PDA

View Full Version : Obeying USEF Amateur rules



Pages : [1] 2

that-one-girl
Mar. 31, 2009, 08:27 AM
After reading the helpful hints thread, it got me thinking. How many people follow the amateur rules to a T? If they don't, do they typically get away with it?

Giddy-up
Mar. 31, 2009, 08:54 AM
I'm an ammy & I follow the rules. If I have questions, I ask before doing it.

Some people do get away with it. It depends how big a fish you are sometimes. If you are a nobody riding a nothing horse & not a threat, your odds of not being reported are probably better than a good rider riding a really nice horse that is winning. I notice in many instances people don't complain until it affects them directly (they are losing to the fake ammy rider).

Blinky
Mar. 31, 2009, 09:01 AM
I follow them.
Besides, Who would come on here and post that they didn't?

Dapple Dawn Farm
Mar. 31, 2009, 10:28 AM
Well said, Blinky...

LaBonnieBon
Mar. 31, 2009, 10:42 AM
Or just rules in general....

I can say I do follow the Am rule to a T... always have. As far as any other rule goes, I follow them to a T as well. I will admit there was one time I got busted for breaking a rule (a few years ago).... and while I do realize I broke the rule, at the time I was totally unaware I was doing it. I apologized and all was fine. :)

ExJumper
Mar. 31, 2009, 10:55 AM
Although I agree that no one is going to come on here and say "I do it! I knowingly break the ammy rules!" But I also think that I know what you're asking.

A previous poster said it as well, but I want to restate that if someone isn't winning (i.e. beating someone else who cares) they probably won't get protested no matter what on earth they are doing.

Sometimes I wish that we could have something other than a rule, more of an "I know it when I see it" approach to professional status. I understand WHY we can't, but it does seem a shame that ammys are excluded from certain activities that would in no way make them "better" than other ammys. There can be no loopholes because people have taken advantage of them.

Personally, I would have no problem with Amy Ammy teaching some Saturday up-downers at her barn to knock a few hundred off her board. But I do have a problem with Alice Ammy who teaches ALL the lessons. Getting paid $20 to hack out some juniors horse while the kid is studying for finals? Okay by me. Getting paid to put training rides on everything in the barn? Not so much.

But where do I draw the line between those things? I can't define it, but I would know it if I saw it.

But that's not really the question, that's just a sad commentary on the fact that the rule needs to be so all-encompassing because it has been abused in the past.

As far as your specific question, I will propose a situation that I think 50% of ammys have been in that would compromise their ammy status.

Many of us help out around the barn for a few bucks off board or lessons. We feed once a week, we clean a few stalls on the weekend. I'd guess probably half of us do something like this every once in a while. (And I'm not talking about enough work that it would be feasible to "sell our services" to the barn down the road -- I'm talking about a couple of hours a week.)

I'd also guess that more of us -- practically all of us -- have hacked someone else's horse around or taken a lesson on a horse other than ours. Your friend goes to Bermuda and you hack her horse twice. You're not getting paid to do it, but you do swing a leg over it. Your horse has an abscess so you get a lesson on a sale horse or your friends horse.

So if EVER these two groups of people coincide, you are breaking the rules. If I get paid $20 a week for feeding on Sunday mornings, and I hack my friends horse ONCE for her because she is busy and I am not, I am no longer an ammy. And THAT is where the rule is idocy. However, that is also why my trainer only had juniors work weekends at the barn.

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 11:01 AM
I follow them.
Besides, Who would come on here and post that they didn't?
You would be surprised how many people will come out and admit that they violate the letter of the rules.

It is particularly interesting when the COTH "Amateur Issue" comes out. Very often the amateur describes - IN THE INTERVIEW- doing things which are aganst the rules (e.g., being paid by their trainer in another capacity)

ExJumper
Mar. 31, 2009, 11:07 AM
You would be surprised how many people will come out and admit that they violate the letter of the rules.

It is particularly interesting when the COTH "Amateur Issue" comes out. Very often the amateur describes - IN THE INTERVIEW- doing things which are aganst the rules (e.g., being paid by their trainer in another capacity)

Yeah... That's always amusing! You'd think the Chronicle would edit that if only to protect their own credibility!

scheibyee
Mar. 31, 2009, 11:16 AM
I've read the Ammy rule time and time again and I'm still not sure I understand it to a T. I'm an Ammy, 21 years old. I generally ride/show 2-3 horses a week. I own a large pony hunter (silly i know, resale project). I don't get paid to ride the horses but i'm always asked to get on and fix problem horses etc. I do it for fun. I showed in the A/O Jumpers on a horse that was not mine, but I was leasing him. The steward at the show saw a copy of the lease agreement and copies of the checks and was fine with it. Afterwards I went home and read the rules, specifically says no leasing. No one protested, thank goodness. I don't understand that rule either, some of us can't afford horses that can competently jump around the 4'6 or beautiful hunters that can dominate the A/O hunters. Why can the juniors do it on any horse but now i'm 21 and can't do it at all because I don't own my own horse? I have to show against BNR's in the level 6,7,8 and Adequans and Greens? This isn't pertaining purely to the amateur rule, but kind of. I can't grasp what i can and cannot do purely from reading that legal mumble jumble haha, can someone explain it to me?

myvanya
Mar. 31, 2009, 11:21 AM
I have to agree with exJumper- though I do my very best to follow the rules it is so all encompassing that I really wish they would change it. Wouldn't it make more sense to have professional versus amateur status based on level of performance and ability rather than whether or not you got paid to hack somebody's horse while they were on vacation? Even if that isn't the spirit of the rule, it is written in such a way that if my endurance rider friend who gets paid $35 to ride some random person's horse on trails for hours on end were to ride in a hunter jumper show he would be a professional- despite the fact that he really can't ride to that level. It makes very little sense to me. I think it also means that raw beginners have fewer inexpensive ways to get good instruction if people who might otherwise be willing to teach basic begginer lessons for half the price of a BNT won't because they don't want to lose their amateur status. It really would be a win-win in many ways to update the rule, but I can only assume that there are some really good reasons that it is the way it is.

myvanya
Mar. 31, 2009, 11:24 AM
I would love an answer to that one to Scheibyee as I am in a similar age and financial situation...

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 11:33 AM
The REAL answer (to "Why are the rules that way???") is that, at the time the Amateur Owner divisions were started, the intended/expected participants were the non working wifes of men who could afford to support thier horse habit.

But they have kept them that way because, when one person is riding another person's horse, it is difficult to tell who is doing whom a "favor". So "riding someone else's horse" easily becomes a gray area where people can claim to be an amatuer, but are really riding the horse FOR the owner. You see a little of this gray area in the Adult Amateur classes.

Personally, I would rather see the divisions split on some other criteria (like the highest you have competed in the last 5 years), but people seem determined to keep the amateur and amateur owner divisions in spite of all the unintended consequences in the rules.

LetsChat
Mar. 31, 2009, 11:40 AM
As much as I follow the rules to a T, there are so many folks who break them that I actually think they are a joke. This topic has been hashed and re-hashed on this board and yet the violators, some of which who have been called out ON this board, are still going strong.... So if you follow the rules, do it for yourself because the USEF has a hard time proving it and most people just continue to violate year after year. You have to live in your skin and do what you feel comfortable with and the rest will have to do the same!

JumpWithPanache
Mar. 31, 2009, 11:40 AM
I agree that the ammy rule is a bit ridiculous. I work a full time job completely outside the horse industry but still enjoy teaching a few beginner/intermediate lessons a week. Because of this I'm precluded from some of the less competitive divisions where my green bean could actually have a shot at getting both miles and ribbons. Since I maintain my integrity to not ride in ammy classes I show against the local pros who have 4, 5 or more horses in a class and get paid to ride those horses. I'm hoping to do a few A shows this year, but seriously debating whether it's even worth the cost since again, I don't want to break the rules. It's very tempting to do though since I would be a nobody on a nothing horse and probably not get caught. Perhaps a ruling within USEF that a person making no more 25% their annual income (whether monetary or reduced board) with horses would be more reasonable for denoting amateur status. Would certainly make those A shows more appealing to me.

OneMoreTime
Mar. 31, 2009, 12:41 PM
Perhaps a ruling within USEF that a person making no more 25% their annual income (whether monetary or reduced board) with horses would be more reasonable for denoting amateur status. Would certainly make those A shows more appealing to me.

I love that idea.

I've been afraid to teach lessons even WITHOUT any compensation for fear of violating the rules. One of the best ways to learn something is to teach it & I would love to be able to help out w/some of the beginners. Even if it were something like 10% of the annual income.

unfortunately, I'm sure there are unscrupulous people who would find a loophole there, too.

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 12:44 PM
Perhaps a ruling within USEF that a person making no more 25% their annual income (whether monetary or reduced board) with horses would be more reasonable for denoting amateur status. Would certainly make those A shows more appealing to me. And how would you document/enforce that?

I have an early 60s rule book which DOES refer to the proportion of income. But that didn't last very long, probably because it was impossible to enforce.

For a while Eventing had a rule limiting you to $2500 in "pro-related" income, But they got rid of that rule too.

that-one-girl
Mar. 31, 2009, 12:46 PM
I certainly wasn't expecting anyone to say I'm an amateur and I don't follow the rules, because that would be a ridiculous expectation.

As I was reading the rules, I was noticing that you can't ride a horse in which your family member is receiving money for. I know of a trainer who sells horses on consignment, whose relative rides and shows them almost exclusively. Should she technically be considered a professional?

Giddy-up
Mar. 31, 2009, 12:54 PM
Perhaps a ruling within USEF that a person making no more 25% their annual income (whether monetary or reduced board) with horses would be more reasonable for denoting amateur status. Would certainly make those A shows more appealing to me.

So you would be ok with giving USEF your W-2s from the year showing your income? What about all the unclaimed income that is over that 25% (or whatever amount is decided upon)? Who would police that?

And don't you think if USEF has that informations, show managements are going to fill out Freedom of Information requests for that info so they can adjust their horse show prices as they see fit? :winkgrin:

TSWJB
Mar. 31, 2009, 12:55 PM
You would be surprised how many people will come out and admit that they violate the letter of the rules.

