What is a "shamateur?"

[Whisper]

I thought the term was used for people who have their USEF amateur card but accept money/other compensation for riding. I've seen it used in a couple of threads recently to apparently mean anyone who rides multiple horses who belong to other people in the same day. I ride several horses for a couple of people, and take lessons on other horses, but I am not paid for any of it. Granted, I'm only planning to show in H/J schooling shows, which don't normally divide classes except by age and possibly experience/number of ribbons, so it probably doesn't matter too much, but I'm a bit confused.

[ClearviewFarm]

As an adult amateur who works for a living and has to budget my horse show year, I think of "shamateurs" as those who have a lot of money, don't work, and their "career" is showing horses - although they do so in the amateur divisions. They are not necessarily breaking any of the amateur rules, they just have a lot more "opportunities" than your average amateur because of extra money and time.

I am curious as to how others define the term.

[Dazednconfused]

A shamateur is anyone who breaks the amateur rules that USEF has. It doesn't mean riding more than one horse or horses that don't belong to you.

[MyGiantPony]

I define shamateur as someone who claims to be eligable to be an amateur, yet accepts money or other remuneration for riding, or otherwise breaks the rules.

For example, I can no longer claim to be an amateur. My landlord travels a lot, so I take care of her horses when she's away. She knocks a few bucks off my rent. I ride (and will be showing) her horses. I can't claim amateur status any more. It's not a significant amount of money and no one would probably know...but I would.

I don't consider someone fortunate enough to have the financial resources to ride and show to their hearts desire a shamateur, as long as they aren't breaking any rules.

[forward ride]

haha, Clearview, I am totally with you! Those people suck. and i wish i could be one. but i work really hard at my regular job and wake up super early to ride before work and suck it up that i only have time for a lesson once a week and know that it makes me a better person. right? ugh. i'll just keep telling myself that.

[SilverBalls]

A shamateur is a cheater! It's unsportsmanlike, and any trainer that knowingly condones this blatant violation of the rules is just as guilty!

And the Zone 2 shamateurs rarely come out of their comfort zone, and when they do, say at the Zone 2 finals... they blow it!

[Biscotti]

As an adult amateur who works for a living and has to budget my horse show year, I think of "shamateurs" as those who have a lot of money, don't work, and their "career" is showing horses - although they do so in the amateur divisions. They are not necessarily breaking any of the amateur rules, they just have a lot more "opportunities" than your average amateur because of extra money and time.

I am curious as to how others define the term.

That has nothing to do with being a shamateur, and I would watch out calling privileged, rule-abiding riders shammys. A shamateur is a SERIOUS rule breaker. The people you're describing ARE amateurs, and they have every right to show in the same classes you do. Get over it.

[Whisper]

I'd understood it to mean what Dazed said, but have been seeing it a lot lately in the context that ClearView stated. I work full time, and am not wealthy, I'm just lucky to get some free riding time in! I help out with cleaning paddocks, feeding, etc. when needed, but I certainly can't claim to work for rides when it's 2 or 3 hours of riding and 20-30 minutes of work. :lol:

[lcw579]

That has nothing to do with being a shamateur, and I would watch out calling privileged, rule-abiding riders shammys. A shamateur is a SERIOUS rule breaker. The people you're describing ARE amateurs, and they have every right to show in the same classes you do. Get over it.

I have to agree with Biscotti here. Clearview, you sound a little bitter, to say the least.

Dazed did give a nice definition so did MyGiantPony, who is clearly a very honest person.

[Biscotti]

and know that it makes me a better person. right? ugh. i'll just keep telling myself that.

what a childish thing to say, honestly... like someone in a higher tax bracket is a bad person.

[MyGiantPony]

Dazed did give a nice definition so did MyGiantPony, who is clearly a very honest person.

I asked about it on the board a while ago because I wanted to know if $25 here and there was going to impact my status.

Believe me....there were some truly craptastic words coming out of my mouth when I found out I'd be giving up my ammy status.:lol: :lol: :lol:

But for me the reality is, I'm probably never going to be doing the AO's anyway. The adults would have been the most I'd move into, and the sidesaddle division isn't concerned with ammy status. So I'm one of the lucky ones that status doesn't truly impact.

[Trevelyan96]

I think what many people are thinking of when they refere to 'shamatures' are people who basically 'ride' for a living or their family's primary source of income is derived from riding and training, but they 'personally' don't advertise themselves as professionals, because they only ride 'family-owned' horses.

I'm not talking about someone like Paige Johnson, who rides competitively and has the time resources to devote to doing so. I definitely would not consider her a 'shamatuer'. Is she more fortunate than the full time worker/mom, who can only ride once or twice a week? Absolutely. But that does not make her a shamatuer.

And although I have a great deal of respect for the Toranos, and think they're really nice people, I do feel that Danielle should be labeled a professional, simply by virtue of the fact that riding and training is how they make their living.

[Trevelyan96]

I define shamateur as someone who claims to be eligable to be an amateur, yet accepts money or other remuneration for riding, or otherwise breaks the rules.

For example, I can no longer claim to be an amateur. My landlord travels a lot, so I take care of her horses when she's away. She knocks a few bucks off my rent. I ride (and will be showing) her horses. I can't claim amateur status any more. It's not a significant amount of money and no one would probably know...but I would.

I don't consider someone fortunate enough to have the financial resources to ride and show to their hearts desire a shamateur, as long as they aren't breaking any rules.

MGP... Although I really respect your strict adherence to the rules, I don't think, in the spirit of how the rules originally were inteded, that you should be labeled a professional. Its really a shame that so many good people are being denied the chance to ride in the right divisions just because they help out at the barn.

[chunky munky]

I think you are wrong. I have known Dannielle since she was very young. They are very careful and have always been of what she does and rides. They are most likely even more careful now.
It appears that you are trying to say if you are married to a pro, that you cannot be an amateur, correct?

[LetsRide]

A Shamateur is a person 18 years old or older that 'works' as an assistant to BNT or BNLT, rides and shows trainer's 'training' horses and then also enters Amateur division classes on the trainer's customer's horses.

:)

[SilverBalls]

A Shamateur is a person 18 years old or older that 'works' as an assistant to BNT or BNLT, rides and shows trainer's 'training' horses and then also enters Amateur division classes on the trainer's customer's horses.
:)

100% correct, but they draw up a lease for one of these horses to be leased by the shamateur... and they're covered! :yes:

[shade]

I think you are wrong. I have known Dannielle since she was very young. They are very careful and have always been of what she does and rides. They are most likely even more careful now.
It appears that you are trying to say if you are married to a pro, that you cannot be an amateur, correct?


If I remember correctly..in AQHA when you are married to a pro you cannot show as an amateur.

[ClearviewFarm]

I have to agree with Biscotti here. Clearview, you sound a little bitter, to say the least.

Dazed did give a nice definition so did MyGiantPony, who is clearly a very honest person.

I am not bitter at all. In fact, although I work hard, I make a very good living and I consider myself very fortunate to be able to afford my horses and 10-12 shows per year. I was just stating what I, and others I have talked to, consider to be a shamateur. :)

[Linz]

If I remember correctly..in AQHA when you are married to a pro you cannot show as an amateur.

Definitely incorrect. Many trainers spouses show in the amateur divisions.

[alter0102030405]

No money exchanges hands though, I have a place where I keep my mare, in exchange for helping them take care of their 3 horses, feed once a day (I buy all my own feed, so just taking up space), fix fence, drag the arena, pick area when too much poo, etc.. I also ride a horse they have for sale, showing it too, but I don't neg price or anything like that of course, I do tell people she is for sale, but would send them to the owners if anyone was seriously interested in her.

[Linny]

Alter, you are a pro if the compensation (board/care) you receive is worth more than a certain amount-I think $300. They are giving you compensation in exchange for work and you are riding and showing their horses.
As for the OP, an shamateur is someone who is compensated (often in a hidden manner, somethimes blatantly) for riding (or other verboten activities) and yet holds an ammy card and shows in an ammy division. While it may be "unfair" that the heiress or rich man's wife can afford to ride a bunch of horses or buy the best horses, if she is not remunerated she's not pro and beside that life isn't fair.

[CFiona]

I thought "shamateur" was the person who can afford to show as their "career" (as an ammy).

I thought a "promateur" was a rule breaker.

(?)

[Seal Harbor]

No a shamateur is a person who breaks the rules. The folks that are riding their own horses at many shows are breaking no rules. They just have more money.

You can not accept board and or training as "compensation" you can not be supported in any way shape or form and ride any horse but your own.

An amateur can be married to a professional - what they can not do is throw a leg over ANY horse their spouse accepts money to board or train or show. Period. They must ride horses they own or legitimately lease only. They can not teach when their spouse or significant other is paid to do those things.

[beeblebrox]

"LetsRide

A Shamateur is a person 18 years old or older that 'works' as an assistant to BNT or BNLT, rides and shows trainer's 'training' horses and then also enters Amateur division classes on the trainer's customer's horses. "

ding ding ding
we have a winner
this is how I view the term

[PonyPenny]

There is one of these so called shamateur's at the barn my daughter rides at. She came back from college and works for the trainer, including riding clients's horses and other activities. So far this year she has only shown at county level shows as an amateur and these shows are not sanctioned by USEF. She has a USEF amateur card. She has been told she is in violation, but the trainer condones what she does, because she has a green horse:confused: My daughter, who is a junior, does not have to show against her. The other adults are reluctant to say or do anything as they do not want to piss off the trainer. I believe it is very common and so frustrating to those who actually play by the rules.

[IslandGirl]

No money exchanges hands though, I have a place where I keep my mare, in exchange for helping them take care of their 3 horses, feed once a day (I buy all my own feed, so just taking up space), fix fence, drag the arena, pick area when too much poo, etc.. I also ride a horse they have for sale, showing it too, but I don't neg price or anything like that of course, I do tell people she is for sale, but would send them to the owners if anyone was seriously interested in her.

So, you ARE the definition of a "shamateur." Shame on you. You are exactly the kind of person the USEF keeps trying to fine tune the rules to keep out of the amateur divisions. As long as there are people like you out there, the rules will NEVER be fair to those that truly deserve their amateur status.

Think of the amateur rules as icicles: they break as soon as you try to bend (or "flex") them. I hope someone reports you or that you wake up an HONEST person some day.

[fair judy]

As an adult amateur who works for a living and has to budget my horse show year, I think of "shamateurs" as those who have a lot of money, don't work, and their "career" is showing horses - although they do so in the amateur divisions. They are not necessarily breaking any of the amateur rules, they just have a lot more "opportunities" than your average amateur because of extra money and time.

I am curious as to how others define the term.

WRONG. MONEY IS NOT A DEFINING FACTOR.

