order and the scores are in order. How do you score the first couple horses? Well, you're judging to a standard, right? Horse walks in, good horse, good jumper, good look, good mover, it's gonna, you know, 80, whatever. Bad mover, 30, hangs its legs, doesn't matter if they find all the jumps, it's going to get a lower score, okay? So we judge to a standard. Now, can we convey to the public, to the parents who are, you know, bleeding and scraping to try to make the sport happen for their kid? Absolutely. We can say this is close to perfection, or this is, you know, 90, whatever. And this is average, and this is a mistake on an average horse, because how else are you going to know other than asking the trainer who's trying to keep his job? And who says, boy, the judging sucked. Like, how much have we heard that, right? Well, maybe you could say, oh, sweetie, you cannot, you know, I saw that you, you know, you chip the jump, or you were a little uneven over there, or, you know, Sparky, Mrs. Lee changed, so I understand, do you understand? And just kind of be less dependent on the external input you're getting, so actually educating yourself. I think that is a fantastic idea. And it's so simple. I really can't understand why, like, first of all, why don't we think of that? We should have thought of that. Well, and second of all, why are we doing that? That sounds great. Like, maybe you and I should do. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. And, you know, I will say that I think one of the constants in Hunter and Equitation's sport is that the participants, the public, whatever you want to call it, are dying for feedback. Yeah. Like, tell me, tell me what you saw. Tell me what you liked. Tell me what you didn't like. And I don't, you know, to do it in dressage, right? What movement got what score? And the judges can have a comment on it. I don't quite know how to incorporate that into our sports, those two disciplines right now. But it would be a start just to, to expand our educational opportunities for parents, for writers, for trainers. Absolutely. Yeah. I think trainers need those two at times, for sure. Yeah. Well, and we did talk to Ronnie Riemmer with the UDJC where they do, the judges do give feedback to the writers. Jen and I have talked about this on some other podcasts. And I mean, I think Jen's whole contention with that is, like, I don't know this judge. I don't know if this feedback is appropriate. They've seen my writer one time in one round. And, you know, we don't want to hang our hats on this. But that's fair. Some place in the middle, right? And also, it's a time constraint. I don't know how you do that for every writer, for every round, for every class. I just think you can't. But we talked about the fact that maybe there are certain, there's a certain class. If you want feedback, you enter that class and you are given feedback. What do you think about an idea like that? I think that could work. I don't know why it couldn't work. I mean, you just have to be set up to have a scribe there and have somebody in the booth who is going to be constructive, not destructive. Yes. And I think like most things, do I really want to know that person's opinion? Or don't I care? Well, as long as you come at it from an educational standpoint, and the, you can control who's in the booth. So hopefully it is this person, this very experienced, big art judge that people really appreciate. And, you know, as you said, they're coming at it from the right angle. It's all about trying to help the writer. As long as we're on the same page, if the writer enters that class, it is with the understanding that they actually do want feedback. Yes. And I think that scenario was so different and I would make sure to add this. When we are doing commentary on these classes, we are staring at the same screen as the other people watching it. We're not sitting with the judge. So to have that experience of what the judge is seeing versus what you're seeing looking online or sitting at the end of the in-gator, wherever you are, is such a huge differentiator. So I love the idea of the judge actually saying this is, this is what I experienced from my point of view. This is what I saw. And to just expand on the fact that your perspective is absolutely one of the key elements of how you evaluate a class. Upgrade your rate and save when you refinance your auto loan with Founder's Federal Credit Union. If you're still paying a higher rate, now is the perfect time to make a smarter choice. Will beat your current auto rate by 2% helping lower your monthly payment. Plus, enjoy no payment for up to 90 days. Same car, better rate. That's smart savings. That's more money in your pocket. Learn more at FoundersFCU.com/auto. Terms and conditions apply. Membership qualification required. See website for details. Do you think that the rise and popularity of live streaming is causing more controversy or more conflict between participants and judges? I think that the age of social media has, you know, it's the result of that of the instantaneous judgment and the voices. And, you know, it's so, I mean, I have in my office the, actually the most, most reproduced and popular New York cartoon that came out, oh my God, 30 years ago. And it's a dog sitting on the keyboard. And he looks down at the dog on the floor and he says, on the internet, no one knows your dog. And that's what's going on is people that are keyboard warriors and love to look at a snippet of a live stream or whatever somebody snipped off and then put on whatever socials. And everybody jumps on. It's easy to do. I mean, I've been the victim of it. I've been, you know, it's, it's, if you're, if you're out there, you're going to get hit with it at some point. And yes, do I think it's, it's increased the material