It is particularly interesting when the COTH "Amateur Issue" comes out. Very often the amateur describes - IN THE INTERVIEW- doing things which are aganst the rules (e.g., being paid by their trainer in another capacity)
this happens all the time. people talk about how they work in the barn and thanks to the trainer for providing all these opportunities to ride all these nice customer horses.
its the USEF's fault. they turn a blind eye to cheating. and no one wants to spend 200 bucks and be the one who is the whistle blower.
i think its very easy to break the amateur rules and get away with it. i think its very difficult to file a protest and be successful.
i dont cheat, but thats because i dont have time having a full time job that is time consuming. not sure if i didnt have time constraints , if i would be tempted to cheat when i see so many others doing this time and time again. but probably not! i would feel badly for cheating!

Smiles
Mar. 31, 2009, 12:56 PM
LetsTalk put it good. No matter if you follow the rules or not usef rarely enforces the rules anyways. Some people are blatantly braking the rules... We all have them in our local or zone shows, but they continue to do it because usef will not do anything about them. What good is it to have rules when there is no one to police them.

Giddy-up
Mar. 31, 2009, 12:57 PM
Besides, Who would come on here and post that they didn't?

Surprisingly people do. :rolleyes:

And if I recall, the burden of proof is on the protester...not the one being protested. So Sally Shammy could all day long spout off how she rides & teaches for money, but if nobody steps up with proof of payment to Sally then USEF can't do anything.

Or look at some past issues of the COTH Ammy special as Janet said. ;)

TSWJB
Mar. 31, 2009, 12:58 PM
As much as I follow the rules to a T, there are so many folks who break them that I actually think they are a joke. This topic has been hashed and re-hashed on this board and yet the violators, some of which who have been called out ON this board, are still going strong.... So if you follow the rules, do it for yourself because the USEF has a hard time proving it and most people just continue to violate year after year. You have to live in your skin and do what you feel comfortable with and the rest will have to do the same!
this bascally sums up the amateur rules! its up to the individual if they want to play fair or not. because you can get away with breaking the rules alot easier than you can get caught breaking the rules!

Phaxxton
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:00 PM
I've read the Ammy rule time and time again and I'm still not sure I understand it to a T. I'm an Ammy, 21 years old. I generally ride/show 2-3 horses a week. I own a large pony hunter (silly i know, resale project). I don't get paid to ride the horses but i'm always asked to get on and fix problem horses etc. I do it for fun. I showed in the A/O Jumpers on a horse that was not mine, but I was leasing him. The steward at the show saw a copy of the lease agreement and copies of the checks and was fine with it. Afterwards I went home and read the rules, specifically says no leasing. No one protested, thank goodness. I don't understand that rule either, some of us can't afford horses that can competently jump around the 4'6 or beautiful hunters that can dominate the A/O hunters. Why can the juniors do it on any horse but now i'm 21 and can't do it at all because I don't own my own horse? I have to show against BNR's in the level 6,7,8 and Adequans and Greens? This isn't pertaining purely to the amateur rule, but kind of. I can't grasp what i can and cannot do purely from reading that legal mumble jumble haha, can someone explain it to me?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the lease part affects your status as an ammy. It affects your status as an owner for the A/O classes. You would still be permitted in the AAs, no?

Giddy-up
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:07 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the lease part affects your status as an ammy. It affects your status as an owner for the A/O classes. You would still be permitted in the AAs, no?

Correct. As an adult without your own horse to ride, you would be restricted to the "adult" classes. Like ammy adult hunter or the ammy adult jumpers. Nothing with "owner" in it even if you have officially leased the horse.

scheibyee
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:07 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the lease part affects your status as an ammy. It affects your status as an owner for the A/O classes. You would still be permitted in the AAs, no?

Yes this is true, i was kind of bringing up another topic semi-related but not really. It had to do with rules, so I went with it while i was venting in general.

If you read the last few lines I point out the irrelevancy to the original topic.

dab
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:11 PM
I know of a trainer who sells horses on consignment, whose relative rides and shows them almost exclusively. Should she technically be considered a professional?If the relative is not a junior, then she is breaking the amateur rule.

I don't necessarily agree that it's mostly 'small fish' who break the rule --

Years ago while searching for a new trainer, I scheduled a barn tour and allowed myself to be talked into an intro lesson with a local trainer who's successful at the zone level -- When I got there, the trainer was busy and asked his wife to 'start' my lesson -- I knew she competed in the AAs, but figured it was the beginning of the competition season, and hoped she had decided to turn pro that year -- Well, 'starting' that first lesson turned into teaching me the entire lesson and another one the following week -- I decided against training with that barn -- Saw them a few months later at a show, and she was showing in the AAs -- She's often zone champion in the AAs or AOs on their sale horses -- Zone champion may be 'small fish' to some people, but it isn't to me --

Wasn't there a thread on COTH last year about a shamateur winning at Harrisburg?

Nickelodian
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:34 PM
But they have kept them that way because, when one person is riding another person's horse, it is difficult to tell who is doing whom a "favor". So "riding someone else's horse" easily becomes a gray area where people can claim to be an amatuer, but are really riding the horse FOR the owner. You see a little of this gray area in the Adult Amateur classes.



Janet - Could you please clarify this? I have the understanding that an ammy can ride any horse that they are asked to ride, regardless of the purpose of the ride as long as that ammy does not call herself a trainer, and is not renumerated for the rides in any way whatsoever.

sweetpea
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:35 PM
This subject always gets me , being reasonable and being fair and moral are 2 different things.
The Shamateur that won at harrisburg --- if I have the same one in mind was at a winter circuit this year --- somehow owns all of the horses now . but things didn't go so well at the big 25,000.00 child/adult jumper classic -- had three horses in it and placed with none.

They must have alot of money for entry fee's and owning three horses. They must live at home with their folks. Oh no that's right they live at the trainer's barn in an apartment and get free rent . I really hope it is all worth it!

scheibyee
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:36 PM
I think she means that in the 3'6 division owners have pro-level ammy's riding amazing horses and cleaning up the divisions. It wasn't a post about amatuer rules but about Amateur Owner rules.

used2
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:40 PM
From Sing Mia Song's explanation:


1.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.


2.e. Having the occupation of veterinarian, groom, farrier or owning a tack shop or breeding or boarding stable in itself, does not affect the amateur status of a person who is otherwise qualified.

I've wondered about this, not that anyone would question me, but it really isn't clear. You are an amateur by election and professional by default, correct? I can print up a business card and be a pro even though I don't have the requisite skills and can't effectively get from one side of a 3 foot jump to the other. I'm OK with the USEF as long as I don't try to compete against the third generation ammi horsewoman housewife that has been jumping the big sticks since she was a junior.

Additionally it seems odd that owning a boarding stable wouldn't affect my amateur standing, but as I read the rule quoted above, as a stable owner I couldn't pay my daughter to help around the barn, school an occasional horse and teach some beginner lessons without affecting her amateur status. Odd.

I hear a lot of gossip about this rider or that, it just seems there is too much wiggle room. A clearer rule is what is needed.

Sing Mia Song
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:46 PM
Additionally it seems odd that owning a boarding stable wouldn't affect my amateur standing, but as a read the rule quoted above, as a stable owner I couldn't pay my daughter to help around the barn, school an occasional horse and teach some beginner lessons without affecting her amateur status.

That's correct. Merely being a property owner or pitchfork wielder does not make you (or your daughter) a pro. Teaching, training or earning commission does.

It doesn't matter whether the person is your daughter or not. If you pay her to train, coach or sell, she's a pro.

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 01:53 PM
LetsTalk put it good. No matter if you follow the rules or not usef rarely enforces the rules anyways. Some people are blatantly braking the rules... We all have them in our local or zone shows, but they continue to do it because usef will not do anything about them. What good is it to have rules when there is no one to police them.

Actually, if you look at the hearing committee reports (on the web or in the back of the magazine) there have been a LOT more suspensions, etc. recently, for violating the amateur rules (3 in May, 3 in April)

Renn/aissance
Mar. 31, 2009, 02:04 PM
I am an amateur, and I follow the rules to a T. Although the rules are so restrictive now it's ridiculous, I understand that the reason they are that way is that people who want to play unscrupulously kept looking for loopholes.

I'm currently involved in trying to get a few "shamateurs" to be ruled as such by USEF, so if I didn't follow the letter and spirit of the rules, I'd not only be a hypocrite, I'd also get penalized like THAT because I'm a nobody and I don't have Mommy Pro backing me up.

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 02:08 PM
Additionally it seems odd that owning a boarding stable wouldn't affect my amateur standing, but as I read the rule quoted above, as a stable owner I couldn't pay my daughter to help around the barn, school an occasional horse and teach some beginner lessons without affecting her amateur status. Odd.

First, even if you do not pay her at all, your (over 18) daughter cannot ride/ train/ school a horse for which you are being paid board.

And being paid to "teach some beginner lessons" will make her "not an amateur" whether you are a barn owner or not.

No, it isn't strange at all. If this rule wasn't in place, there are lots of barn owners who would charge offer regular (non-training) board (but at training board $$$), and have a family member ride the boarded horses, allowing thre family member to be both a full time trainer and an amateur.

That rule is absolutely essential to close a big loophole, even though it has lots of unintended consequences.

You can pay her for "barn work" as long as she doesn't ride, school or train any horses you are getting paid for, and she will still be an amateur.

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 02:17 PM
I've wondered about this, not that anyone would question me, but it really isn't clear. You are an amateur by election and professional by default, correct? I can print up a business card and be a pro even though I don't have the requisite skills and can't effectively get from one side of a 3 foot jump to the other. I'm OK with the USEF as long as I don't try to compete against the third generation ammi horsewoman housewife that has been jumping the big sticks since she was a junior.

Not under current rules. Simply having the business card makes you ineligible as an amateur.

i. Advertising professional services such as training or giving lessons by way of business cards, print ads, or internet.

Smiles
Mar. 31, 2009, 03:35 PM
Actually, if you look at the hearing committee reports (on the web or in the back of the magazine) there have been a LOT more suspensions, etc. recently, for violating the amateur rules (3 in May, 3 in April)

Maybe if I could get the usef to actually send me my magazine I might be able to read about it (its the only part of the magazine I do read), but alas I don't think I've gotten one this year...:winkgrin: People getting set down seem to happen all to infrequantly though Janet...

Also the shamatuar that everyone is refering to is one in the same (harrisburg winner) who continues to show in amy classes. I love how at one show the trainer owns the horses and at the next week show she owns them and it happens like this at every other show this year.