[fair judy]

haha, Clearview, I am totally with you! Those people suck. and i wish i could be one. but i work really hard at my regular job and wake up super early to ride before work and suck it up that i only have time for a lesson once a week and know that it makes me a better person. right? ugh. i'll just keep telling myself that.

sounds like some lessons in manners might also be in line for your personal improvement journey. "those people <---->"??????? WHY?:mad:

[fair judy]

I think what many people are thinking of when they refere to 'shamatures' are people who basically 'ride' for a living or their family's primary source of income is derived from riding and training, but they 'personally' don't advertise themselves as professionals, because they only ride 'family-owned' horses.

I'm not talking about someone like Paige Johnson, who rides competitively and has the time resources to devote to doing so. I definitely would not consider her a 'shamatuer'. Is she more fortunate than the full time worker/mom, who can only ride once or twice a week? Absolutely. But that does not make her a shamatuer.

And although I have a great deal of respect for the Toranos, and think they're really nice people, I do feel that Danielle should be labeled a professional, simply by virtue of the fact that riding and training is how they make their living.

danielle torano is in no way violating the rules, technically or ethically. she is a great rider and lady who has a husband in the biz.

[Ibex]

Just because someone has the money to ride and train lots, it doesn't necessarily make them good!

[RW06]

If someone grooms, takes care of horses, etc. for a trainer and receives monetary compensation but then competes their own horse... is that being a shamateur?

[hoopoe]

RW06 as long as the person keeps their feet on the ground ( does not lunge teach ride coach etc,) then grooming and groundskeeping, and only riding their own horse does not make them a "pro"

Riding or working with the trainers horses or the clients horses ( in training and exercise, even hacking) or in a "free lesson"does cross the line.

[MLP]

A shamateur is a cheater! It's unsportsmanlike, and any trainer that knowingly condones this blatant violation of the rules is just as guilty!

And the Zone 2 shamateurs rarely come out of their comfort zone, and when they do, say at the Zone 2 finals... they blow it!

Don't forget NAL finals too....

[Janet]

An amateur can be married to a professional - what they can not do is throw a leg over ANY horse their spouse accepts money to board or train or show. Period. They must ride horses they own or legitimately lease only. They can not teach when their spouse or significant other is paid to do those things.
Suggest you check the rules. Leased horses are not permitted.


f. Rides, drives or shows, any horse for which he/she or a member of his/her family or
a corporation which a member of his/her family controls, receives remuneration for
boarding, training, riding, driving or showing. (A family member of a trainer may not
absolve themselves of this rule by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a
horse owned by a client of the trainer). BOD 1/13/08 Effective 4/1/08

g. Gives instruction to any person or rides, drives or shows any horse, for which activity
another person in his/her family or corporation which a member of his/her family controls
will receive remuneration for the activity. (A family member of a trainer may not absolve
themselves of this rule by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a horse
owned by a client of the trainer). BOD 1/13/08 Effective 4/1/08

[Nikki17]

As an adult amateur who works for a living and has to budget my horse show year, I think of "shamateurs" as those who have a lot of money, don't work, and their "career" is showing horses - although they do so in the amateur divisions. They are not necessarily breaking any of the amateur rules, they just have a lot more "opportunities" than your average amateur because of extra money and time.

I am curious as to how others define the term.

You can't be serious:confused:

[MLP]

By the way, in response to Clearview's statement, usually the shamateur DOENS'T have tons of money that is why the end up needing to ride trainers or trainer's clients horses because they don't have their own. Many times they do "grooming" or barn management for the trainer although most of the "work" time is in the saddle riding for the trainer and their clients. That's generally what I see, they have skill, and are good riders (of course there are times when the DON'T win) but the focus is more on riding lots of the trainer's clients horses for free to school them and show in the amateur classes to increase their value or because the professional they ride with doesn't ride themselves so the shamateur is basically their designated rider. It definitely sucks that they break the rules but usually it isn't the independently wealthy rider who is just fortunate enough to have the wallet behind them to enjoy riding their own horses.

[Seal Harbor]

Janet sez Suggest you check the rules. Leased horses are not permitted.


Suggest you re-read this rule - that is if the horse is OWNED BY A CLIENT OF THE TRAINER. Which means no in barn leases, but they can lease a horse from another barn, trainer and that trainer's customer


f. Rides, drives or shows, any horse for which he/she or a member of his/her family or
a corporation which a member of his/her family controls, receives remuneration for
boarding, training, riding, driving or showing. (A family member of a trainer may not
absolve themselves of this rule by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a horse owned by a client of the trainer). BOD 1/13/08 Effective 4/1/08

g. Gives instruction to any person or rides, drives or shows any horse, for which activity
another person in his/her family or corporation which a member of his/her family controls
will receive remuneration for the activity. (A family member of a trainer may not absolve
themselves of this rule by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a horse owned by a client of the trainer). BOD 1/13/08 Effective 4/1/08 __________________

[Biscotti]

sounds like some lessons in manners might also be in line for your personal improvement journey. "those people <---->"??????? WHY?:mad:

Because being in an upper tax bracket makes you eeeevill.... OBVIOUSLY!

[Midge]

Shamateurs are rule breakers. Rich people are lucky, at least when it comes to having money to ride and show.

Bottom line, there is always someone richer, smarter, more talented, luckier and better looking than you. Labelling them erronously to make you feel better doesn't change that fact.

[Janet]

Suggest you re-read this rule - that is if the horse is OWNED BY A CLIENT OF THE TRAINER. Which means no in barn leases, but they can lease a horse from another barn, trainer and that trainer's customer
Agree, but your previous post said
They must ride horses they own or legitimately lease only.
Being "legitimately leased" is not sufficient to make it "legal", if the horse is "owned by a client of the trainer".

That was my point. Sorry I wasn't more explicit.

[happyhorse3]

By the way, in response to Clearview's statement, usually the shamateur DOENS'T have tons of money that is why the end up needing to ride trainers or trainer's clients horses because they don't have their own. Many times they do "grooming" or barn management for the trainer although most of the "work" time is in the saddle riding for the trainer and their clients. That's generally what I see, they have skill, and are good riders (of course there are times when the DON'T win) but the focus is more on riding lots of the trainer's clients horses for free to school them and show in the amateur classes to increase their value or because the professional they ride with doesn't ride themselves so the shamateur is basically their designated rider. It definitely sucks that they break the rules but usually it isn't the independently wealthy rider who is just fortunate enough to have the wallet behind them to enjoy riding their own horses.

EXACTLY!!!!!

[fair judy]

Because being in an upper tax bracket makes you eeeevill.... OBVIOUSLY!

i thought we already established that i AM evil, and a ribbon chasing CHEATER.:D

[Seal Harbor]

Agree, but your previous post said

Being "legitimately leased" is not sufficient to make it "legal", if the horse is "owned by a client of the trainer".

That was my point. Sorry I wasn't more explicit.

You were explicit and then cited the rule, bolding the bit where it said lease horses were not allowed, however you completely missed the rest of the rule.

Here is the quote from you.

Leased horses are not permitted. The point you made was incorrect.

Leased horses are in fact permitted, as long as it is not a client horse of the trainer spouse/family member of the amateur. The lease also has to be recorded with the USEF and the fees paid. They can not show in Amateur Owner divisions, only Adult divisions. For others edification since I know you already know this bit.

These are rules not laws. Even if they are written by lawyers, they are not part of any state or federal legislation. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules or against the rules, legal or illegal is not part of the equation. Breaking laws is an entirely different ball of wax.

[Biscotti]

These are rules not laws. Even if they are written by lawyers, they are not part of any state or federal legislation. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules or against the rules, legal or illegal is not part of the equation. Breaking laws is an entirely different ball of wax.

I think these are the wisest, most well-articulated words I've read on this board.

[IslandGirl]

I completely agree. However, USEF fancies itself the "horse show police." As far as USEF is concerned, its rule book IS the law. :winkgrin:

[Sansena]

what a childish thing to say, honestly... like someone in a higher tax bracket is a bad person.

Huh?!?
:O

[miss girl]

What about those that you see coaching students at local New England rated shows. Then you see them competing the the New England Medal Finals & Jr. A/O Jumpers? I would call that a "Shamateur"

[MLP]

What about those that you see coaching students at local New England rated shows. Then you see them competing the the New England Medal Finals & Jr. A/O Jumpers? I would call that a "Shamateur"

Yeah that's definitely out, unless of course the "student" is an immediate family member then I think it's ok because no money is exchanged.

[Whisper]

Sansena, ForwardRide feels that doing the best she can with limited resources builds character, but Biscotti took it as an insult to people who *DO* make a lot of money.

MissGirl and MLP, I believe that is allowed as long as there is no compensation (over $300 in cash, goods, or services), regardless of whether the student is related to the person who is coaching.

Anyway, I feel I understand the amateur rules well, but this particular word was being used a bit confusingly on some other threads. :D

[Seal Harbor]

I completely agree. However, USEF fancies itself the "horse show police." As far as USEF is concerned, its rule book IS the law. :winkgrin:

No one goes to jail or has a criminal record for violating USEF rules.

The reason for rules, and laws for that matter is because many people are incapable of doing what is right, fair, ethical and moral.

The rule book when I first joined the then AHSA was a few hundred pages bound, and that was for all the disciplines. Now it's a loose leaf notebook or a thumb drive!

[ChestnutMares]

What about those that you see coaching students at local New England rated shows. Then you see them competing the the New England Medal Finals & Jr. A/O Jumpers? I would call that a "Shamateur"

There's one of those in Maryland too. Wins adult eq and teaches lessons to kids and coaches at local shows. :uhoh:

[Duckz]

There's one of those in Maryland too. Wins adult eq and teaches lessons to kids and coaches at local shows. :uhoh:

Yup, pretty blatant about it too. Lots of unhappy people in our neck of the woods.

[miss girl]

Whisper...is that $300 in a year?

I think that people are confused as to the difference between being "paid" cash or by having monies taken off of board, lessons, etc. If that's the case then there wouldn't many amateurs left in the industry.

[hideyourheart03]

Actually, neither is legal in my understanding of the USEF rules. Though the latter is much easier to cover up.

The $300 rule, IIRC, is the limit on price of presents. You can't receive money, but you can get presents less than $300.

[DuffyAgain]

Back to the spouse of hubby trainer - leased horse situation. Can that horse live at trainer's barn?

[Biscotti]

Actually, neither is legal in my understanding of the USEF rules. Though the latter is much easier to cover up.

The $300 rule, IIRC, is the limit on price of presents. You can't receive money, but you can get presents less than $300.

But that's no kind of present at all??? :confused::lol:

[Seal Harbor]

Back to the spouse of hubby trainer - leased horse situation. Can that horse live at trainer's barn?

It would then be under the spouse trainer's care and custody but the owner of the horse is not a client of the spouse trainer. The spouse trainer's client is the spouse amateur (adult) all care fees (vet, farrier, board, training) would be paid by the adult amateur spouse - in some manner.

I think it is to weed out the "leasing" of a client horse for a show or that the amateur adult rides at home on a regular or semi regular basis and then say that the horse is being leased, or having someone else (outside the family) paying all the fees associated with the horse. It would be unfair that an adult amateur be treated differently than any other adult amateur with respect to leasing a horse to ride just because they are married to a person who makes their living being a pro, although that horse would have to originate from outside the spouse trainer's clientele.