of our conversations. Absolutely. So I think that it's, it's easy to, to be the expert and to be negative and to, to just, you know, denigrate somebody. Yeah, it's awful. I mean, that's unfortunately the tone of the world right now. But, you know, everybody's an expert. Everybody's, nobody's a dog behind the computer. They're all experts. Now, you, you've obviously, as you said, you've, you've been on the receiving end of some of the vitriol. What does that do to you as a judge does, is it a situation where when people complain, you go back and look at that live feed or that, at that stream and say, Oh, man, could I, did I make a mistake or, or is it, you just rolls off? I don't think I've ever judged a big competition where I didn't go back to my room that night and worry. Did I do it right? Did it, what mistakes? I mean, I would tell you that every single judge tries to do the best job they can on the day. And I also don't know a judge that doesn't get nervous and doesn't really want to do a good job, especially at the very invisible competitions. And you know, it's a lot of stress. And we're all, if we are, if we are sitting there, we are competitive type A people. So we bring all of that great, you know, do or die energy to it. So yeah, but is it, is it hurtful? Of course it is. Especially when one competition I did last year, a couple of people online decided that I was on the dole, on the take, what I had been paid to, to get to whatever conclusion I had gotten to, which is just like, come on. So it's just, it's, it's, it can be hurtful. Basically it's exhausting. The, I did a webinar the other day. I don't know if it was that three weeks ago, about putting, I'm sure you guys saw this, that money and equitation. And that was another one where it was like off with her head, you know, smack her around. And when Brit asked me to do it, he said, what side of this were you on? And I said, what side do you want me to be on? Because I can argue both sides. You know, I can see, I'm not, I'm not absolutely beating my drum for one side of the other or we're telling, you know, the people I disagree with to shut up. I mean, that's not discourse and that's not debate. I mean, let's discuss it. Let's discuss both sides of it. So that ended up being, I was a little blindsided by that to be honest with you. I did not expect the wave of nastiness and ditchery that came out of that. And okay, you don't want money and equitation. Okay, I disagree with you, but that's fine. You know, let's go our separate ways and disagree. It's fine. Absolutely. But I know Brit, Brit McCormack, who's the president of the USAJ, got a lot of pushback about that. And I'm glad we did it. I mean, you know, I don't mind being on the other side of it. But it's just, it's hard to have a civilized discourse these days. So as a person that is involved in other sports, this idea of the replay is a super hot topic, especially in baseball. Now they're even looking at the strike zone, which we love. I love seeing the box up there. And they do it for every pitch. And now players are allowed to, I think, three pitches a game. They're allowed to call in question balls and strikes. What do you think about the idea of using replay? Now initially, replays are used to educate umpires and officials. What do you think as an idea of using replay to help educate judges, especially these ones that you're talking about that maybe are not as experienced? So I think there are two kinds of replay. One is game day replay. So I'm not sure what you would replay in the heat of the battle. So you could replay whether the horse went off course, you could replay whether they crossed the dotted line, you could replay whether the rail came down, what else are you going to replay? Right. Nothing. Nothing. However, I do believe that there is replay that is very important in terms of the education or not to sound like mal, the reeducation of judges. So oftentimes I receive I and a hundred people I could mention receive videos from friends or acquaintances or whomever of a scenario where a horse made a major mistake and the judge missed it. Or a horse didn't make a major mistake and it was judged badly. So in that scenario, so let's say I always encourage people to put their money where their mouth is, if you have a bad situation with a judge, send it to you SCF, send the clip, send your complaint because if we don't know, we can't address it. And there's everybody who complains about everything, oh, the judging sucks. Again, blah, blah. However, if it's a real scenario that you can document and say, look at this score versus this performance and they have it in the USCF, vice officials file, then USCF can go to them and say, look, we've had five complaints and we would like you to sit down with your educational arm at the USAHA and do some homework and go over what maybe happened here. Were you sick? You know, could you not see like what happened? Are you confused? You know, in a in a generous way, not in a, you know, we're going to take your livelihood away from you. But I think that's where replay would be very, very important. So to sit down with somebody and say, this just happened, you gave it this score. That's not appropriate. Let's talk about how to do this better. But I, but I don't know that game time replay in our sport is a big necessity. And maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure people disagree with me, but I just don't know how we would use it. Yeah, I think a lot of it's subjective, right? Right. A lot of it is subjective, but I do think from an educational standpoint, to try to get the majority of judges, you know, sort of on the same page, looking with a similar set of eyes at the same rounds. That's a little bit more of what I was speaking to. Well, and so that's not