LetsChat
Mar. 31, 2009, 03:39 PM
Actually, if you look at the hearing committee reports (on the web or in the back of the magazine) there have been a LOT more suspensions, etc. recently, for violating the amateur rules (3 in May, 3 in April)

Thing is the suspensions aren't really that harsh, yes you can't show as an amateur for a year BUT you get a minimal fine, probably less than one horse show cost (trailering, entries, coaching and braiding) AND only ONE month suspension.... So if you are acting as a pro but want to win, take the risk, worse case you sit out a month, get a slap on the wrist and then have to be pro for a few years. Not all that bad, I think they should be much harsher, people need to know the repercussions.

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 03:46 PM
Maybe if I could get the usef to actually send me my magazine I might be able to read about it (its the only part of the magazine I do read), but alas I don't think I've gotten one this year...:winkgrin: People getting set down seem to happen all to infrequantly though Janet...
But much more than it USED ot be.

Go to
www.usef.org (http://www.usef.org)
click on Rules & Governance
click on hearing committee rulings
click on 2008 or 2009
click on the month.

horsestablereview
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:05 PM
I agree that the ammy rule is a bit ridiculous. I work a full time job completely outside the horse industry but still enjoy teaching a few beginner/intermediate lessons a week. Because of this I'm precluded from some of the less competitive divisions where my green bean could actually have a shot at getting both miles and ribbons. Since I maintain my integrity to not ride in ammy classes I show against the local pros who have 4, 5 or more horses in a class and get paid to ride those horses. I'm hoping to do a few A shows this year, but seriously debating whether it's even worth the cost since again, I don't want to break the rules. It's very tempting to do though since I would be a nobody on a nothing horse and probably not get caught. Perhaps a ruling within USEF that a person making no more 25% their annual income (whether monetary or reduced board) with horses would be more reasonable for denoting amateur status. Would certainly make those A shows more appealing to me.

I am in the same situation and agree fully! I changed my card to Professional just so I wouldn't get in trouble even though I work 40 hours unrelated to the horse business and teach one or two riders here or there. The amount I make doesn't nearly cover the cost of board. I'm not afraid to show against the professionals but it would have been nice to not have to change my status. I enjoyed the equitation and now feel compelled to sell my eq horse because he's not a really competitive jumper or hunter. Oh well, guess if you want to play you gotta play by the rules. =/

sweetpea
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:09 PM
Well I watched the harrisburg shammy , and I do think they are a good rider I am sooo surprised they would fool themselves to think this is how people want them to view them.
I feel guilty but I was releived to know they didn't win the big class in FL. Actually a tru cool ammy adult won--- I watched her 1st round and congratulated her -- she was soo excited. I told her please smoke the youngin's !!! No offense but the childrens jumpers are soooooooooo crazy fast -- kinda scary but anyways -- anytime us over 21 folks can win a few it is soooooo nice. So I was crazy happy when I saw Maureen Won!!

ANyways I wish USEF would take more responsibility -- They certainly check to make sure your memberships are paid. Or they stewards watching the ring--- How is drugging the horses the only way of cheating??

brightwhitestockings
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:09 PM
would being a groom affect someone's ammy status?

ExJumper
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:16 PM
would being a groom affect someone's ammy status?

Not unless you rode. You can groom until the cows come home, but you can't swing a leg over even ONE horse that you don't own or officially lease.

PineTreeFarm
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:23 PM
Thing is the suspensions aren't really that harsh, yes you can't show as an amateur for a year BUT you get a minimal fine, probably less than one horse show cost (trailering, entries, coaching and braiding) AND only ONE month suspension.... So if you are acting as a pro but want to win, take the risk, worse case you sit out a month, get a slap on the wrist and then have to be pro for a few years. Not all that bad, I think they should be much harsher, people need to know the repercussions.

It is a significant punishment if you are making your living as a shamateur. You can no longer show in Adult Amateur classes and that's where most of the abuse happens because you don't have to own the horse.

LetsChat
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:29 PM
Not unless you rode. You can groom until the cows come home, but you can't swing a leg over even ONE horse that you don't own or officially lease.

And this is where we start to see how the lines can get crossed. So I get a check for "grooming" ok, vague... and who's to say I don't school and ride your horse at home and some of that "grooming" money is actually riding money but I say it is for "grooming" and unless you are an angry boarder / rider at that farm no one will EVER know what actually goes on behind the scenes. That's why it is so hard for the USEF to enforce. And NO ONE thinks it's odd that someone will ride 3 or 4 horses - different horses, not owned or leased by them but all clients of the trainer, in say the Suitable Hunters, the Schooling Hunters, the Adult Hunters at a local C rated show. But this same person, who at different A shows has their "own" A/O hunter, wants and needs the milage SO BAD they will just donate their time, an entire Saturday to just ride for the good sake of riding. I doubt it, but again.... No proof, no foul, no suspension, no reason NOT to cheat.... You will never solve this problem so change something that YOU do if you don't want to compete against them.... :yes:

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:29 PM
Not unless you rode. You can groom until the cows come home, but you can't swing a leg over even ONE horse that you don't own or officially lease.
ALmost.

If you are a groom, you can ride a horse that you do not own, but that has NO connection with the barn that pays you.

LetsChat
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:31 PM
It is a significant punishment if you are making your living as a shamateur. You can no longer show in Adult Amateur classes and that's where most of the abuse happens because you don't have to own the horse.

So then you show in the Suitables or Adequan or Schooling hunters. Sure it isn't ideal because if that was the case you wouldn't cheat but how about a year suspension and $1500 fine.... I think less people would take the risk. JMO I don't cheat so I don't have to worry but one month and $200 seems very minimal. Plus you have to be a pro which basically you already are, you just got found out. Really make an impact and people would think twice.

ExJumper
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:33 PM
ALmost.

If you are a groom, you can ride a horse that you do not own, but that has NO connection with the barn that pays you.

Yup! I should have been more clear :)

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:39 PM
So then you show in the Suitables or Adequan or Schooling hunters. Sure it isn't ideal because if that was the case you wouldn't cheat but how about a year suspension and $1500 fine.... I think less people would take the risk. JMO I don't cheat so I don't have to worry but one month and $200 seems very minimal. Plus you have to be a pro which basically you already are, you just got found out. Really make an impact and people would think twice.
The fine seem to be more than $200.
From the May report

RACHEL ROCK ROBINSON - $600 plus $200 per competition

SANDRA WOLF $1500 plus $200 per competition

CARYN EAREHART $500 plus $200 per competition

LetsChat
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:47 PM
The fine seem to be more than $200.
From the May report

RACHEL ROCK ROBINSON - $600 plus $200 per competition

SANDRA WOLF $1500 plus $200 per competition

CARYN EAREHART $500 plus $200 per competition


Wow - that's good! Maybe I was seeing the $200 and not realizing it was PER competition. I definitely think it will help enforce the rules, of course there will always be loopholes but it may make people think twice before cheating....

meupatdoes
Mar. 31, 2009, 04:54 PM
ALmost.

If you are a groom, you can ride a horse that you do not own, but that has NO connection with the barn that pays you.

People completely do not understand this rule, no matter how clearly it is spelled out in the rule book and no matter how many times it gets hashed out on COTH.

My favorite are posts like this:
"I work at a barn, but I am very careful about protecting my amateur status so when I ride clients' horses for them I NEVER charge."

or

"Isn't my (over 18 yo who shows in the amateur divisions) working student just doing WONDERFULLY on my stallion? Here's a video!"


And so on.


An old coach of mine, (one of whose students FLAGRANTLY violates the amateur rule by doing night check for him, **schooling horses before inter-collegiate shows for him**, and otherwise helping out in exchange for reduced board, lesson discounts and free rides on horses she does not own) once explained to me, "I think you're an amateur if you don't make your living off horses. But if you are teaching all day then you're a pro."

People just make up the rule book as they go along.


(And no, I did not ride with that coach for long. Condoning cheating was the least of his ethical problems.)

Pirateer
Mar. 31, 2009, 05:14 PM
Some of the am rules are crazy and I know lots of people who knowingly or unknowingly break them.

When I was employed by my barn as a feeder, I could only ride MY horses- not a schoolie if my pony was lame. Even if I was paying for a lesson. That sucked, but its "letter of the law".

USEF rarely enforces the Am rule- even with perfectly proven protest nothing much happens.

mvp
Mar. 31, 2009, 05:24 PM
I'm all for making word and deed match if I can.

So, if you are an USEF member, speak up and tell your organization what you want! With entries down at some of the largest shows, the USEF might be more ready (than is usual) to listen to its constituents about what would make them willing or not willing to pony up for an expensive show.l

If you see a shammy competing unfairly at a show, file a protest! I also try to make it known around my area that if I think you are a shammy (and there are really just one or two blatant ones I have in mind) and I find us entered in the same ammy divisions at a rated show, I am the one piss-ant who will say something. I also won't attend shows (rated or local) that don't make an effort to police the ammy/shammy boundary.

If you aren't willing to do anything in the real world, there's no point in complaining in this virtual one.

ExJumper
Mar. 31, 2009, 05:55 PM
If you see a shammy competing unfairly at a show, file a protest!

The $200 price tag on making a protest makes this a little less appealing. Also the fact that you are the one who has to PROVE that the person is breaking the rules.

twobays
Mar. 31, 2009, 06:08 PM
I obey the rules, only because no one would be willing to pay for my riding/training abilities. :winkgrin:

Janet
Mar. 31, 2009, 06:19 PM
The $200 price tag on making a protest makes this a little less appealing. Also the fact that you are the one who has to PROVE that the person is breaking the rules.
You can also use the power of persuasion to get them to change their status.

Linny
Mar. 31, 2009, 06:53 PM
I've read the Ammy rule time and time again and I'm still not sure I understand it to a T. I'm an Ammy, 21 years old. I generally ride/show 2-3 horses a week. I own a large pony hunter (silly i know, resale project). I don't get paid to ride the horses but i'm always asked to get on and fix problem horses etc. I do it for fun. I showed in the A/O Jumpers on a horse that was not mine, but I was leasing him. The steward at the show saw a copy of the lease agreement and copies of the checks and was fine with it. Afterwards I went home and read the rules, specifically says no leasing. No one protested, thank goodness. I don't understand that rule either, some of us can't afford horses that can competently jump around the 4'6 or beautiful hunters that can dominate the A/O hunters. Why can the juniors do it on any horse but now i'm 21 and can't do it at all because I don't own my own horse? I have to show against BNR's in the level 6,7,8 and Adequans and Greens? This isn't pertaining purely to the amateur rule, but kind of. I can't grasp what i can and cannot do purely from reading that legal mumble jumble haha, can someone explain it to me?