Say you own two horses and want to lease one out - you ride with trainer A, I'm married to trainer B and need a new horse and for whatever reason don't want to buy or can't - I can lease your horse, you are not a client of Trainer B, you still ride with Trainer A and the horse comes and lives at Trainer B's barn. The horse itself is never a client, they can't write checks. At the end of the lease the horse goes back to you and out of Trainer B's barn. You have never paid Trainer B for anything, therefore you are not a client. Now if you decide Trainer B is better and want to move there with your other horse, the lease would have to be terminated because now you are a client of Trainer B.

Or Trainer A owns a horse available for lease - Trainer B and adult amateur spouse lease it for spouse, it comes to live at Trainer B's barn - Trainer A is not paying Trainer B for anything and is not a client. It is about which direction the money flows.


Confusing? - you betcha'.

[Renn/aissance]

There's one of those in Maryland too. Wins adult eq and teaches lessons to kids and coaches at local shows. :uhoh:

Sent you a PM... we may be thinking of the same person, and I'm trying to get her set down.

[Trixie]

There's a whole lot of bitter on this thread:

As an adult amateur who works for a living and has to budget my horse show year, I think of "shamateurs" as those who have a lot of money, don't work, and their "career" is showing horses - although they do so in the amateur divisions. They are not necessarily breaking any of the amateur rules, they just have a lot more "opportunities" than your average amateur because of extra money and time.

Clearview, I am totally with you! Those people suck. and i wish i could be one.

Really, just unbelievably sour grapes. There will always be someone better than you, with more money, or more time. As long as they aren't breaking any of the rules, why get upset about it and say they "suck"?

How would one even begin to legislate it so that only those who work a certain amount of hours in another job, make under XXX-per year, and who only ride three times a week are amateurs? :rolleyes:

Its really a shame that so many good people are being denied the chance to ride in the right divisions just because they help out at the barn.

I've said it a thousand times: One or two bar shifts/waitressing shifts a week will MORE than cover anything that one could earn off truly doing barn work for a few hours a week. If you want to work at a barn and earn compensation, and ride trainer's horses, etc, then you are a professional.

[horserider12]

we have one on long island as well, taught lessons and rode horses for money and rides all her trainers clients horses in the amateurs. Also buys and sells horses, does that make you a shamateur???

[Trixie]

You can buy and sell all you want and keep your amateur status, as long as they're YOUR personal horses.

[hoopoe]

taught lessons and rode horses for money


Trixie is correct but this aspect of horseriders12 question is clearly the pro making deal

the rules are really clear, in my opinion. I do not see how anyone reading them could not figure this stuff out.

A new proposed rule change will make a trainer supporting a "shamatur" culpable and open to fines and suspension if the amateur is caught out by the federation.

I note that there were about 5 amateur violations in the USEF magazine listings with appropriate suspensions and fines in the last months issue. Previous months issues are also starting to show one or more violations. Good work on the people bringing charges and to the federation for following through

[MLP]

Trixie is correct but this aspect of horseriders12 question is clearly the pro making deal

the rules are really clear, in my opinion. I do not see how anyone reading them could not figure this stuff out.

A new proposed rule change will make a trainer supporting a "shamatur" culpable and open to fines and suspension if the amateur is caught out by the federation.

I note that there were about 5 amateur violations in the USEF magazine listings with appropriate suspensions and fines in the last months issue. Previous months issues are also starting to show one or more violations. Good work on the people bringing charges and to the federation for following through

Well it's about time they realize the trainer is behind this cheating and is the one promoting it and providing the rides, I think owners, trainers and shamateur's should all be held responsible. :yes::yes::yes:

[hoopoe]

8. A trainer may be subject to disciplinary action if an exhibitor who shows as an amateur is found in violation of the amateur rule and it can be
determined that the trainer had knowledge of their professional activities



here is a quote from the proposed rule change the rule change number is 476-08

Members may comment on any and all rule changes and comments are not just about things you do not believe in. You can comment about aspects of rule changes you strongly support

It is a start in the right directionI note that the last several issues of the USEF magazine is listing multiple violations penalties and suspensions for "shamateurs" The federation is enforcing the rules but , unfortunately , it is up to us to be the police

[Linny]

The trainer/employer of such shamateurs should be held responsible. Of course catching them still requires the undercover dep't of the FBI and the combined prowess of several state police organizations.:mad::rolleyes:

Unless a disgruntled former client comes forward with checks etc it tough. Most barns have you write your checks out to the barn, not the name of your trainer or instructor.

[Midge]

Whisper...is that $300 in a year?

I think that people are confused as to the difference between being "paid" cash or by having monies taken off of board, lessons, etc. If that's the case then there wouldn't many amateurs left in the industry.

You can only have money taken off of board or lessons if you are not teaching or riding. If you are having board taken off and are teaching or riding, you are receiving compensation and are a professional.

Quote:
8. A trainer may be subject to disciplinary action if an exhibitor who shows as an amateur is found in violation of the amateur rule and it can be
determined that the trainer had knowledge of their professional activities


I thought this was already the case???

[Mav226]

Look at the root word of shamateur--SHAM. As in a farce, a ruse, etc. It has ZERO to do with one's financial status or whetheor or not they are an heiress; although people use words incorrectly all the time. It has to do with one pretending to be an amateur but really their pretense is a...sham. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sham

Those with the financial resources to ride all the time are just lucky.

[ChestnutMares]

Sent you a PM... we may be thinking of the same person, and I'm trying to get her set down.

Pm'd you back. Don't know if it's the same person but good luck. They are a slippery bunch. :yes:

[Renn/aissance]

I always hope that I'm thinking of the same person as someone else--it's sad that there are so many shammies around. :no:

[happyhorse3]

Well the USEF randomly sends out drug testers to shows. It seem that only second to drug use seems to be this shamateur issue. I'm not sure what they could do to be more diligent but perhaps they could come up with a more aggressive approach. I know, I know,... there needs to be a paper trail but the cheaters are one step in front of them when it comes to that, they deal in cash. Perhaps instead on making people have to pay the $200 fee to file a grievance they could do a more in depth investigation once they receive a certain amount of complaints perhaps phoned into the USEF. We certainly pay enough in membership fees yearly. Doesn't seem as were getting are monies worth with this shamateur issue. I used to think it was all about winning the blue ribbon with these shamateurs but now I'm beginning to believe it has more to do with these shamateurs riding others horses in order to get them a great show record so they are more valuable for their trainer to then sell.:mad:

[Renn/aissance]

Perhaps instead on making people have to pay the $200 fee to file a grievance they could do a more in depth investigation once they receive a certain amount of complaints perhaps phoned into the USEF. We certainly pay enough in membership fees yearly. Doesn't seem as were getting are monies worth with this shamateur issue.

Seriously. Part of the delay with getting a protest filed on the particular individual (for whom I DO have proof, including copies of checks, her brochure with a price list, and copies of her entry blanks where she signed as an amateur) is that I simply don't have a spare $200 lying around right now.

[MyGiantPony]

MGP... Although I really respect your strict adherence to the rules, I don't think, in the spirit of how the rules originally were inteded, that you should be labeled a professional. Its really a shame that so many good people are being denied the chance to ride in the right divisions just because they help out at the barn.

I don't think I'm in the sort of postition the rules were intended for, but the way they are written, I feel that I have to adhere to them. It wouldn't weigh well on my concience if I would sort of ooze my way around them.

I just don't tolerate cheaters, and I'd really hate myself if I tried to work around this rule.

[MyGiantPony]

What about those that you see coaching students at local New England rated shows. Then you see them competing the the New England Medal Finals & Jr. A/O Jumpers? I would call that a "Shamateur"

I've coached plenty of kids, but never taken a dime for it.

If you don't know if money is being exchanged, you can't know if they are a shamateur.

[riverbell93]

There's a whole lot of bitter on this thread:...Really, just unbelievably sour grapes. There will always be someone better than you, with more money, or more time. As long as they aren't breaking any of the rules, why get upset about it and say they "suck"?

Human nature? :lol: There's also a whole lot of sensitive on this thread. It may be petty and unjust to complain that X's ability to commit more time and money to riding makes her, in reality if not according to the rules, a pro compared to the average rider. But it's also petty and unjust for X to have a snit because someone complains about her situation. It's a good situation, no? So just stroke your checkbook and smile graciously.

[Trevelyan96]

danielle torano is in no way violating the rules, technically or ethically. she is a great rider and lady who has a husband in the biz.

I'll gracefully stand corrected on this one, and my apologies to the Toranos... I am aware that they are very careful regarding the rules, with their high profile they would have to be... and I wasn't exactly trying to single Danielle out as a shamatuer... just giving an example of a situation that might lead someone to be labeled as such.

[MLP]

I've coached plenty of kids, but never taken a dime for it.

If you don't know if money is being exchanged, you can't know if they are a shamateur.

I hear SOOO many people say this. Are there really THAT many good souls out there in the horse community that everyone is just giving away lessons. How come I can't find you because I pay a HEFTY monthly charge for my lessons and I don't know of ANYONE who just gives away coaching. What's in it for you. I mean I can see volunteering for unpriviledged or disabled kids but really, you're just that nice. I can't believe it, I really can't.

[happyhorse3]

Seriously. Part of the delay with getting a protest filed on the particular individual (for whom I DO have proof, including copies of checks, her brochure with a price list, and copies of her entry blanks where she signed as an amateur) is that I simply don't have a spare $200 lying around right now.

Renn/aissance - perhaps you could take up a collection. I know when someone was contemplating filing a complaint against the shamateurs in our zone, many, many people we're willing to chip in. If that is not possible, you should call the USEF and tell them you have a paper trail proof and see if they will accept that without the fee? It's just seems so unfair. I mean they charge us the $7 or is it $10 fee for drug testing each show, I'd be willing to pay a dollar or two more for the "the no shamateur" rule!:yes: And the trainers should be held just as much accountable when they sign the form as "trainer". I wish you good luck. We have not had much luck in our area, unfortunately.:no:

[ChestnutMares]

I hear SOOO many people say this. Are there really THAT many good souls out there in the horse community that everyone is just giving away lessons. How come I can't find you because I pay a HEFTY monthly charge for my lessons and I don't know of ANYONE who just gives away coaching. What's in it for you. I mean I can see volunteering for unpriviledged or disabled kids but really, you're just that nice. I can't believe it, I really can't.


I like the ones that say they do this and oh, it also happens to be at a lesson barn.

I've never gotten a free lesson either. :lol:

[Trixie]

I hear SOOO many people say this. Are there really THAT many good souls out there in the horse community that everyone is just giving away lessons. How come I can't find you because I pay a HEFTY monthly charge for my lessons and I don't know of ANYONE who just gives away coaching. What's in it for you. I mean I can see volunteering for unpriviledged or disabled kids but really, you're just that nice. I can't believe it, I really can't.