necessarily replay as much as, you know, as what's streamed 10 different rounds during your educational program to be licensed. And let's see, I mean, one of the things that I wanted to do with this educational process is have dry runs of it. So just like with when you do say sport, you have to answer the questions. So you log in, you watch the rounds, you score them on a virtual scorecard, you give it a score, and then that's reviewed by whomever is looking at your exam to see if you are ready to move on to the next level. Because it's hard to sit there and judge a class. So sit there and judge it, get it right, you have two minutes to do it, we're going to send you 20 horses, never look at your scorecards and see how you do it. Like any other exam, like taking the LSAT version. I think that's a great idea. Yeah, it makes sense to me. So how do we get that done? I don't know. I don't know they're working on it. I mean, it's, again, it's part USCF, it's part USAHA. There's a lot of things in the works. I think that I think the really positive thing that's happened in the last couple of years is that there has been a recognition of the need for improvement. And I think that there are many people working toward that end. And I hope that we get there because it's it's overdue, I think. We just have one last question. You haven't been contacted or anything by any search firms, lately, people listening to our podcasts. Any big interviews? Do you want to tell us about this? No, any breaking news. I mean, come on. We're here on the scope podcast, yeah. I have been contacted by a few people asking if this is something I'm the thing that we're not discussing is something I may want to pursue. And I honestly don't think so. I think that as much as I am flattered by people even thinking I would be good enough to do that, I think I'm too old. I think that you're somebody younger. Are you seriously? Yeah, no, that's not the reason. I do. No, it's, I don't know. I think I think younger blood might be in the next year. I think Karen and I think we're also very young. So we think you are very young also. Well, you are, you guys are very young. Well, I just I appreciate the candor that you seem to approach a lot of subjects about, you know, your willingness to kind of see both sides, which I think is very, very important. And to know that it's not the us against them mentality that we're really kind of all in this together. And that's really the only way to propel the sport forward, which I think we all want to do. So if if our vote counts at all, please reconsider, we need a woman in that role of leadership and don't dodge it. You might, you might, your experience is important right now. The woman thing, I am 100% behind you on, you know that. Yes, I think that, yeah, I think there have been a lot of the same faces in our leadership for a long time. Yeah, I agree with you there. But I also would like the opportunity to say that I think I'm a big Bill Moroni fan. I think he's he's one of the most hard working human beings I've ever met. His intentions are always good. And whether you like him or don't like him, I think the man has a lot of integrity. And that says that says everything. And I've heard that from multiple different sources. And we've of course been critical of the USF, but I hope that we've been sure. But I have heard that about him as a person from multiple different sources. And I don't doubt that for a minute. So, but thank you for for reinforcing that. And you can be critical of the organization, but the people to get personal like that. I mean, they do it with with me as well. well, it's like, come on, I mean, we don't need to do that. - Exactly, and I think that's across the board. - Well, and unfortunately, we will not get away from that, that we will not be able to get away from that. So the next leader is really gonna have to rise above the fray a lot, not that Bill Moroni did not do that, but I do think that, you know, as a leader, you sort of have to put on your superhero suit of armor that repels, get your Wonder Woman bracelets out, and ward off those bullets, right, because they're coming. And I think just to have that, you know, sort of personal fire to say, it's really not about me. I'm here serving, I am the figurehead, but I am also the servant of the organization. And I think the idea of that servant leader is really admirable, and I think that's what it's gonna have to take. - And I believe that our sport has some really big problems facing it. Really big issues to be tackled. And not the least of which is the affordability and access. And that's what I am working on with Road to the Top, and it's not a problem just in Demick to that side of the sport, the jumper side of the sport, and the young talent, talented jumper riders, but it's everybody. And I think that that's the problem surrounding growth and accessibility and the integrity of our sport are paramount to whether we survive or not. And that's, I think that's the next decade, that's what has to happen the next decade. - I don't know Jen, that sounds like a leader to me. - Me too. - Me too. (laughing) - We can't convince us otherwise. - No, no, we're team Sissy. - That's right. - I'm gonna see my internet connection. - No, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. - I'm in a tunnel, perfect. - All right, well thank you so much for joining us again. We really appreciate this insight. I think that this hopefully will clear some things up from our last episode. We'll see, maybe make some things, maybe set a fire to some things again, who knows? But we appreciate you being here. - Exactly. - I always enjoy talking to you women, so thank you so much. - Thank you, thank you Sissy. - Don't forget to follow, like and subscribe. And we'll see you next time. - See ya.