If you don't own you are stuck. I had this happen years ago. I leased Linny and had to show him in hunters against pros because of it. The class is called Amateur Owner, not Amateur or Owner. You have to be an ammy AND you have to own the horse.
Your extra "fix this horse" rides only count against you if you are getting paid to do it. If you are riding to help or to build your own skills that's fine, but if you are compensated, it's no go.

PonyPenny
Apr. 1, 2009, 01:08 AM
How do you prove someone is a professional if you file a protest? Do you need copies of checks, payroll records, W-2's, etc. What if the person is paid in cash? What sort of documentation is required by USEF? I could not find any info on the USEF website other than the protest form.

Wonders12
Apr. 1, 2009, 05:18 AM
I was JUST having this conversation with one of the girls at my barn. I don't really show, but I do think the ammy rule needs to be rethought. While a _____% of income or $_____ made might be harder to track, I think more people would follow the Ammy rule because it would be more reasonable.

I was giving 1 lesson a week for our IHSA walk/trot rider on my horse. I wasn't getting paid, but I she handed me $10 or $20 for my time, I would lose my ammy status. That's ridiculous! :no: But it is the rules.

I found out today that AQHA is so much worse! Basically if you're even accused of receiving $$ you're considered a pro for 5 (i think) years. However, within the years you're competing as "pro" you're not allowed to receive a penny if you want to return to ammy after your punishment. Because of that, I can't toss my friend $100 for caring for my horse while I was on vacation. As if that $100 won't go directly into her horse!

The "owner" stuff really does bother me. I lease a horse. He's my responsibility and the owner is 500 miles away. I know people who've leased the same horse for several years, but they still cant show A/O. I agree that if you can prove it (ie: contract and copies of checks) full leases for more than ____ months should be acceptable.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2009, 07:43 AM
Yup, the cost of filing a protest and accepting the burden of proof certainly make shammy whistle-blowing unattractive.

But I don't think those things are prohibitive. With the cost of owning a horse, paying for training and feeding what it is, I think an additional $200 put into leveling the playing field is something isn't really the problem.

I also think the USEF ought to be clear about what would constitute proof. For many of us, this would be the problem. It's tough to make an assertion you can't defend (and which may have some negative blow black) when the standards of proof aren't even clear.

It still stands to reason that dues-paying members of the USEF are entitled to an organization that represents their interests. I submit that there are many more ammies who would benefit from a clear and enforceable policy than not. The USEF ought to acknowledge that they work, at least in part, for these folks.

I also don't think that the policing function of the USEF should be handed to individual members. As it stands now, that seems to be the case in some sense.

But there are other informal things to do. One is avoiding the shows that seem to look the other way at rule violations, and making it clear to either/or/and the show secretary and USEF why you have taken your money and faith elsewhere. In addition, I think discussions like this that raise awareness or ammies who let it be known by word of mouth that they will, in fact, press the case when the rules are being broken can go a long way, too.

Maybe this is one of those issues where there is no neutral position. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. I applaud all the talented, unreimbursed ammies out there who don't cheat so that they can sleep at night. They are doing their part. I don't think everyone else--whether USEF policy-makers or others letting shammy violations slide by ought to take a step backward. To me, that's tantamount to condoning cheating.

happyhorse3
Apr. 1, 2009, 08:34 AM
Yup, the cost of filing a protest and accepting the burden of proof certainly make shammy whistle-blowing unattractive.

But I don't think those things are prohibitive. With the cost of owning a horse, paying for training and feeding what it is, I think an additional $200 put into leveling the playing field is something isn't really the problem.

I also think the USEF ought to be clear about what would constitute proof. For many of us, this would be the problem. It's tough to make an assertion you can't defend (and which may have some negative blow black) when the standards of proof aren't even clear.

It still stands to reason that dues-paying members of the USEF are entitled to an organization that represents their interests. I submit that there are many more ammies who would benefit from a clear and enforceable policy than not. The USEF ought to acknowledge that they work, at least in part, for these folks.

I also don't think that the policing function of the USEF should be handed to individual members. As it stands now, that seems to be the case in some sense.

But there are other informal things to do. One is avoiding the shows that seem to look the other way at rule violations, and making it clear to either/or/and the show secretary and USEF why you have taken your money and faith elsewhere. In addition, I think discussions like this that raise awareness or ammies who let it be known by word of mouth that they will, in fact, press the case when the rules are being broken can go a long way, too.

Maybe this is one of those issues where there is no neutral position. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. I applaud all the talented, unreimbursed ammies out there who don't cheat so that they can sleep at night. They are doing their part. I don't think everyone else--whether USEF policy-makers or others letting shammy violations slide by ought to take a step backward. To me, that's tantamount to condoning cheating.

MVP - You are so right!!! I hope you are in my zone where there are blatant shammy's showing in the Adult & Amateur Hunters. I know of several people in my zone who will no longer go to the shows where these shammy's are showing. Unfortunately people have spoken up and tried to use the "power of persuasion to get them to stop". It fell of deaf ears as was expected. Maybe when attendance in theses divisions falls off sharply, management will be more willing to listen. I also think the trainers should be held responsible when they are involved in the assisting with the "fraud". It just makes me angry that the "drug rules" are so well enforced (and rightly so) but other rules don't seem as important.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2009, 08:51 AM
Thanks, happyhorse3! Just know that wherever you and I are, there are people willing to step up. There may be more honest, slightly cheated ammies around who will feel emboldened. My hope is that our discussion here invites others to take some of the power they rightfully bought by paying their USEF dues or by voting with their feet and wallets at any show.

I think our current economic crisis will help because so many people have the opportunity to reconsider their values under pressure to spend their discretionary income wisely. I think the USEF and H/J world at large tends to consider itself a little bit above it all. It would be great to see the effects of so many people running out of money "trickle up" to break that nice barrier.

Horse showing is entirely made up. It can go any way we want. Perhaps the "we" that constitute the horse showing industry can collectively improve it.

RockinHorse
Apr. 1, 2009, 09:27 AM
People completely do not understand this rule, no matter how clearly it is spelled out in the rule book and no matter how many times it gets hashed out on COTH.



In my experience, people who don't undertand the rule are people who don't like what it says or are looking for a way to justify what they want to do and can't find it. :rolleyes:

luvs2ridewbs
Apr. 1, 2009, 09:48 AM
I think one way to better enforce this ammy rule is to punish the trainers as well. All these Shammys are showing under a trainer and that trainer should know whats going on and should stop it OR worse, that trainer is condoning it and encouraging it. Fine/Suspend the trainers

Janet
Apr. 1, 2009, 10:08 AM
I also think the trainers should be held responsible when they are involved in the assisting with the "fraud". They are. At least two trainers have had suspensions and fines this year for signing off on non-amateurs.

PATO MUENTE - one month suspension shall commence on April 1, 2009 and terminate at midnight on April 30, 2009 - $750

And there was another one in the magazine that just arrived, but doesn't seem to be in the on line version.

MLP
Apr. 1, 2009, 12:32 PM
They are. At least two trainers have had suspensions and fines this year for signing off on non-amateurs.

PATO MUENTE - one month suspension shall commence on April 1, 2009 and terminate at midnight on April 30, 2009 - $750

And there was another one in the magazine that just arrived, but doesn't seem to be in the on line version.

As other people have noted, one month suspension is minimal, it should be a year. That will really hit them where it hurts! One month, unless it is in the summer or during indoors isn't *that* bad. As for the trainers, of course they are responsible and should be equally punished, as should the owner of the horse. With stricter punishment people will stand up and take note. Sounds like many of these shammy's are repeat offenders, many coming out of the same training facility. I agree with go elsewhere to show but the funny thing is, if the classes don't fill, they get barnmates to fill the divisions for them so they still get their precious points. I have seen that before, how pathetic!

Blinky
Apr. 1, 2009, 12:36 PM
100% Agree with Rockinhorse.
I think the rule is pretty clear cut if you take the time to read it. You may not like what is says.

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 1, 2009, 02:01 PM
So then you show in the Suitables or Adequan or Schooling hunters.

Schooling, Suitables or Adequan have no USEF points.
Shamateurs need to be riding USEF point winning horses for them to succeed as a Shamateur. And some of the Adult Amateur jumper classes have lots of prize money which is no longer available without Ammie status.

Giddy-up
Apr. 1, 2009, 04:12 PM
And some of the Adult Amateur jumper classes have lots of prize money which is no longer available without Ammie status.

cha-ching. There are several $5K, 10K & 20K child/adult jumper classics May-Sept in my area. Very worthwhile for the $$$.

brightwhitestockings
Apr. 1, 2009, 10:13 PM
zipping up my flame suit........

after following this thread, I must admit I think the rules governing ammy status are RIDIC.

i were not a junior, i would have to be a pro because i groom for and help my trainer a lot. & this sometimes includes exersizing some horses. I do not get paid, but she gives me a little money off board and horse show fees. mostly for my work around the barn and for grooming her horses.
I just think it's so silly because I am not going to be in a horse related career, this is my HOBBY, and quite honestly, I am decent but in no way, shape, or form good enough of a rider IMO to be considered "pro."

jse
Apr. 1, 2009, 11:04 PM
They are. At least two trainers have had suspensions and fines this year for signing off on non-amateurs.

PATO MUENTE - one month suspension shall commence on April 1, 2009 and terminate at midnight on April 30, 2009 - $750

And there was another one in the magazine that just arrived, but doesn't seem to be in the on line version.

Pato's case is a silly one. His working students are my best friends. (They are on their way home from FL tomorrow! YAY! We spent the whole day today filling stalls with straw!)
They are suspended because of a type-o on his website (in which he does not maintain). His working students were listed as "co-trainers" for the longest time and that's not what they are.
USEF didn't buy that, therefore they got suspended. But I know for a fact what they do every day as working students as my husband was a working student for him as well.

Linny
Apr. 1, 2009, 11:27 PM
zipping up my flame suit........

after following this thread, I must admit I think the rules governing ammy status are RIDIC.

i were not a junior, i would have to be a pro because i groom for and help my trainer a lot. & this sometimes includes exersizing some horses. I do not get paid, but she gives me a little money off board and horse show fees. mostly for my work around the barn and for grooming her horses.
I just think it's so silly because I am not going to be in a horse related career, this is my HOBBY, and quite honestly, I am decent but in no way, shape, or form good enough of a rider IMO to be considered "pro."