Maybe you just don't know any nice people?

Let's see... I have a friend who keeps her horse where we keep ours. We often haul to the horse shows together. I'll help her out setting jumps, wipe her boots, or pointing out what I saw go wrong when she did her course, maybe offer up a suggestion to fix it, etc. To the outside person, it could very easily look like I'm "coaching" her. However, she's just a friend from the farm who does the same for me, and neither of us pays each other a dime.

There are certainly some people out there that help out of the goodness of their hearts. I can understand the skepticism, but there's often more to a situation then the outsider can understand.

On the other hand, I know a girl whose profession is riding, who gets paid under the table so she can continue to compete in the amateur divisions. She's admitted as such, but no one can or will "prove" it. Frankly, that behavior disgusts me.

[Trevelyan96]

There's one of those in Maryland too. Wins adult eq and teaches lessons to kids and coaches at local shows. :uhoh:

I think I know who this is as well... PM me if you to share names.

[Peggy]

I hear SOOO many people say this. Are there really THAT many good souls out there in the horse community that everyone is just giving away lessons. How come I can't find you because I pay a HEFTY monthly charge for my lessons and I don't know of ANYONE who just gives away coaching. What's in it for you. I mean I can see volunteering for unpriviledged or disabled kids but really, you're just that nice. I can't believe it, I really can't.Not giving lessons or taking horses in for training here, either for pay or not. But I have helped people learn courses, walked courses, set jumps, hacked horses that aren't mine, helped people from the rail, etc. All without being paid. I'm happy to do it. It gives me something to do between classes. It keeps the trainers from getting (more?) frazzled at the shows. And I can do this w/out fear of someone seeing me b/c I'm actually "clean." (not generally from a dirt perspective, but from an ammy perspective:D)

[MLP]

Trixie, yes a friend here or there you help out no biggie. But when it says I have coached MANY kids and never gotten a dime, I can't buy it. I have friends, I have family, I have given a lunge lessons to them here and there or the pony ride but trust me, I am not out there teaching strangers children or the up down lessons that the actual pro at the farm is too far beyond to teach. I know it's out there, I have seen it, I know people who have done it. I don't ride at places like that. I am just saying yes, here or there, one or two or maybe even 5 close friends to help out, but dozens and dozens begins to seem like you may be hiding something.... It's hard to prove because generally the ones cheating are WELL aware and are savvy to hide it. But I am sure there are many a folk who pay a person in their farm to ride and then stand by the ring and watch them compete in the a/a classes, many times winning ribbons AGAINST them but who is going to speak up and rock the boat in their own farm, especially when it is so easy to conceal. It is just a reality and I for one would definitely be willing to pay an extra dollar or two on top of the 15 already for the fees to stop the cheating. Christ, I have paid the drug fee for YEARS and maybe twice my horses have ever been tested, that's a lot of wasted fee if you ask me!

[ChestnutMares]

IME you can usually tell the different between those that are "helping" friends/barn-mates and those that are obviously "coaching/training" multiple riders.

[happyhorse3]

I hear SOOO many people say this. Are there really THAT many good souls out there in the horse community that everyone is just giving away lessons. How come I can't find you because I pay a HEFTY monthly charge for my lessons and I don't know of ANYONE who just gives away coaching. What's in it for you. I mean I can see volunteering for unpriviledged or disabled kids but really, you're just that nice. I can't believe it, I really can't.

You are so right!!!:winkgrin: Let's face it they're either working off board or being paid in other ways. The best one I've heard yet from a trainer about their shamateur after being questioned by another trainer is "well her husband makes so much money that she just volunteers all her time at my barn." You know rides all the trainer's and clients horses, mucks stalls, teaches, all for free six days a week and then show's trainer's horses and client's horses in the amateur division. Guess the trainer thinks all us true amateurs are very gullible and idiots!:yes:

[MLP]

IME you can usually tell the different between those that are "helping" friends/barn-mates and those that are obviously "coaching/training" multiple riders.

Absolutely or the ones who have seven of the trainers clients horses in the suitable and schooling hunters to prep them for the kid who is riding later in the day in the children's hunter. I mean you can't possibly have THAT many leases. I just think it is a poor representation on the actual PRO if a shammy rides better than them and their clients chose to have that SHAMMY do all the prep and showing of their horses. Honestly, just pay the shammy and you don't need the high priced pro. It isn't someone just putting up a rail or giving a barn mate some pointers for the hack when the trainer is at a different ring. They are riding many horses that they don't own, that are the trainer's clients and then showing a few of them in the a/a's as well, sometimes just getting points for fellow barnmate a/a horses because quite frankly their barn mates just can't ribbon against them. I am not saying no one is nice, I just can't see someone standing in a ring for hours on end and NOT getting ANYTHING from it. Not board, or trailering or training or SOMETHING that you can quantify. I just don't think there are that many nice people in the world, let alone the horse world where people rob you blind, steal horses, sell horses for ridiculous amounts of money to make huge commissions, it isn't the most God-like group of folks. That's why I just can't believe EVERYONE is so nice.
ETA: many times the form of payment is for "grooming" or "clipping" or "braiding" so again more excuses but that person is out there riding all those horses they groomed, clipped or braided, funny isn't it. I have never offered my body clipper rides on my horse, I pay them their fee and that's it...

[Trixie]

Absolutely or the ones who have seven of the trainers clients horses in the suitable and schooling hunters to prep them for the kid who is riding later in the day in the children's hunter. I mean you can't possibly have THAT many leases.

Not against the rules - as long as the rider isn't receiving compensation.

They are riding many horses that they don't own, that are the trainer's clients and then showing a few of them in the a/a's as well, sometimes just getting points for fellow barnmate a/a horses because quite frankly their barn mates just can't ribbon against them.

Also not against the rules, as long as the rider is not receiving compensation.

One should be absolutely clear on what exactly is and is not illegal - riding a bunch of horses for other people doesn't make one a shamateur. Receiving money for it and THEN showing as an amateur does.

[horsecrazy]

Pm'd you back. Don't know if it's the same person but good luck. They are a slippery bunch. :yes:


I'm in Maryland also and show (infrequently) as a true ammy ... now I'm curious who this is too! If anyone feels like PM-ing me...

[MLP]

Not against the rules - as long as the rider isn't receiving compensation.



Also not against the rules, as long as the rider is not receiving compensation.

One should be absolutely clear on what exactly is and is not illegal - riding a bunch of horses for other people doesn't make one a shamateur. Receiving money for it and THEN showing as an amateur does.

I guess my point is.... which again can be argued which is why this runs rampant.... Why would someone stay at a show from 5 am to 10 pm riding and doing all this for FREE. Highly unlikely, they are definitely getting something out of it, proving that is hard. So you are right, do what you want, you're all such wonderful, kind hearted people.....

[Trixie]

Why would someone stay at a show from 5 am to 10 pm riding and doing all this for FREE. Highly unlikely, they are getting something out of it, proving that is hard. So you are right, do what you want, you're all such wonderful, kind hearted people.....

Because they LOVE IT. At least, that's the case for me.

I don't usually have multiples to ride, but that's happened before. I can't afford to campaign a horse of my own. I love to horse show, and the only way I get to horse show is to show horses for others, due to their generosity.

I don't accept payment, ever. I don't feel that I'm a good enough rider to do so.

I have a 9-5+ desk job, if that makes you feel better.

[Everythingbutwings]

One should be absolutely clear on what exactly is and is not illegal - riding a bunch of horses for other people doesn't make one a shamateur. Receiving money for it and THEN showing as an amateur does.

Precisely. Work for pay in the horse industry and show as an amateur = SHAMATEUR.

[MyGiantPony]

I hear SOOO many people say this. Are there really THAT many good souls out there in the horse community that everyone is just giving away lessons. How come I can't find you because I pay a HEFTY monthly charge for my lessons and I don't know of ANYONE who just gives away coaching. What's in it for you. I mean I can see volunteering for unpriviledged or disabled kids but really, you're just that nice. I can't believe it, I really can't.

Are you really calling me a liar? Wow.

I give HUNDREDS of hours to my local association. I run shows, I design courses and yes, I coach kids. Because I had the same sort of help when I was a kid, and it's my turn to pay it back.

[MLP]

Are you really calling me a liar? Wow.

I give HUNDREDS of hours to my local association. I run shows, I design courses and yes, I coach kids. Because I had the same sort of help when I was a kid, and it's my turn to pay it back.

No I am not, I actually stated I could see volunteering and as you seem to be doing, yes for an organization that is obviously horse related. There are always going to be the people doing it right that appear similar to those not. That is why so many folks get away with it, it's hard to prove, but they are out there and I am sure not as altruistic as yourself! I am done talking about the topic, it doesn't affect me and the cheaters will fight to the end that they are doing NOTHING wrong, but still, somehow I believe there are those out there NOT abiding by the rules. That said, it's not really my business or my problem. Good luck to anyone who trys to set someone down, I hope you have proof because if you don't, they were just doing it because everyone wants to be nice. And for those who said that these folks who are prepping the horses for the child rider are doing it because they just LOVE to well.... I sort of feel like free board, free lessons, free trailering to the show and free training fee at the show in addition to free entries fees - because the OWNERS of those horses, you know the clients of the trainer, are the ones footing ALL THE BILLS - ALL add up to a hell of a LOT more than $300 so yeah, you're cheating....

[Trixie]

And for those who said that these folks who are prepping the horses for the child rider are doing it because they just LOVE to well.... I sort of feel like free board, free lessons, free trailering to the show, free entries fees because the OWNERS of those horses, you know the clients of the trainer, are the ones footing ALL THE BILLS AND IT ALL add up to a hell of a LOT more than $300 so yeah, you're cheating....

What in the good lord's name are you TALKING about?

[MLP]

I am talking about the shammy, who gets all the free rides, someone is paying for them one way or the other... and the fees add up and it's more than just a token of appreciation. Sorry it is, it's more than just a "gift" to have seven entry fees paid for one division. Even at a C rated show you are looking at $700 bucks. It may not be you doing it, but trust me it happens. Liars and cheaters are not honest... DUH of course they are saying they are doing nothing wrong. I don't think it should be allowed at all, if you are riding a borrowed horse and show in the amateurs you need to pay ALL your riding costs. Otherwise, the owner is paying you inadvertantly through the entry fees, trainer costs and whatever else they have to put into the horse to get it there and YES it happens, maybe NOT in your specific one time case but in many many cases out there, it's happening.

[Trixie]

As it stands, that ISN'T against the rules because it's the HORSE that's being judged.

There is a proposed rule change that the rider must pay the horse's expenses, I don't know if it's been voted through or not.

Again. Riding someone else's horse does not make someone a shamateur. The amateur rules were written precisely as they are for a reason.

You need to read the rulebook before going on krazy tirades about "liars and cheaters" who AREN'T BREAKING THE RULES.