Under the rules you are not an ammy. Reduction in board is remuneration as money is fungible. I understand your plight but rules is rules. A few years ago I was riding at Jumphigh83's barn. I was a lesson student but my lessons were on a horse that was boarded there. I also hacked this horse once a week for his owner. At that time Jumphigh was looking for someone to muck and feed 1 day a week. Technically, had I taken the job (which would have offset my lessons) I would have lost ammy status by riding a horse (the horse I did lessons on) that she was paid to board. The rule is designed to get at those who claim to be "bookkeepers" or "muckers" but who are actually "riders" or "trainers" or instructors.

SmileItLooksGoodOnYou
Apr. 2, 2009, 05:00 AM
Part of the issue I have with potentially losing my ammy status to take a horse job is that I run out of classes to bring up a horse in very quickly in my area.

If I can't show in the AA and then AO jumpers I run out of options for showing.

Last week at Pin Oak (Pin Oak!!) by the time Friday rolled around there was one 1.20M class and one 1.05M class, with a cross entry clause. How do you bring up a horse as an ammy with one class a day at a show?

There's not a jumper class I could have shown in Saturday or Sunday if I were not an ammy.

I'm not sure how I'm going to manage to bring up a youngster if I have to give up my ammy status.

LetsChat
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:48 AM
Part of the issue I have with potentially losing my ammy status to take a horse job is that I run out of classes to bring up a horse in very quickly in my area.

If I can't show in the AA and then AO jumpers I run out of options for showing.

Last week at Pin Oak (Pin Oak!!) by the time Friday rolled around there was one 1.20M class and one 1.05M class, with a cross entry clause. How do you bring up a horse as an ammy with one class a day at a show?

There's not a jumper class I could have shown in Saturday or Sunday if I were not an ammy.

I'm not sure how I'm going to manage to bring up a youngster if I have to give up my ammy status.

I think this post and some of the others above it brings to light what the real problem is. There are people stuck in the middle. If you were a real pro who cares if you show on the weekends, you would be at the show all week and could do a zillion of the level jumper classes that they have all the way from level 0 to 7 that are open to any and all riders with no restrictions. For others, if you didn't need to offset the high cost of riding you wouldn't have to work at the farm to get a little money off your board. I am not saying there is any easy answer and honestly, if I were you I would cheat. Seriously. I know, I know, I am an idiot or liar. I am NOT. I have a nice office job that affords me my horses, I ride a few nights a week and on weekends, I have more than enough of my own horses that I don't have to ride anyone elses NOR do I work at the farm. I am a true ammy and I like it and I like showing on the weekends. HOWEVER, unless you are dumb enough to put your name on a website or on a business card and then go enter an amateur class - YOU WILL NEVER GET CAUGHT. I know for a fact, I have seen the same violators for years - NOTHING EVER HAPPENS. Why are you making yourself sick over this. Do what you have to do, it isn't like the police are going to come after you or that the IRS / USEF is going to investigate your W2. It just frustrates me because this topic goes round and round. You won't get caught, it's a joke! If the USEF had better way of enforcing I would feel different but like I said, I have seen it in action FOR YEARS and those folks don't blink at the fact they are cheating, they actually get defensive and lash out at other competitors they think are "outing" them. I have seen results of cross entry, no fines. There is NO hope for the USEF, really, it is an uphill battle so if the only way you can ride and show is to "bend" the rules, you might as well, you got nothing to lose!

Giddy-up
Apr. 2, 2009, 08:51 AM
I think this post and some of the others above it brings to light what the real problem is. There are people stuck in the middle. If you were a real pro who cares if you show on the weekends, you would be at the show all week and could do a zillion of the level jumper classes that they have all the way from level 0 to 7 that are open to any and all riders with no restrictions. For others, if you didn't need to offset the high cost of riding you wouldn't have to work at the farm to get a little money off your board. I am not saying there is any easy answer and honestly, if I were you I would cheat. Seriously. I know, I know, I am an idiot or liar. I am NOT. I have a nice office job that affords me my horses, I ride a few nights a week and on weekends, I have more than enough of my own horses that I don't have to ride anyone elses NOR do I work at the farm. I am a true ammy and I like it and I like showing on the weekends. HOWEVER, unless you are dumb enough to put your name on a website or on a business card and then go enter an amateur class - YOU WILL NEVER GET CAUGHT. I know for a fact, I have seen the same violators for years - NOTHING EVER HAPPENS. Why are you making yourself sick over this. Do what you have to do, it isn't like the police are going to come after you or that the IRS / USEF is going to investigate your W2. It just frustrates me because this topic goes round and round. You won't get caught, it's a joke! If the USEF had better way of enforcing I would feel different but like I said, I have seen it in action FOR YEARS and those folks don't blink at the fact they are cheating, they actually get defensive and lash out at other competitors they think are "outing" them. I have seen results of cross entry, no fines. There is NO hope for the USEF, really, it is an uphill battle so if the only way you can ride and show is to "bend" the rules, you might as well, you got nothing to lose!

Nice. :rolleyes:

So if "everybody else" is breaking the rules, what the heck so should you?

Sorry, but I have a concious I guess that doesn't allow me to be a rule breaker like that no matter how much "everybody else" is doing it. Hopefully enough others feel the same way & in time USEF will be able to weed out the bad apples.

Trixie
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:13 AM
i were not a junior, i would have to be a pro because i groom for and help my trainer a lot. & this sometimes includes exersizing some horses. I do not get paid, but she gives me a little money off board and horse show fees. mostly for my work around the barn and for grooming her horses.
I just think it's so silly because I am not going to be in a horse related career, this is my HOBBY, and quite honestly, I am decent but in no way, shape, or form good enough of a rider IMO to be considered "pro."

See, the question is, where is the line?

The truth is that you get paid more for nearly ANY non riding job than you do for a riding or barn work job. One bar shift a week probably brought in 2-3X what a few hours a day of barn work did for less than half the work. Most of the time, one is working in a barn because they enjoy that sort of work, not because it's the most economical way to offset board.

What's the difference between you and someone who works in a barn "part time" five days a week exercising (training) horses?

Giddy-up
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:36 AM
zipping up my flame suit........

after following this thread, I must admit I think the rules governing ammy status are RIDIC.

i were not a junior, i would have to be a pro because i groom for and help my trainer a lot. & this sometimes includes exersizing some horses. I do not get paid, but she gives me a little money off board and horse show fees. mostly for my work around the barn and for grooming her horses.
I just think it's so silly because I am not going to be in a horse related career, this is my HOBBY, and quite honestly, I am decent but in no way, shape, or form good enough of a rider IMO to be considered "pro."

And this is why when you age out you have to decide if you want to be an ammy or a pro. It's all great as a junior to work at the barn & be able to do what ever you want. We all did it. But then the real world arrives & decisions need to be made. It sucks, but that is life & it ain't always fair.

I agree with Trixie--working at the barn is probably not the most economical job to have. It's the easiest (you are already there) & you enjoy it (it's horses :D), but you probably can make more (or equal) money at another PT job that doesn't put your ammy status at risk.

RockinHorse
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:53 AM
Nice. :rolleyes:

So if "everybody else" is breaking the rules, what the heck so should you?

Sorry, but I have a concious I guess that doesn't allow me to be a rule breaker like that no matter how much "everybody else" is doing it. Hopefully enough others feel the same way & in time USEF will be able to weed out the bad apples.

Agreed.

LetsChat
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:56 AM
Nice. :rolleyes:

So if "everybody else" is breaking the rules, what the heck so should you?

Sorry, but I have a concious I guess that doesn't allow me to be a rule breaker like that no matter how much "everybody else" is doing it. Hopefully enough others feel the same way & in time USEF will be able to weed out the bad apples.

You obviously misread what I wrote, I don't break the rules, never have, never will because I DO have a conscious and I would rather be happy with me. However, that still doesn't mean that there aren't folks out there year after year doing this and nothing happens to them. Let's be realistic, the whole play by the rules is coming down to how YOU as a person want to live, not the fear of consequences. That was what I meant. Believe me, I have worked hard to re-arrange my schedule so I don't have to show against the shammy's but that doesn't mean that the USEF is any closer to solving the issue or even having a resonable attempt at solving it. It just means I would prefer to compete against real amateurs. You are never going to solve this and again, it isn't me who is doing the cheating, I am just smart enough to see that there is little to nothing this Federation can or will do about it....

ETA - Alot of it comes down to money. In my local area the cheaters ride out of a farm where the trainer basically brings the majority of the horses to the show. If he is set down or if he gets flack he will leave and so will about 20 horses - some of whom do double divisions. Let's be real here, the USEF and the horse show management will never rock the boat because they will lose tons of $$$$ so I still stand by what I said. The only reason not to cheat is for yourself. It's not like robbing or something where we have all these hidden cameras and strict laws, here if you feel ok about breaking the rules, it will NEVER catch up to you, unless you believe in karma.....

mvp
Apr. 2, 2009, 10:16 AM
I don't understand the "I'd never cheat 'cause I'm moral. But I'll tell others to cheat because they can and because I'm frustrated with the system."

Where is the pay-off? It seems to me that this sort of competitor will continue to "lose" in this world that includes cheaters and a bad system but never confers benefits to the honest. Why play?

I think the better strategy, as I posted above, is to make your feelings known to other cheaters, show management and USEF. Maybe we are at that big fork in the road where you become part of the problem if you turn a blind eye. You certainly can't be part of the solution if you recommend that shammies remain to compete against you, right?

I think the idea that a cheater would be pissed at the competitor who outted them is sort of amusing. What would that criticism look like? "F U for exposing my cheating! You must be an unreasonable, vindictive person to require that I not cheat!" If that's what is waiting for me from the shammies I might out, then bring it. I think I can live with being "wrong" in their eyes.

LetsChat
Apr. 2, 2009, 10:34 AM
I don't understand the "I'd never cheat 'cause I'm moral. But I'll tell others to cheat because they can and because I'm frustrated with the system."

Where is the pay-off? It seems to me that this sort of competitor will continue to "lose" in this world that includes cheaters and a bad system but never confers benefits to the honest. Why play?

I think the better strategy, as I posted above, is to make your feelings known to other cheaters, show management and USEF. Maybe we are at that big fork in the road where you become part of the problem if you turn a blind eye. You certainly can't be part of the solution if you recommend that shammies remain to compete against you, right?

I think the idea that a cheater would be pissed at the competitor who outted them is sort of amusing. What would that criticism look like? "F U for exposing my cheating! You must be an unreasonable, vindictive person to require that I not cheat!" If that's what is waiting for me from the shammies I might out, then bring it. I think I can live with being "wrong" in their eyes.

In response to this, maybe I am just confident, maybe I feel my horses are nice and I ride well and I get the ribbons I deserve. I mean there could be a legit ammy, whose parents / husband are rich and support them and they ride their 15 horses all day, every day and their horses are nicer than mine and will beat me.... Or there could be a shammy, who even though they are cheating, runs and misses and I still beat them. This is a recreational sport, not something where I feel I need to be the enforcer. Sorry I wouldn't out them, if I cared so much I would pack up my stuff and leave the show. It's voluntary, it's not like I am getting screwed out of a promotion because so and so wants to make money at home riding horses and decides to come and compete in amateur classes. Yes I am frustrated because it is ridiculous, people post on and on - dissecting the rules at nauseum yet when it comes down to it, nothing is going to be done. Ok, one farm was caught because they had a "typo" on the website. How about those farms that don't even have a website. It's comical, on another thread this trainer is being touted - his record speaks for himself - yeah because he cheats.... NO one cares. Again, I choose to be upstanding for me, I believe in good karma and that good feelings bring you good things, but I can only speak for myself. So no, I am not worried or feel like I am putting myself at risk by competing against them, if anything I rise to the occasion. I ride well, I just make MUCH more money in a non-horsey field.

nycrider2004
Apr. 2, 2009, 11:02 AM
And this is why when you age out you have to decide if you want to be an ammy or a pro. It's all great as a junior to work at the barn & be able to do what ever you want. We all did it. But then the real world arrives & decisions need to be made. It sucks, but that is life & it ain't always fair.
.

See I completely disagree with this - why is it that when we turn 18 we have decided that these division need to look any different? I rode against the mini pro juniors and childrens hunters as a junior and I am happy to ride against the mini-pro ammies in an ammie division - so I ask: who does this rule help?

Basically, we've made it virutally impossible for a whole subset of riders to show and at what cost? Bring on the shammies - who cares? If someone doesn't feel like they are good enough to go pro so they want to hang out in the ammie world...fine - I'd much rather have the ability to show than worry about showing against these people.

My guess is that there are far more riders out there, like myself, who ride well, could catch ride on a horse, would be willing to help out around the barn, etc. to be able to knock of some expense of the show but then would also have another full time work-day job that is not horse related. With the cost of shows today, the change in the economy thus salary freezes, etc. there are going to be fewer and fewer of us who have the luxury of, as you put it, "being adult". We have just as much of a right to show as someone who doesn't need to do those things to show.

So, I'm really glad there are people out there who can do this sport free and clear of working in it - but why there should be a division that caters just to that group is beyond me.

Giddy-up
Apr. 2, 2009, 11:13 AM
but why there should be a division that caters just to that group is beyond me.

Because that is the way the system is currently set-up. Nothing is set in stone. Join a committee. Propose changes.

Same with the ammy rules--we follow the them cause that is what they currently are. They aren't perfect. There is always room for improvement I am sure. If people don't like the current rules, then propose new ones.

:)

Giddy-up
Apr. 2, 2009, 11:19 AM
We have just as much of a right to show as someone who doesn't need to do those things to show.

I didn't know horse showing was a "right". :lol: And nobody is stopping you from showing last I checked. I don't recall show management only allowing people with $$$$ income to send in entries. Maybe you just "can't" do as much showing as you'd want, but you aren't being denied. Can & want are seperate issues.

And there are always going to be people who can afford more than you. My neighbor drives a fancy sports car. Where is my "right" to drive one too?

Trixie
Apr. 2, 2009, 11:25 AM
So, I'm really glad there are people out there who can do this sport free and clear of working in it - but why there should be a division that caters just to that group is beyond me.

Because for MANY of us, doing this sport “free and clear of working in it” involves HOURS OF FULL TIME WORK. Therefore, a lot of us are too busy at our jobs to get in much riding time. Although the system is not perfect, it's the best we can do to level the playing field for those of us who don't work in the industry and get 40 hours a week of saddle time.



My guess is that there are far more riders out there, like myself, who ride well, could catch ride on a horse, would be willing to help out around the barn, etc. to be able to knock of some expense of the show but then would also have another full time work-day job that is not horse related. With the cost of shows today, the change in the economy thus salary freezes, etc. there are going to be fewer and fewer of us who have the luxury of, as you put it, "being adult". We have just as much of a right to show as someone who doesn't need to do those things to show.

I said it a few posts ago and I will repeat it – helping around the barn is NOT an economical way to offset board or showing. It’s just not. At all. Unless you’re unemployable elsewhere or have a VERY generous BO, you’re unlikely to earn that much money off your bill.

Further, if I’ve got the rule correctly, you can help out around the barn ALL DAY LONG for money off your bills, or braid, or whatever, but you’re then not permitted to RIDE horses there that are not your own. And if you’re out there RIDING for money off your board, that’s most certainly a professional activity. Riding for remuneration is a professional activity.

And yes, you have just as much “right to be there” (?) as anyone else. But if you’re engaging in professional activities, you get to act like a professional. You don’t have a right to not follow the rules.

meupatdoes
Apr. 2, 2009, 12:54 PM
Under the rules you are not an ammy. Reduction in board is remuneration as money is fungible. I understand your plight but rules is rules. A few years ago I was riding at Jumphigh83's barn. I was a lesson student but my lessons were on a horse that was boarded there. I also hacked this horse once a week for his owner. At that time Jumphigh was looking for someone to muck and feed 1 day a week. Technically, had I taken the job (which would have offset my lessons) I would have lost ammy status by riding a horse (the horse I did lessons on) that she was paid to board. The rule is designed to get at those who claim to be "bookkeepers" or "muckers" but who are actually "riders" or "trainers" or instructors.

Linny.

READ.

The key words in the post you are responding to are, "If I were not a junior,..."

She never claimed to be an ammy.
She expressly said she was a junior.

mvp
Apr. 2, 2009, 01:31 PM
The people who think legit ammies hold some unreasonably sour grapes about cheaters seem to premise their remarks on "I'm good enough to get paid a bit and good enough to win against the shammies...". Great, but you may be a handful with that laudable and hard-earned skill. Just because don't need protection doesn't mean others do not, that they are bad for desiring it, or that there are not some very good reasons for sorting pros from ammies.

I'm with you good, undervalued riders-- I have made up my own horse that pros like to ride and "fixed" some for others. That comes from hard work on my part but also the privilege of lots of riding time as a kid for which I was sometimes paid. I emphasize the privilege part because had I been saddled with adult responsibilities-- helping my mom pay the rent, for example-- I would not have had the time to develop these skills. So really, do you want to deprive those who have not had the opportunity to build a great skill a place to compete against similar people? I don't see how they are to blame for being true ammies; I do think its "sporting" to offer competition between fairly matched people.

The other reason to care about cheating is because horses ultimately pay. Now, as a working adult, I'm just not as accurate as I was when I could jump three or four horses for other people per day. I can't jump my one horse often enough to get that skill back-- the skill a shammy gets. I don't worry about those who simply buy the horses and help to get there because I don't really have the money to show or chase points they way they do anyway.

But every time I take this horse into the ring where I am competing against someone who has the advantage of jumping many, I'm also using up his body in perhaps a futile effort. This is why I'm vehement about the ammy issue. Showing was my idea, not my horse's, and he gets dragged along for the ride in a sport that will prematurely use up his body no matter what. It's not fair to waste his effort (or mine), so I have to be willing to speak up for something better.

I think you could make a similar argument about cheating with drugs. "Everyone does it.... some get caught and some don't...the short-term consequences are arguably good for sore horses..." The point is that you need to ask about the long-term consequences of any form of cheating or rule.

My belief is that the USEF sees itself as funded by a whole set of shammies and BNTs who actually benefit from this rule not being enforced. So things will change only when the small circle of people currently running things is either enlarged, hears from the rest of the world in terms they understand and appreciate, or change their business model for the horse showing industry. There's room for everyone in this, if they want to get involved.

Peggy
Apr. 2, 2009, 01:40 PM
I selected my career, in part, b/c it would give me time to ride. It doesn't give me the money to buy expensive horses and show on the A circuit, but I would rather spend more time riding, albeit at home, than ride less on fancier horses and at shows. My choice. Not necessarily everyone's choice. Plus, I spent years getting educated and then teaching at temp and part-time jobs in order to land a permanent full-time one. And then spent more years teaching less-than-perfect schedules. So, now I'm old but I get to ride a lot:lol:. As Trixie wrote, if I wanted to make money during my off time I'd do something lucrative like tutoring, instead of spending time at the barn (not getting paid). Although, it seems like half of the kids at the barn are taking chem next year, so I might be able to combine the two.

Unfortunately, there often seems to be an inverse relationship b/w time and money.

There is always someone that has what you think you want: more money, a nicer horse, more time.

Midge
Apr. 2, 2009, 02:17 PM
Personally, I think the people bitching about not being able to hack the occasional horse or teach the occasional up/down are being WAY more selfish than any ammy. It sounds to me like they want to be allowed to show in the ammys because they want to but still work in the barn and hack the occasional horse and teach the occasional lesson because it is the easiest way for them.

Suck it up and get another job, if showing is so important to you. As Trixie said, it's a rare job that doesn't pay better with less work than barn work. Oh, that's right. You are already AT the barn and you LIKE barn work and dammit you should be able to hack a friend's horse anyway!

AS for divisions 'catering' to 'these people', good grief! Every division caters to someone.

Midge
Apr. 2, 2009, 02:22 PM
So, I'm really glad there are people out there who can do this sport free and clear of working in it - but why there should be a division that caters just to that group is beyond me.

Tons of people work in this sport without endangering their amateur status. I am one of them. Is is so damn simple, I don't get why people keep bitching about it. Basically, you can't be paid to teach, ride or sell horses. I think it's laughable that there are people who want to do these things and still be considered an ammy.

scheibyee
Apr. 2, 2009, 02:38 PM
The other reason to care about cheating is because horses ultimately pay. Now, as a working adult, I'm just not as accurate as I was when I could jump three or four horses for other people per day. I can't jump my one horse often enough to get that skill back-- the skill a shammy gets. I don't worry about those who simply buy the horses and help to get there because I don't really have the money to show or chase points they way they do anyway.

But every time I take this horse into the ring where I am competing against someone who has the advantage of jumping many, I'm also using up his body in perhaps a futile effort. This is why I'm vehement about the ammy issue. Showing was my idea, not my horse's, and he gets dragged along for the ride in a sport that will prematurely use up his body no matter what. It's not fair to waste his effort (or mine), so I have to be willing to speak up for something better.