If after that, you have a PROBLEM with the rules, work to change them, don't blame the people that are following them.

[MLP]

Oh I will definitely contact them in favor for making it that the amateur needs to pay the showing costs. They add up and it is not just a gentle token of appreciation. Plus then it will keep professional rides to the professionals. Horses are costly to keep even for someone else to ride and entry fees are expensive also. They definitely move out you of the $300 category which is the "gift" limit. And it isn't people who once in a while get a horse to show because someone is nice, or has a party and is going to miss the show. Its the rider who comes out 40+ weeks in the year with multiple rides week in and week out, often not the same rides, all the trainers clients horses and the horses are then shown in a different division by the owner. Those owners are at the VERY LEAST paying for the division that person is using to school their horse around. That is cheating, I don't know you, I don't know your specific situation but I feel and will definitely contact the USEF about it now that it is proposed, paying for entry fees is more than a nice gesture.

[Tex Mex]

It is not against the rules to ride a horse where the owner is paying the expenses. Even if you are riding 5 horses at the same show and the owners pay for everything, that is not against the rules. It is not considered a "gift", it's a catch ride, which happens all the time. I am surprised someone would actually see it this way. There are a lot of good amateur riders who ride other people's horses and don't pay for it, it sounds like a lot of jealousy when other people get mad about it. Yes, I agree it's unfair when people get paid to ride and teach "under the table" but please do not confuse the two. The first scenario is NOT cheating!

[Biscotti]

I don't think it should be allowed at all, if you are riding a borrowed horse and show in the amateurs you need to pay ALL your riding costs.

Under your argument, I am a shammy because my dad pays for me to ride and show a horse that is under his ownership. So, essentially, I am riding someone else's horse for free, and having my way paid, because he pays for my riding and show fees. Wow, I am such a rampant rule breaker. I will go declare my professional status right now. You have certainly led me down the moral path of righteousness.

And good luck getting catch rides banned.

[MyGiantPony]

No I am not, I actually stated I could see volunteering and as you seem to be doing, yes for an organization that is obviously horse related.

When you said "What's in it for you. I mean I can see volunteering for unpriviledged or disabled kids but really, you're just that nice. I can't believe it, I really can't." you weren't calling me a liar. Riiiiight.

I don't just work with underpriviledged or disabled kids. In fact, I don't work with any. And sometimes we go to rated shows and most times we don't. But "my" kids (and some adults) are always turned out correctly, ride to the best of their abilities and get the best of my skill and knowledge. For free.

I *could* charge them, because as I stated earlier in the thread, I'm no longer eligible to be an ammy due to my living situation, but I won't. Because I owe it to the equestrian community to share the gifts I've been given.

If I were making my living at horses, it would be a different story. Of course I'd charge for lessons/coaching/training. And maybe some day I'll get back into the lesson ring as a paid pro. But until then, I'll continue to give of myself because I truly enjoy doing so, and because it's my responsibility to do what I can to help create good horsemen and women.

[Tex Mex]

The proposed rule change (which is not in the 2009 rule book) as I understood it, did not require the rider to pay the expenses. I understood it to mean that you can't be reimbursed. So the owner has to pay all the expenses at the show rather than reimbursing the rider later. That's a big difference than what you are saying.

Also, the fact that the horse is being judged isn't the issue either. I don't see how an owner paying the bills for a horse to be shown in the equitation is against any rules. If it's a green horse and it's for sale, it needs miles, the scenario benefits the rider and the owner.

[Janet]

Oh I will definitely contact them in favor for making it that the amateur needs to pay the showing costs. ... Those owners are at the VERY LEAST paying for the division that person is using to school their horse around. That is cheating, I don't know you, I don't know your specific situation but I feel and will definitely contact the USEF about it now that it is proposed, paying for entry fees is more than a nice gesture.
A- how do you know who is paying the entry fee?

B- the USEF is curerntly addressing this, see rule change proposals
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/475-08.pdf
and
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/476-08.pdf

Note that,if this is passed, paying entry fees WOULD BE permitted, but paying hotel room and travel WOULD NOT BE permitted.

[MLP]

Under your argument, I am a shammy because my dad pays for me to ride and show a horse that is under his ownership. So, essentially, I am riding someone else's horse for free, and having my way paid, because he pays for my riding and show fees. Wow, I am such a rampant rule breaker. I will go declare my professional status right now. You have certainly led me down the moral path of righteousness.

No you are an immediate member of the family. I am talking specifically about trainer's client horses and I am not jealous I just think that riding is expensive and catch riding is for juniors. Once you age out you either ride as a pro or pay for your entries. It is such a hard line to draw you will NEVER be able to enforce it which is why this topic comes up year after year and why the gross violators show at the indoor shows year after year, if it was easy to define and enforce they wouldn't be doing it. I still think showing is way too expensive to just say, oh it's a catch ride especially when you are talking about big numbers, owned by many different owners all clients of your trainer. Just don't ride in the ammy classes, ride in the open classes. I will support the rule change since I am a good standing member and will continue on my plan with my horses and my pro. When I ride well, I pin well, even against the shammy.

[Moesha]

You cannot start morally policing what others do or don't do with their time or their motives, as long as they are following the rules then they are following the rules.........I know plenty of Amateurs who love riding and would, if they were offered and could and DO... ride and ride and ride and help and hang out at the shows and at the barn for free ...because they love doing it and they can't afford to do it like that any other way, so they take advantage of the situation if it presents itself.

Frankly as a 10-12 hour a day at my job type person......having to show against riders in the A/O jumpers who routinely ride for the team, win major GRand Prixs, have barn loads of horses is far more frustrating theoretically.....when you read about this GP victory or that World Cup Qualifier win while in Europe or elsewhere that is a bit more mind boggling in that they are still amateurs...but you know what...that is life they are playing by the rules as we have agreed to ....but if you are going to start going after peoples motives....there are far more at the front of the line to look at before questioning an amateur at a local barn who "is just to good to be true" in doing so much for free.

[Trixie]

That is cheating, I don't know you, I don't know your specific situation but I feel and will definitely contact the USEF about it now that it is proposed, paying for entry fees is more than a nice gesture.

No, it's not.

Once again, I implore upon you to read the rulebook before you go making up your own rules about what's cheating and what isn't. In accordance with the rules as they are written now, that isn't cheating.

[Biscotti]

No, it's not.

Once again, I implore upon you to read the rulebook before you go making up your own rules about what's cheating and what isn't. In accordance with the rules as they are written now, that isn't cheating.

Ugh, thank you. This is just as bad as saying that wealthy riders are cheaters. It borders on libel, seriously, these accusations are just off the wall.

[Trevelyan96]

Ok... I have to stick up for the 'friends helping friends' situation, because I've BTDT. We were at a small barn, with one trainer, but at shows trainer really only had time for the favorite client, and the rest of us were pretty much on our own. So I've helped other groom, tack up, school, coached them from the rail, another friend who was a better rider would hop on anyone's horse who was acting up. When my guy did his pretty boy floyd act at one show, friend stepped in, took him in his class. I bought her lunch as thanks. And at the end of the year, anyone who rode my horse got a dover gift certificate.

So, there are groups that just help each other out, and we pick what we help with according to our skill level. And yes, we're there all day, helping heach other, because its part of the fun of showing.

[LetsChat]

Also, the fact that the horse is being judged isn't the issue either. I don't see how an owner paying the bills for a horse to be shown in the equitation is against any rules. If it's a green horse and it's for sale, it needs miles, the scenario benefits the rider and the owner.

I am not claiming to be any rules expert here, at all... but I just feel that if the horse needs milage, isn't that what professionals are for. Still, may not be against the rules but just sits wrong with me.

[Tex Mex]

I am not claiming to be any rules expert here, at all... but I just feel that if the horse needs milage, isn't that what professionals are for. Still, may not be against the rules but just sits wrong with me.

But if it's an equitation horse that's for sale or needs to get shown, a pro can't show in the eq. So then what?

[Trevelyan96]

I am not claiming to be any rules expert here, at all... but I just feel that if the horse needs milage, isn't that what professionals are for. Still, may not be against the rules but just sits wrong with me.

Catch riding is the bread and butter for horese crazy, talented riders with limited resources, who for whatever reasons just don't want to be professionals. What, really, is the problem with that?

[happyhorse3]

No you are an immediate member of the family. I am talking specifically about trainer's client horses and I am not jealous I just think that riding is expensive and catch riding is for juniors. Once you age out you either ride as a pro or pay for your entries. It is such a hard line to draw you will NEVER be able to enforce it which is why this topic comes up year after year and why the gross violators show at the indoor shows year after year, if it was easy to define and enforce they wouldn't be doing it. I still think showing is way too expensive to just say, oh it's a catch ride especially when you are talking about big numbers, owned by many different owners all clients of your trainer. Just don't ride in the ammy classes, ride in the open classes. I will support the rule change since I am a good standing member and will continue on my plan with my horses and my pro. When I ride well, I pin well, even against the shammy.

I agree. Catch riding is for juniors. Once you're not a junior you do not belong catch riding in the amateur classes. There are plenty of open/professional divisions at all the rated A,B & C horse shows. We all now why they choose to stay in the ammy division, because it is almost always a sure win. It makes the trainer look good and gives the horse a better show records to increase its value when selling. It's all about the money. Also, I'm sure we all know the scenario where an owner is having trouble qualifying her horse for some year end award, finals, etc. and suddenly that horse is piloted by an shamateur for a while to get the points up. Really, I don't know how anyone can defend a shamateur's behavior. This sport is too expensive to "suck it up" and look the other way!

[forward ride]

what a childish thing to say, honestly... like someone in a higher tax bracket is a bad person.

i have no idea what you are insinuating. "makes you a better person" is saying. that people say. you know? i was not implying that i was a "better person" than anyone in another tax bracket. jeeze. it was a tongue-in-cheek response anyway. there are always people who have more of something & that's what makes the world different and interesting and shapes who you are.

sounds like some lessons in manners might also be in line for your personal improvement journey. "those people <---->"??????? WHY?:mad:

there have been about 1000 discussions of ammies and shamateurs on this board and i was trying to joke with the OP. and fyi just because i work a lot doesn't mean i am not an as high a tax bracket as you are. in fact, it actually probably means i could be in a higher one.

i forget that attempts at wry humor are often missed on here. my bad. :D

[Seal Harbor]

But if it's an equitation horse that's for sale or needs to get shown, a pro can't show in the eq. So then what?

There are adults and juniors who can ride it. As long as the adults don't get paid it is fine.

There is a rule proposal up that wants Juniors not to be paid either. That probably won't fly. But who knows?

[Tex Mex]

There are adults and juniors who can ride it. As long as the adults don't get paid it is fine.


Exactly. End of story.