I feel as though these specific arguments are fruitless in your against shamateurs. I jump a couple of horses a day/week etc and i'm still a bonafide amateur. A shamateur isn't someone who works their *rear* off and gets to jump a couple of horses because they work to be good enough to ride and jump peoples horses. Shamateurs do it as a living. Plenty of amateurs ride/jump more than one horse without getting paid for it and are still perfectly legal within the confines of the rules.

pattnic
Apr. 2, 2009, 03:12 PM
So it sounds to me like we need a "Semi-Pro" division, for the group that nycrider2004 mentions... though how it would be regulated, I have no idea.

Thoughts?

PS - Yes, there are other means to earn extra income to offset board that are FAR less work than mucking, but there are individuals who truly enjoy barnwork.

Trixie
Apr. 2, 2009, 03:14 PM
PS - Yes, there are other means to earn extra income to offset board that are FAR less work than mucking, but there are individuals who truly enjoy barnwork.

Fine, but then don't pretend it's your only means to horse showing. Either don't ride horses in your barn other than your own, or go pro. You can't have it both ways.

happyhorse3
Apr. 2, 2009, 03:38 PM
Personally, I think the people bitching about not being able to hack the occasional horse or teach the occasional up/down are being WAY more selfish than any ammy. It sounds to me like they want to be allowed to show in the ammys because they want to but still work in the barn and hack the occasional horse and teach the occasional lesson because it is the easiest way for them.

Suck it up and get another job, if showing is so important to you. As Trixie said, it's a rare job that doesn't pay better with less work than barn work. Oh, that's right. You are already AT the barn and you LIKE barn work and dammit you should be able to hack a friend's horse anyway!

AS for divisions 'catering' to 'these people', good grief! Every division caters to someone.

Well said Midge. Some of the responses on here just amaze me. Some think it's ok to bend the rules a little here and there. Well guess what, you are breaking the rules according to the USEF. If you are allowed to do a "little" work here and there for lessons, board whatever, then where do you draw the line?

Peggy
Apr. 2, 2009, 03:39 PM
Fine, but then don't pretend it's your only means to horse showing. Either don't ride horses in your barn other than your own, or go pro. You can't have it both ways.Or ride other horses but don't get paid for anything else by the person whose horses or clients' horses you ride. It really is that simple.

jse
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:09 PM
So it sounds to me like we need a "Semi-Pro" division, for the group that nycrider2004 mentions... though how it would be regulated, I have no idea.

Thoughts?

PS - Yes, there are other means to earn extra income to offset board that are FAR less work than mucking, but there are individuals who truly enjoy barnwork.

I think a Semi Pro division would rock! It would take away from all this debate! Very good idea IMO!

happyhorse3
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:23 PM
I think a Semi Pro division would rock! It would take away from all this debate! Very good idea IMO!

No way to a Semi Pro Division. First, who would determine what a semi-pro is? And as was said before by a previous poster "there are enough divisions already" and a lot them don't fill or barely fill.

So tell me, what would differentiate a semi-pro and a full-pro. It's kind of like being "a little bit pregnant".

meupatdoes
Apr. 2, 2009, 05:05 PM
Pato's case is a silly one. His working students are my best friends. (They are on their way home from FL tomorrow! YAY! We spent the whole day today filling stalls with straw!)
They are suspended because of a type-o on his website (in which he does not maintain). His working students were listed as "co-trainers" for the longest time and that's not what they are.
USEF didn't buy that, therefore they got suspended. But I know for a fact what they do every day as working students as my husband was a working student for him as well.

Well, if as 'working students' they are riding any horses in that program that don't belong to them, while getting any discounts on board, lessons, or housing, (and which, if they are not, then they are basically just 'customers') this post is pretty hilarious.

myvanya
Apr. 2, 2009, 05:19 PM
To those who keep sayng that peopple should just work in a job outside the horse industry-

Many younger amateurs do work outside the horse industry. The reason why it would be so nice to be able to get paid to ride someone else's horse is when you are already working 50 hours a week and want to get in more riding hours and don't have tons of money from working those 50 hours, it would be pretty awesome to get a few extra bucks and still have some ride time. Yes, I could go get another part time job to pay for my horse stuff. Would I then have the time to actually ride my horse? No. It would defeat the purpose of the part time job. I am not saying that I am entitled to show my horse or even own a horse. Horses are a privilege and they are a luxury good. However, what I do find frustrating is the USEF's apparent hypocrisy in saying they want to expand and improve the sport- while making life far more difficult for young adult riders who may genuinely have talent and desire to be involved but are feeling torn between trying to stay an Amateur so they can show in lower divisions where the type of horse they are more likely to be riding can be succesful and trying to earn a few extra dollars and still get some good ride time. I am not saying barn work is the only way to earn extra money- but if it is a skill you have that people are willing to pay for that means quite a lot in an economy where part time jobs are not exactly highly available if you have no weekday availability due to already having a full time job. Just some thoughts.

Trixie
Apr. 2, 2009, 05:47 PM
If a rider is so good and talented that they can make enough money riding other people's horses to offset their own expenses, why CAN'T they go pro?

We can't exactly differentiate on paper between getting paid to exercise a few schoolies and getting paid to train a working hunter. The only thing we know is that if you're riding for money, you're good enough to be acting in a professinoal capacity.

FWIW, I am a young amateur who works more than 50 hours a week. I actually think the amateur OWNER rules are FAR, FAR more prohibitive to growing this sport than the adult amateur rules. I have to ride my borrowed horse in the jumpers just to get 3'6" experience.

mvp
Apr. 2, 2009, 06:00 PM
If we want to get people to move up to the 3'6" then it would help to make that affordable. Those horses are more expensive then the 3-footers and under, and you must actually buy one to show it, at least in the hunters. But the price of the horse isn't the largest expense, of course, especially when it comes to learning to ride well enough to put in a nice trip at 3'6" or above.

But "why not just turn pro if you're that good?" doesn't have a simple solution. Technically, turning pro means you compete your ammy's "cheap horse" against guys who guy go the the Olympics.

In addition, it is very, very hard to make a living as a trainer anywhere but at the top. You still work hard, but don't get the size commissions or opportunities to charge show-day rates that BNTs on the circuit do. My heart goes out to the little guys who teach us to ride and help us get into the sport.

That might be the issue that the USEF ought to address: How to make a place for owners/ammies/kids AND TRAINERS who want to stay at the lower and even grass roots levels.

MLP
Apr. 2, 2009, 06:05 PM
If a rider is so good and talented that they can make enough money riding other people's horses to offset their own expenses, why CAN'T they go pro?

We can't exactly differentiate on paper between getting paid to exercise a few schoolies and getting paid to train a working hunter. The only thing we know is that if you're riding for money, you're good enough to be acting in a professinoal capacity.

FWIW, I am a young amateur who works more than 50 hours a week. I actually think the amateur OWNER rules are FAR, FAR more prohibitive to growing this sport than the adult amateur rules. I have to ride my borrowed horse in the jumpers just to get 3'6" experience.

I have to agree with this first statment, I have seen shammy's FAR better than some professionals. I think alot depends on the trainer too, if there is a shammy in the farm who rides well and the actual trainer doesn't want the rides then they can work as a team. The trainer can charge training rides, say $50 give the shammy $20 keep $30 and it is a nice little business they got there. I really think that the lact of enforcement is key, the shammy's know they are in the clear so they can easily make the money, show in the amateur classes and win, sometimes gets points for other ammys at the farm, qualify for NAL or WIHS. It really needs to come down to being able to identify they are cheating and that is hard. I like what mvp said if enough people got together to go against this instead of turning a blind eye we may have some chance. As in anything, the more you cheat, the easier it gets, the cockier the cheaters get, it is just a vicious cycle....

myvanya
Apr. 2, 2009, 06:42 PM
I am not suggesting that people could make enough extra money to offset all of their expenses. I mean, seriously, if I am working 50 hours work am I really going to be able to hack enough horses to make enough money to even pay for one local show? I doubt it. My point was more that the rule as it stands does not seperate someone who gets paid to hack a horse for someone from someone who actually has the knowledge and ability to be a trainer. There is a pretty big difference there. I don't choose to do those things, I'll be clear on that, I do follow the rule, but I find it frustrating. I have a friend that does endurance that gets $35 a ride to hack someone else's horse. I can't do that if I want to take the horse I lease in the local AA jumpers- and though I could do the low jumpers instead, I would like to be able to do the higher division if we have the ability, and the horse isn't ready for open jumpers yet and neither am I. I do agree that the amateur owner rules are prohibitive as well, but as I ride exclusively jumpers it bothers me less because it has not become as much of an issue for me.

Parker_Rider
Apr. 2, 2009, 06:43 PM
Wow. This thread has really opened my eyes to a lot of things (I tend to bury my head in the sand and ignore drama that happens)... And after having sorted through all the posts and responses I think I find myself agreeing with MVP and others. What is so hard about following the Ammy rules? I mean... it just doesn't seem so difficult!!! I love riding other people's horses, and just hacking them around and it never occurred to me to ask for remuneration for that. It just seemed like "Oh, you're out of town? sure!" good-barn-buddy-manship to me... Others at the barn do the same for me. I guess I just don't get the whole whiny "But I really want to ride X's horses for $$ and train others for $$ AND still be an ammy!" In my opinion, if I'm going to pay you for a lesson, you damn well better be a pro, otherwise where's your marketable quality if you're just an ammy like me? I guess that's just a psychological thing for me (because I fully know being a pro doesn't make you qualified to have anything to do with a horse!).

I can't remember who said it, but I think that even if you are a shammy, you're subject to the same course, the same questions that that course asks and the same weather/environment/clueless jump crew guys screwing around ringside that I am as a legit ammy. And I may very well kick your butt (though given my history, that's doubtful :winkgrin:). But, I see the point that they get to ride more/ride nicer horses that belong to someone else/etc.

Ugh. Cheaters make me angry. Especially since this rule isn't that difficult. I mean... don't accept remuneration for a job involving the farm where you ride. Ohvay. I get why they break the rule, I'm just in the camp that thinks it's ridiculous that they do.

Linny
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:46 PM
Linny.

READ.

The key words in the post you are responding to are, "If I were not a junior,..."

She never claimed to be an ammy.
She expressly said she was a junior.

The point I couldn't make last night (too long a day) was that once you age out, you have to choose. Someone a few posts down made the point far better than I could.

I wish there was a happy solution. Sadly, every new rule seems to create a new burden on someone yet doesn't stop cheaters fromcheating, because they are what they are-cheaters.