[Trixie]

I agree. Catch riding is for juniors. Once you're not a junior you do not belong catch riding in the amateur classes. There are plenty of open/professional divisions at all the rated A,B & C horse shows. We all now why they choose to stay in the ammy division, because it is almost always a sure win. It makes the trainer look good and gives the horse a better show records to increase its value when selling. It's all about the money. Also, I'm sure we all know the scenario where an owner is having trouble qualifying her horse for some year end award, finals, etc. and suddenly that horse is piloted by an shamateur for a while to get the points up. Really, I don't know how anyone can defend a shamateur's behavior. This sport is too expensive to "suck it up" and look the other way!

Do you not read the rules? Again: to most, a shamateur is an actual rule breaker. If they're not breaking the rules of the division as the rules are written, they're not a shamateur, they're just another amateur.

I can totally understand the animosity towards those who are breaking the rules. What I can't understand is y'all who feel the need to castigate those that FOLLOW the rules because they're better than you. Furthermore, the amateur rules start out "Regardless of one’s equestrian skills and/or accomplishments." Many legitimate amateurs ride better than many pros.

What I'm getting these posts is that folks now don't want those who ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES to play in their sandbox... because they might beat you?

[ThatScaryChick]

Do you not read the rules? Again: to most, a shamateur is an actual rule breaker. If they're not breaking the rules of the division as the rules are written, they're not a shamateur, they're just another amateur.

I can totally understand the animosity towards those who are breaking the rules. What I can't understand is y'all who feel the need to castigate those that FOLLOW the rules because they're better than you. Furthermore, the amateur rules start out "Regardless of one’s equestrian skills and/or accomplishments." Many legitimate amateurs ride better than many pros.

What I'm getting these posts is that folks now don't want those who ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES to play in their sandbox... because they might beat you?

I agree! Some of these posts really come off as sour grapes.

[meupatdoes]

If you don't want to ride against ammies who are catch riding, then feel free to go ahead and stick to the Amateur OWNER divisions.

There's a division out there made especially for you guys if you would read the rule book.

[Janet]

There is a rule proposal up that wants Juniors not to be paid either. That probably won't fly. But who knows?

I am really not sure what that rule change proposal (about juniors) means.

I THINK it means that, if you get paid as a junior, when you age out, you either need to declare yourself a non-amateur, or apply for amatuer status and "sit out a year", just like an adult pro who wants to revert to amateur statu.

[Linny]

I am talking about the shammy, who gets all the free rides, someone is paying for them one way or the other... and the fees add up and it's more than just a token of appreciation. Sorry it is, it's more than just a "gift" to have seven entry fees paid for one division. Even at a C rated show you are looking at $700 bucks. It may not be you doing it, but trust me it happens. Liars and cheaters are not honest... DUH of course they are saying they are doing nothing wrong. I don't think it should be allowed at all, if you are riding a borrowed horse and show in the amateurs you need to pay ALL your riding costs. Otherwise, the owner is paying you inadvertantly through the entry fees, trainer costs and whatever else they have to put into the horse to get it there and YES it happens, maybe NOT in your specific one time case but in many many cases out there, it's happening.


I don't believe that expenses are considered compensation. I ride my friend's horse a time or two each week. If she were to enter him in a show and then be unable to ride and asked me to fill in, while paying all the bills (over $300) that wouldn't make me a pro. It would be covering expenses.
I'll happily go to shows with my friend and help her. She's kind enought to allow me to ride her horse and it's the least I can do. I've also told her when I notice things about her horse (he's leaning left, sticky on the left lead etc) that I hope will help her. Sometimes when we are both at the barn I remind her to keep her weight to the left because she tips right. No one would ever consider me a trainer and I have never been paid for it.
The issue is with all those who teach lesson (usually to lesson students) then go to shows and ride their horse in the ammy's and two or three other client horses in "specials" or "greens" etc. They are paid teachers showing client horses and then their own horse. The happy clients getting their horses around are not going to complain. The students who they teach are usually once a weekers who are not there at the recognized show. If they ride for a prominent barn who's going to ruffle any feathers?

[meupatdoes]

Basically what I think is going on here is that people who for whatever reason feels slick ridin' and rule followin' ammies are unfair to everyone else want to make horseshowing exponentially more expensive for EVERYONE.

Yes! Let's make ammies PAY ENTRIES to help someone put a resume on a horse. Rather then being allowed to do it FOR FREE, the ammy should be doing this at the ammies personal expense. The ammy should spend HER money to train SOMEONE ELSE'S horse.


Letting a horseless friend ride your horse in a horseshow? Forget it. Ammies shouldn't catch ride PERIOD. Heaven forfend someone stand by the rail and help out a friend FOR FREE. Anyone caught calling out so much as "Good luck!" from the rail will have a complaint filed against them and their amateur status revoked. Heaven forfend someone sit on someone else's horse to school it while they get their entries/clothes/hair whatever else together FOR FREE. No one who is not the amateur should be able to sit on the amateur's horse. (Trainer schooling should also be banned.)
HOLDING the horse for a rider by the in-gate will constitute 'working in a professional capacity' and the shamateur holding the horse will lose amateur status because NO ONE BUT NO ONE would groom to this extent FOR FREE.

And under the 'no catch riding' at all rule, the owner of the horse that needs a resume put on it will have to send the horse out under a pro in the Greens if it's still eligible, or find a junior to ride it. Forget the equitation, unless you find a junior.
OK. That sounds AWESOME.
Then amateurs will buy horses that are totally unproven in the amateur divisions and have never been piloted by an amateur at a horse show before and of course never even been SAT ON by an amateur before unless they were brought along from birth to the 3'6" level by the amateur rider that owned and trained them, because as we have already established, any riding of a horse they don't own by an amateur is grounds for losing of status. Otherwise, you'll have to buy from a pro or a junior and you won't have any idea how it fares against the competition in the division you intend to ride. You won't know if it's been able to beat your main rival in the 3'6" A/Os because it's never even SEEN the A/Os because it's been doing the first years and the junior equitation its whole life.
Right on.

Meanwhile, people who try to lease out their 3' campaigner rather than sell him will no longer be able to do so to anyone but a junior because we should make all the amateur divisions owner only. Riders looking to show won't be able to lease a school master to do so, because they have to OWN IT now, and riders looking for a good lease home will be SOL because a core group of COTHers have killed the ammy lease market for them. GREAT.

In fact, no self-respecting amateur should EVER be allowed to ride ANY horse they don't own because obviously they are sekritly training it for money so don't even THINK about taking your sister-in-law's horse on a TRAIL RIDE because you are a SHAMATEUR then.

As a matter of fact, amateurs who take LESSONS on horses they don't own clearly are sekritly training the horses for money and are SHAMATEURS. They should not be allowed to participate in schooling shows at their barn on the lesson horses because that is RIDING THE TRAINER'S SALE HORSES (he may sell old Dobbin one day, you never know) SEKRITLY FOR PAY.

You should only be able to horseshow -or even RIDE, for that matter- as many horses as you can personally afford to buy, board, and campaign. This way, we can make sure that riding is only accessible to the Georgina Bloomburgs of the world.

[LexInVA]

Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel. It's not healthy to keep it bottled up inside. :lol:

[hideyourheart03]

Precisely. Work for pay in the horse industry and show as an amateur = SHAMATEUR.

This is not true. There is plenty of work that you can do in the horse industry and still show as an amateur.

Vet, horse show manager, farm secretary, etc.

Any riding and training work in the industry for PAY is a shamateur.

That riding/paying your own way would only apply to ammies right? Because obviously pros don't do that on everything they have.

[Kementari]

I hear SOOO many people say this. Are there really THAT many good souls out there in the horse community that everyone is just giving away lessons. How come I can't find you because I pay a HEFTY monthly charge for my lessons and I don't know of ANYONE who just gives away coaching. What's in it for you. I mean I can see volunteering for unpriviledged or disabled kids but really, you're just that nice. I can't believe it, I really can't.

I actually find it really, really sad that you take such a dim view of the human race that you don't believe that some people can find any reimbursement they require in the fun of helping out horse crazy kids (or adults, for that matter).

Over the past couple of years, I've had five kids and one adult who've ridden my horse in local shows. I've coached them, at home and at the shows, prepped the horse for them (well, they "helped" - but you can imagine that a newbie kid's help doesn't really get most of the work done ;)), and even paid the entry fees for those who couldn't afford it themselves. I had one more kid who just hopped up for a few trail classes, because her school horse was being ridden in those classes by another rider. She was more advanced, so I didn't do a lot of coaching for her other than a few hints warming up. But I was there for the warm-up (well, except for the last show, when I was braiding someone else's horse - again, for free, as a favor).

I do it because I love it - and my horse loves it. The only tangible "payment" I get is the occasional sandwich or can of Coke. I just want to give people who wouldn't be able to get out there and ride and show otherwise a chance. If your world is so narrow that that idea can't even enter into it, then I find that very depressing. :no:

(I have done other - unrelated - things that make me a pro, for the record, and I do not ride in ammie divisions. But I was helping out by coaching and giving people rides before I was technically a pro, and will do so regardless of whether I continue to said pro activities.)

[Seal Harbor]

I am really not sure what that rule change proposal (about juniors) means.

I THINK it means that, if you get paid as a junior, when you age out, you either need to declare yourself a non-amateur, or apply for amatuer status and "sit out a year", just like an adult pro who wants to revert to amateur statu.

It is confusing because it is listed under 1307 Professional -

GR1307 Professional Status.
1. Below are the activities which would deem someone a professional:
a. Accepts remuneration for riding, driving, showing, training, schooling or conducting clinics or seminars.
b. Accepts remuneration for giving riding or driving lessons, lessons in showmanship, instructions in equitation or horse training. (Persons
acting as counselors at summer camps, who are not hired in the exclusive capacity of riding instructors are excluded and persons giving
instruction and training to the handicapped).
c. Accepts remuneration for employment in other capacity (e.g., secretary, bookkeeper, veterinarian, groom, farrier) and gives instruction,
rides, drives, shows, trains or schools horses, other than horses actually owned or leased by him/her, when his/her employer or a member of the
family of said employer or a corporation which a member of his/her family controls, owns, boards or trains said horses.
d. Allows the use of his or her name, photograph or other form of personal association as a horseman in connection with any product
advertisement or article (clothing, equipment, etc.) to be sold; whether it be for remuneration or promotion of one’s name/benefit.
e. Accepts prize money in equitation or showmanship classes. Prize money may be accepted by amateur riders in Dressage.
f. Rides, drives or shows, any horse for which he/she or a member of his/her family or a corporation which a member of his/her family controls,
receives remuneration for boarding, training, riding, driving or showing. (A family member of a trainer may not absolve themselves of this rule
by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a horse owned by a client of the trainer).
g. Gives instruction to any person or rides, drives or shows any horse, for which activity another person in his/her family or corporation which
a member of his/her family controls will receive remuneration for the activity. (A family member of a trainer may not absolve themselves of this
rule by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a horse owned by a client of the trainer)
h. Selling horses/ponies, acting as an agent in the sale/purchase of horses/ponies or takes horses/ponies on consignment for the purpose of sale
or training other than those owned wholly or in part by him/her or by a member of his/her family or
farm/ranch/syndicate/partnership/corporation which he/she or a member of his/her family controls.
i. Advertising professional services such as training or giving lessons by way of business cards, print ads, or internet.
j. Any individual who has not reached his/her 18th birthday and accepts remuneration for training, riding, showing or schooling horses
not owned by him/her.
k. Any individual who has not reached his/her 18th birthday and accepts remuneration for giving riding or driving lessons, lessons in
showmanship, instructions in equitation or horse training.


It is not clear at all if the person will then be automatically a professional upon reaching age 18 OR they will be a professional as a junior. The j. and k. are listed as exceptions in the definition of amateur - and as activities that make you a professional. If you took the list of activities that would deem one a professional as a stand alone rule then it appears that Juniors will be professionals.

Though it would not preclude them from riding in the Juniors, Children's and Pony divisions because they qualify on age, but once they age out it would preclude them riding in Amateur Owner or Adult Amateur classes.

More confusion. Juniors in our disciplines aren't allowed to ride in Amateur classes but they may be allowed to in other disciplines, I would have to look. Oy.

I did find that part of the proposal in regard to having expenses reimbursed applies only to the horses expenses not the riders. So entries, vet bills and farrier bills can be reimbursed not effect amateur status but not hotel, equipment, room and board, travel...

[Biscotti]

I did find that part of the proposal in regard to having expenses reimbursed applies only to the horses expenses not the riders. So entries, vet bills and farrier bills can be reimbursed not effect amateur status but not hotel, equipment, room and board, travel...

There is so much grey area there! Whose is the $400 bridle: my horse's or mine? I tell him it's mine when he chews on the reins but other than that, it was bought to fit him, he's the only horse that uses it, etc. Full care at shows, any equipment really, I would say 75% of the stuff I buy is for my horse and the other 25% is for me.

[Whisper]

MLP and Happyhorse3, I haven't had anyone pay entry fees for me, and don't expect to, but I am an adult who gets to ride other people's horses on a regular basis. I am very grateful for the opportunity, and wholeheartedly disagree with you about catchriding only being for kids! Actually, both of the current people I ride for (for free) like that I am an adult, for liability/responsibility reasons, and other people in the past have felt the same way. One of them even allows me to ride when they are not home, as long as I check in before and afterward by cell phone. She would *NOT* be comfortable with that if I were a minor. Other people who have let me ride their horses feel similarly. They like that I am reliable, notice if anything is obviously wrong with one of the horses, am able to do basic first aid/otherwise take care of them, and am willing and able to help out with feeding, cleaning paddocks, etc.

Right now, I don't ride well enough to do anything over 2'6", and only plan to do schooling shows for H/J and dressage. However, if I wanted to, it is neither cheating nor against the rules for me to enter Adult Amateur classes.

I'm certainly not the best rider out there. I've done well in many of the classes I've shown in, at the appropriate level for where I was at the time with that particular horse. However, I would not feel right about asking for or accepting money to ride, even if I weren't planning to do Ammy classes at all. I'm not qualified to be a professional rider or trainer, so I would feel I was cheating them out of their money.

Biscotti, Linny and Seal Harbor, I think it's wise for any amateurs who have someone willing to cover showing expenses pay the show directly, rather than reimbursing, even though it is allowed by the rules. I think it's just a lot clearer that way.

[LetsChat]

Yes! Let's make ammies PAY ENTRIES to help someone put a resume on a horse. Rather then being allowed to do it FOR FREE, the ammy should be doing this at the ammies personal expense. The ammy should spend HER money to train SOMEONE ELSE'S horse.


Why is an ammy training someone else's horse.... If you are training and you don't own it I think that shouldn't be allowed, maybe it is the way the rules are written but it shouldn't be. Professionals are TRAINERS, ammys are riders. But I guess it just circles back to doesn't matter about skills matters about payment. It seems like this is the never ending saga.... :yes:

[Eyemadonkee]

I have a younger friend that comes from a privleged background and is a fantastic rider and shows her horses in the a/os and occassionally in the professional divisions. She hacks horses for her trainer on the weekends. She taught lessons at her college. People accuse her of being a shamateur... and I'll admit, it appears she may be.

However, she is not a shamateur. It makes me sick to hear people talking about her when I watch her show. In my opinion, much of the hype stems from the fact that she is GOOD and they are jealous. But, she hasn't broken a single rule. She only shows horses she owns. She is not in the business of buying and reselling horses. She rides for fun. She exercises horses on the weekends so she can get more time in the saddle since she can only ride a very limited amount during the week. While in college, she taught lessons in her club... and was never paid a penny. Doesn't seem like a shamateur anymore... just a very lucky and dedicated rider.

So, don't be so quick to judge people when you don't know all of the facts...

[Seal Harbor]

There is so much grey area there! Whose is the $400 bridle: my horse's or mine? I tell him it's mine when he chews on the reins but other than that, it was bought to fit him, he's the only horse that uses it, etc. Full care at shows, any equipment really, I would say 75% of the stuff I buy is for my horse and the other 25% is for me.

This is for reimbursing expenses to an amateur for a horse that is not theirs that they are riding and showing since entries were on the list. I would hope the owner of the horse would have a proper bridle that fit it.

[Whisper]

Normally, I ride the horse in the owner's tack, but some people do buy tack/etc. for horses they part-lease, lease, or just ride. I don't think that tack expenditures are considered re-imburseable expenses.

[Seal Harbor]

Biscotti, Linny and Seal Harbor, I think it's wise for any amateurs who have someone willing to cover showing expenses pay the show directly, rather than reimbursing, even though it is allowed by the rules. I think it's just a lot clearer that way.

I agree.

[Seal Harbor]

Normally, I ride the horse in the owner's tack, but some people do buy tack/etc. for horses they part-lease, lease, or just ride. I don't think that tack expenditures are considered re-imburseable expenses.
They aren't. Just the horses "personal" expenses are reimbursable, not the riders expenses (this is for a person to show/ride someone else's horse without a lease and still remain an amateur.)

[Kementari]

Why is an ammy training someone else's horse.... If you are training and you don't own it I think that shouldn't be allowed, maybe it is the way the rules are written but it shouldn't be. Professionals are TRAINERS, ammys are riders. But I guess it just circles back to doesn't matter about skills matters about payment. It seems like this is the never ending saga.... :yes:

Every time you ride a horse, you are training it - for better or for worse. To say an ammy shouldn't be allowed to train anyone else's horse is to say that an ammy shouldn't be allowed to ride anyone else's horse.

[Linny]

Every time you ride a horse, you are training it - for better or for worse. To say an ammy shouldn't be allowed to train anyone else's horse is to say that an ammy shouldn't be allowed to ride anyone else's horse.

True, philosophically. But this is a rules discussion. My friend allows me to ride her horse (Ti-Bo) for reasons of convenience to her. I'm no better a rider than she, infact I'm not as good as she is. While I've always been taughet that every ride is a training ride, for the sake of the pro/ammy discussion a "training ride" means something other than me coming out to hack Titus on a sunny Sunday morning. In fact he gets weekly or bi-weekly pro rides (paid for) apart from anything I do. The idea here is to discuss who is getting PAID to ride the horse.

[Horseymama]

I kind of have to agree with Meupatdoes, it all does seem to be heading in that direction. I mean, why does it have to be so complicated? The definition for the Amateur rule is already ridiculously long, are they going to keep adding to it every year?

I was an amateur. I remember being beat by a girl that rode lots of fancy horses in the A/A division for her trainer. But then I moved up to the A/O's and I remembered feeling sorry for her that she was stuck in the 3'. Mostly, though, I never really cared what other people were doing or what ribbons they were winning or if they were "shamateurs" or not. I always just cared about how well my horse and I were doing.

Believe me, I understand the whole business of Amateurs and buying and selling amateur horses, etc. But in a way, I think it really takes away from our sport. Who cares if you win the amateur divisions? If you really want to be proud of your riding and partnership with your horse, I would think a ribbon in the open divisions would mean a whole heck of a lot more!

In the end, the whole shamateur thing is just about the quantity of ribbons.

[Kementari]

True, philosophically. But this is a rules discussion. My friend allows me to ride her horse (Ti-Bo) for reasons of convenience to her. I'm no better a rider than she, infact I'm not as good as she is. While I've always been taughet that every ride is a training ride, for the sake of the pro/ammy discussion a "training ride" means something other than me coming out to hack Titus on a sunny Sunday morning. In fact he gets weekly or bi-weekly pro rides (paid for) apart from anything I do. The idea here is to discuss who is getting PAID to ride the horse.

I was responding in the context of the person I quoted's quote of someone else. (THAT's not confusing... :uhoh:)

That person was talking about another ammy showing a horse to build it's resume, which isn't necessarily any more professional training than hacking someone's horse as a favor on the weekends. It's like getting a kid to ride your horse to show that it can do the children's - it's not (necessarily) that you need the kid to train the horse (in the pro sense), it's just that you need someone to help you make the horse look good. If riding someone else's horse at all in a show made you a pro, then we wouldn't even have regular ammy classes, just open and A/O...

[meupatdoes]

Why is an ammy training someone else's horse.... If you are training and you don't own it I think that shouldn't be allowed, maybe it is the way the rules are written but it shouldn't be. Professionals are TRAINERS, ammys are riders. But I guess it just circles back to doesn't matter about skills matters about payment. It seems like this is the never ending saga.... :yes:

First of all, there is a difference between training the horse and putting a resume on it. But that is beside the point.

Either way, there is nothing wrong with an ammy training somebody else's horse FOR FREE.
Otherwise, any time you rode your friends' horses, you would have to declare pro status.

So let's say you and your ammy friend are out on the trails and your horse plants four parking brakes and says NUH UH I won't cross this bridge.
Your ammy friend offers to hop on and try to coax him across for you.

OR
You are going away on vacation and your ammy friend offers to take your horse for a spin three times a week in your absence.

You say, "No, because you are an amateur and therefore I don't think you should be training my horse without declaring yourself a professional."

Obviously I take from this that you have never in your life ridden a horse you don't own in a horse show, or even ever ridden a horse you don't own, for that matter, because you feel that would be training somebody else's horse and you would feel morally obligated to give up your amateur status.

Really?

[Flag Day]

Is this a shamateur?

Barn owner's wife is "barn manager", owner/husband is head/main trainer.

Client brings horses into barn for sale and in exchange for larger commission barn owner and wife keep horses in barn for free (no board). Client pays for horse fees, such as hooves, vet, any horse shows.

Wife rides one of the horses regularly and is in online ads of horse for sale. She also rides in Amateur Owner divisions on a regular basis. When asked how she can do both, she answers, because of the situation, I really own part of the sales horses... (Because they provide free board - in exchange for commission!) She also used to ride the kids ponys at the barn for tune-ups but that has recently stopped - after my inquiry?!?

Can she get away with this?

[Jumphigh83]

Obviously she IS "getting away with it" BUT is she in compliance??? NO!

[LetsChat]

Obviously I take from this that you have never in your life ridden a horse you don't own in a horse show, or even ever ridden a horse you don't own, for that matter, because you feel that would be training somebody else's horse and you would feel morally obligated to give up your amateur status.

Really?

No I have ridden plenty horses for friends who have either gone away on vacation or out in the woods for fun but seeing as I have throughout my life had 3 - 5 horses of my own always I don't have the time or the desire to show anyone elses horse. Still I don't feel like hacking and training are the same thing. Yes you could say oh I worked on haunches in with your horse and could see that as "training" but to me "training" means really changing the horses knowledge base and that is what pros are for. Otherwise, why is anyone even bothering paying a pro, find some good ammys and get all the work done for free. There is definitely a different level of riding and a different purpose between the two. But I guess I have been fortunate to always have my own brood and not really have to worry about getting free rides or catch rides, like most of you.

[Trixie]

There is definitely a different level of riding and a different purpose between the two.

Again, the amateur rules explicitly start out:

Regardless of one’s equestrian skills and/or accomplishments

I know plenty of amateurs that ride better than pros, and plenty of pros that can't hit a distance. It's got absolutely nothing to do with your level of skill or whatever "purpose" you have in mind.

[MLP]

I purposely avoided this thread because you are down right nasty but I think this is so funny. You are all basically saying - there isn't a need for professionals in this sport because so many ammy's are so much better. That's so funny to me because if you were THAT good, you would probably be better off making some money off it. I think this thread just reinforces the NEED for trainer certification so that ammy's WON'T be better or more certifed than pros. And then there's always the flip side, if the ammy rides better than the pro, why aren't they competing in the Open divisions, so many folks claim people stay in the ammy's to stay in the ribbons but if you are better than Scott Stewart at "training" and riding the green horses, go win, the regular working hunters at INDOORS had 5 - 8 in it, you would for sure be in the ribbons in that division. I realize now why so many people say such bad things about this BB and why there are so many others out there.

[winter]

I am still a little confused on the issue of renumeration for working in the horse industry in a non-riding capacity. If you do weekend chores at your barn in exchange for part of your horse's board or additional lessons, is that a violation of your amteur status? Likewise if you are employed fulltime and paid at a stable as a groom/stable hand that does not ride client horses or teach clients are you an amateur?

I always thought that both of these situations were acceptable but there was a line in the rule book about this that confused me on the issue...

[Everythingbutwings]

...if the ammy rides better than the pro, why aren't they competing in the Open divisions, so many folks claim people stay in the ammy's to stay in the ribbons but if you are better than scott steward at "training" and riding the green horses, go win, the regular working hunters at INDOORS had 5 - 8 in it, you would for sure be in the ribbons in that division.

Could it be that the horse the ammy has available to ride can't do the heights? Could it be that the ammy doesn't have a schedule that allows them to show at certain times? Could it be that the ammy is satisfied with showing in the AMATEUR divisions?

Conversely, why does someone who, by definition in the rulebook, is a professional, feel the need to show at that (SHOCK) lower level?

"so many people claim" a lot of things, doesn't make them fact. More often than not, IMO, it's a combination of bad manners and poor sportsmanship.

[meupatdoes]

I purposely avoided this thread because you are down right nasty but I think this is so funny. You are all basically saying - there isn't a need for professionals in this sport because so many ammy's are so much better. That's so funny to me because if you were THAT good, you would probably be better off making some money off it. I think this thread just reinforces the NEED for trainer certification so that ammy's WON'T be better or more certifed than pros. And then there's always the flip side, if the ammy rides better than the pro, why aren't they competing in the Open divisions, so many folks claim people stay in the ammy's to stay in the ribbons but if you are better than Scott Stewart at "training" and riding the green horses, go win, the regular working hunters at INDOORS had 5 - 8 in it, you would for sure be in the ribbons in that division. I realize now why so many people say such bad things about this BB and why there are so many others out there.

In what universe does

Premise 1:
Restriciting amateurs to riding ONLY horses they personally have bought for themselves, board themselves and campaign themselves because if they are allowed to ride another person's horse ever they should be considered a professional would reserve this sport to the Georgina Bloomberg set

equal
Premise 2:
We don't need pros because all the ammies are better than all the pros anyway
?

Seriously in what universe do those premises equal each other??

I know it's a rich sport and all, but at SOME POINT it would be nice to accept some level of meritocracy -yes! even in the amateur divisions!-, instead of you can only ride and show what you can pay for.

Not all of us can afford our own herd; and some of us who have after years of travail managed to own something nice like to lend our horses out to those deserving and dedicated riders who are still chipping away at their dream.

[Seal Harbor]

I am still a little confused on the issue of renumeration for working in the horse industry in a non-riding capacity. If you do weekend chores at your barn in exchange for part of your horse's board or additional lessons, is that a violation of your amteur status? Likewise if you are employed fulltime and paid at a stable as a groom/stable hand that does not ride client horses or teach clients are you an amateur?

I always thought that both of these situations were acceptable but there was a line in the rule book about this that confused me on the issue...

You can be a groom and not ride any horse but your own and still be an amateur. The point is you can be paid money to do other things - BUT you can not do anything the professional at the farm gets paid to do, the things that make him/her a professional. The list of activities in 1307.

[Trixie]

I purposely avoided this thread because you are down right nasty

"You," whom?

You're being disagreed with, yes. Because you called people cheaters and liars, and questioned their motivation in an extremely confrontational and public way, while spewing nonsense based entirely on your personal opinion (including calling people cheaters who are FOLLOWING THE RULES). I think most people have been quite diplomatic so far.

You are all basically saying - there isn't a need for professionals in this sport because so many ammy's are so much better.

I never said that. I said that I've seen amateurs that are better than pros before, and I said that the amateur rule is explicit in pointing out that it has nothing to do with skills or accomplishments. The USEF wrote it like that for a reason.

That's so funny to me because if you were THAT good, you would probably be better off making some money off it.

Some people would prefer to keep riding as a hobby and make their money elsewhere.

I think this thread just reinforces the NEED for trainer certification so that ammy's WON'T be better or more certifed than pros.

See my last post. I support the idea of trainer certification, it would eliminate some of the uneducated trainers out there, many of whom scare me a heckofalot more than an experienced amateur. In practice, however, it might be complicated.

And then there's always the flip side, if the ammy rides better than the pro, why aren't they competing in the Open divisions, so many folks claim people stay in the ammy's to stay in the ribbons but if you are better than scott steward at "training" and riding the green horses, go win, the regular working hunters at INDOORS had 5 - 8 in it, you would for sure be in the ribbons in that division.

Many riders do not wish to jump the heights of the open rated divisions.

I realize now why so many people say such bad things about this BB and why there are so many others out there.

There are plenty of choices.

[Seal Harbor]

I purposely avoided this thread because you are down right nasty but I think this is so funny. You are all basically saying - there isn't a need for professionals in this sport because so many ammy's are so much better. That's so funny to me because if you were THAT good, you would probably be better off making some money off it. I think this thread just reinforces the NEED for trainer certification so that ammy's WON'T be better or more certifed than pros. And then there's always the flip side, if the ammy rides better than the pro, why aren't they competing in the Open divisions, so many folks claim people stay in the ammy's to stay in the ribbons but if you are better than Scott Stewart at "training" and riding the green horses, go win, the regular working hunters at INDOORS had 5 - 8 in it, you would for sure be in the ribbons in that division. I realize now why so many people say such bad things about this BB and why there are so many others out there.

Not all Pros are created equal. There are crappy professionals, meaning they charge people and get paid to ride or teach. There are many talented Ammys who for one reason or another choose not to be professionals. I would hazard a guess that someone like Betty Oare rides a lot better than most up down instructors, yet Betty is an amateur and the up down instructor is a professional by virtue of getting paid to teach.

Professional or Amateur has nothing to do with talent or ability it has to do with getting paid for activities that would make one a professional.

[There's No Coast of Nebraska]

I purposely avoided this thread because you are down right nasty but I think this is so funny. You are all basically saying - there isn't a need for professionals in this sport because so many ammy's are so much better. That's so funny to me because if you were THAT good, you would probably be better off making some money off it. I think this thread just reinforces the NEED for trainer certification so that ammy's WON'T be better or more certifed than pros. And then there's always the flip side, if the ammy rides better than the pro, why aren't they competing in the Open divisions, so many folks claim people stay in the ammy's to stay in the ribbons but if you are better than Scott Stewart at "training" and riding the green horses, go win, the regular working hunters at INDOORS had 5 - 8 in it, you would for sure be in the ribbons in that division. I realize now why so many people say such bad things about this BB and why there are so many others out there.

Wow. If that's really your interpretation of the contents of this thread, you get a D- in reading comprehension. You might not like the rules, but they are relatively straightforward; if you don't like them feel free to work to change them.

[Janet]

I am still a little confused on the issue of renumeration for working in the horse industry in a non-riding capacity. If you do weekend chores at your barn in exchange for part of your horse's board or additional lessons, is that a violation of your amteur status? Likewise if you are employed fulltime and paid at a stable as a groom/stable hand that does not ride client horses or teach clients are you an amateur?

I always thought that both of these situations were acceptable but there was a line in the rule book about this that confused me on the issue...
A little history lesson.

A while ago, on the west coast, there was a talented rider on the west coast. She spent all her time at her trainer's barn, rideing and training the horse in training. She go paid a decent salary. But both she and the barn claimed that she was being paid AS THE BOOK KEEPER, she wasn't being paid to ride. And she rode in the Amateur Owner classes on the weekend.

The USEF determined that she wasn't really doing much, if any, book keeping, and she was really being paid to ride.

So they chaged the rules. If the barn/trainer/horse owner is paying you for ANYTHING, horse related or not, then, to keep your amateur status, you must not RIDE (or train) any horses that your employer owns, or gets paid for. You can ride your oewn (owed or leased) horse, and you can ride horses owned or trained by a DIFFERENT barn. But you can't ried anything related to your employer.

So yew, you can be a groom and still be an amateur. But only if you never ride any of the "barn" horses.

[Whisper]

Conversely, why does someone who, by definition in the rulebook, is a professional, feel the need to show at that (SHOCK) lower level?
Well, there's no excuse for Pros showing in the Ammy divisions, but when they are bringing along a green horse, the lower levels are absolutely appropriate. For that matter, in mixed classes, I've beaten a couple of pros when they were on greenies and I was riding an experienced horse. I didn't have the impression that it's unusual, or that it means that I'm a better *RIDER* than the Pro! :lol:

[Linny]

You may see leading riders (BNT's or near to it) in lower level classes because they are schooling a horse or riding a greenie.
You also see lower level pro's in such divisions because it's their comfort zone. Remember, the girl who teaches up/down lessons is as much a pro as Scott Stewart or Jimmy Torano in the eyes of the rules. She may be the best beginnner instructor on earth but not jump over 2'9.