Pirateer
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:48 PM
Wow. This thread has really opened my eyes to a lot of things (I tend to bury my head in the sand and ignore drama that happens)... And after having sorted through all the posts and responses I think I find myself agreeing with MVP and others. What is so hard about following the Ammy rules? I mean... it just doesn't seem so difficult!!! I love riding other people's horses, and just hacking them around and it never occurred to me to ask for remuneration for that. It just seemed like "Oh, you're out of town? sure!" good-barn-buddy-manship to me... Others at the barn do the same for me. I guess I just don't get the whole whiny "But I really want to ride X's horses for $$ and train others for $$ AND still be an ammy!" In my opinion, if I'm going to pay you for a lesson, you damn well better be a pro, otherwise where's your marketable quality if you're just an ammy like me? I guess that's just a psychological thing for me (because I fully know being a pro doesn't make you qualified to have anything to do with a horse!).

I can't remember who said it, but I think that even if you are a shammy, you're subject to the same course, the same questions that that course asks and the same weather/environment/clueless jump crew guys screwing around ringside that I am as a legit ammy. And I may very well kick your butt (though given my history, that's doubtful :winkgrin:). But, I see the point that they get to ride more/ride nicer horses that belong to someone else/etc.

Ugh. Cheaters make me angry. Especially since this rule isn't that difficult. I mean... don't accept remuneration for a job involving the farm where you ride. Ohvay. I get why they break the rule, I'm just in the camp that thinks it's ridiculous that they do.

You are almost exactly right, except for those stupid situations like the one I was in.

I worked at my barn (feeding nights- because i wanted to help the barn out, i like feeding- had a real fulltime "pays for horses" job.). At one point I had 2 of my own horses at this barn, but when I just had one, if he was not-rideable, I could not PAY my trainer to take a lesson on HER lesson pony, b/c I was being PAID by the barn that she did not own. Had to say "nope, sorry, i'll have to skip my lesson this week".

Parker_Rider
Apr. 2, 2009, 08:01 PM
You are almost exactly right, except for those stupid situations like the one I was in.

I worked at my barn (feeding nights- because i wanted to help the barn out, i like feeding- had a real fulltime "pays for horses" job.). At one point I had 2 of my own horses at this barn, but when I just had one, if he was not-rideable, I could not PAY my trainer to take a lesson on HER lesson pony, b/c I was being PAID by the barn that she did not own. Had to say "nope, sorry, i'll have to skip my lesson this week".

Yeah, I agree that is a stupid situation to have to fall under the whole "you're not an amateur" rule. I guess blanket statements will never be fully accurate ;)

jse
Apr. 2, 2009, 08:26 PM
No way to a Semi Pro Division. First, who would determine what a semi-pro is? And as was said before by a previous poster "there are enough divisions already" and a lot them don't fill or barely fill.

So tell me, what would differentiate a semi-pro and a full-pro. It's kind of like being "a little bit pregnant".

That's your opinion, and that's cool.
Who determined what an Ammy would be? I'd like to guess that the same people who determined that would do so.
My husband is a pro....he makes his whole living and supports my son and I by riding horses for various clients in our area. There are people out there who, because of the strict rules, don't qualify for Ammy status but they don't yet qualify as Pro's either, tell ME, what are these people expected to do?

ETA: After reading that the part about my husband made no sense....he makes money training horses to support us. This makes him a pro. However, there are the ones in the middle that really qualify for neither.

RockinHorse
Apr. 2, 2009, 08:32 PM
There are people out there who, because of the strict rules, don't qualify for Ammy status but they don't yet qualify as Pro's either, tell ME, what are these people expected to do?

I don't get what you are saying here. How can someone not qualify as an Ammy and also not qualify as a Pro :confused: (unless of course they are a junior). The only qualification for being a pro is to engage in pro activities.

Pirateer
Apr. 2, 2009, 08:32 PM
There are people out there who, because of the strict rules, don't qualify for Ammy status but they don't yet qualify as Pro's either, tell ME, what are these people expected to do?

You don't have to qualify to be a pro- you just have to hang out your sign.

Maybe we should get rid of the semi-Pro idea, and have something like "Elite Pro" (aka BNT) and "Any Other Pro" and "Amateur"

mvp
Apr. 2, 2009, 08:47 PM
Change the burden of proof. You don't have to prove someone shammy is a pro, but you do have to prove you are an ammy.

Note how this works with drug testing. Though other competitors can ask a steward to have a horse tested, the selection of tested horses is otherwise random. It's up to you to prove you haven't shown your horse on illegal drugs or illegal amounts of allowed substances.

Since creative people constantly devise new drugging schemes to evade tests, one could argue that we ought not to try to test because it's a constant and expensive game of "catch up." But the idea that one could get caught or will sooner or later still does some work in deterring this kind of cheating.

Yes, yes, I can hear all you nay-sayers revving up to argue that we shouldn't change the rule or try to crack down on cheaters because it would be hard to do. It might even be an invasion of privacy to ask someone to establish her source of income if that's how we want to sort ammies from pros. But just remember that the American public somehow has found a way to submit to remarkable invasions of privacy at airports after 9/11.

I don't think the difficulty of devising a good rule that helps ammies have a place to compete against their peers, or devising a way of sorting ammies from pros is as good enough reason to ignore cheating.

jse
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:02 PM
I don't get what you are saying here. How can someone not qualify as an Ammy and also not qualify as a Pro :confused: (unless of course they are a junior). The only qualification for being a pro is to engage in pro activities.

So say you work at a barn as a groom and you ride the horses to help out (not training them or anything of the like, just exercising) but its really not part of your job. You receive lessons from your boss and you show the barn's horses, but you don't get paid to show those horses, you get paid by your boss to groom at shows. You're not an ammy according to the rules, but you're not a pro either. However, USEF would call you a pro in this situation....and many of you would call them a pro as well because it's the rules. So where do we put the people out there who don't train horses for a living but work in the horse world as grooms and barn managers, yet they can't show as Ammy's?

Janet
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:22 PM
For those that think being an amateur has something to do with how well (or not well) you ride, let me remind you of the first sentence of 1306

1. Regardless of one’s equestrian skills and/or accomplishments, a person is an amateur
for all competitions conducted under Federation rules who after his/her 18th birthday, as
defined in GR101, has not engaged in any of the following activities which would make
him/her a professional.

Janet
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:25 PM
So say you work at a barn as a groom and you ride the horses to help out (not training them or anything of the like, just exercising) but its really not part of your job. You receive lessons from your boss and you show the barn's horses, but you don't get paid to show those horses, you get paid by your boss to groom at shows. You're not an ammy according to the rules, but you're not a pro either. However, USEF would call you a pro in this situation....and many of you would call them a pro as well because it's the rules. So where do we put the people out there who don't train horses for a living but work in the horse world as grooms and barn managers, yet they can't show as Ammy's?
You most definitlely ARE a pro.

Remember the first sentence "Regardless of one’s equestrian skills and/or accomplishments, ... "

Linny
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:29 PM
So say you work at a barn as a groom and you ride the horses to help out (not training them or anything of the like, just exercising) but its really not part of your job. You receive lessons from your boss and you show the barn's horses, but you don't get paid to show those horses, you get paid by your boss to groom at shows. You're not an ammy according to the rules, but you're not a pro either. However, USEF would call you a pro in this situation....

This clause is fairly new and was added because apparently assistant trainers all over the US were claiming to be grooms, not trainers. If you get paid by "Barn A" you cannot throw a leg over their horses or horses they are paid to board or train.

jse
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:37 PM
This clause is fairly new and was added because apparently assistant trainers all over the US were claiming to be grooms, not trainers. If you get paid by "Barn A" you cannot throw a leg over their horses or horses they are paid to board or train.

So what if the pro at a barn does not own the horses that you ride nor does said pro get paid to keep them there? They are owned by a sponsor and the pro is responsible for riding and training and you take care of the horses and ride them just for their exercise and to take lessons on?
I don't know, I think there's just a real thin line. And for sure it's easy to follow the rules, they're pretty cut and dry, however IMHO some of the rules are a little silly. But that's just me.
Oh and what about this instance...so my mom purchases a horse and I show it. But I don't make money riding the horse, could I be an Ammy? What about if I lease a horse, then want to show it, can I still be an Ammy?
I'm just curious, never really gotten into this discussion but since my friends were recently involved in a case that involves this sort of thing, thought I'd participate!

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:53 PM
.
Oh and what about this instance...so my mom purchases a horse and I show it. But I don't make money riding the horse, could I be an Ammy? What about if I lease a horse, then want to show it, can I still be an Ammy?
I'm just curious, never really gotten into this discussion but since my friends were recently involved in a case that involves this sort of thing, thought I'd participate!

Showing a horse that belongs to someone else doesn't make you a pro. That's what the Adult Amateur divisions are for. Amateurs who are not necessarily showing their own horse.
Showing a leased horse has nothing to do with pro status either.

It's the other stuff that you mentioned in the previous post that are violations.

Linny
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:53 PM
So what if the pro at a barn does not own the horses that you ride nor does said pro get paid to keep them there? They are owned by a sponsor and the pro is responsible for riding and training and you take care of the horses and ride them just for their exercise and to take lessons on?
I don't know, I think there's just a real thin line. And for sure it's easy to follow the rules, they're pretty cut and dry, however IMHO some of the rules are a little silly. But that's just me.
Oh and what about this instance...so my mom purchases a horse and I show it. But I don't make money riding the horse, could I be an Ammy? What about if I lease a horse, then want to show it, can I still be an Ammy?
I'm just curious, never really gotten into this discussion but since my friends were recently involved in a case that involves this sort of thing, thought I'd participate!

No idea about "sponsor" horses as trainer isn't getting cash.
As to your Mom buying a horse and you showing, is your mom a pro? Ammy's can ride any horses in shows (other than classes with the word "owner" in them) as long as they are not paid.

jse
Apr. 2, 2009, 10:02 PM
No idea about "sponsor" horses as trainer isn't getting cash.
As to your Mom buying a horse and you showing, is your mom a pro? Ammy's can ride any horses in shows (other than classes with the word "owner" in them) as long as they are not paid.

Nope, mom's not a pro...by far, she fell off like 15 years ago and never got back on! LOL! She broke her foot in a few places, scared her to bits!
Sorry I know the basics of the rules but I'm not insanely educated on it but have learned a few things from this thread! Gotta love an awesome discussion!

scheibyee
Apr. 2, 2009, 10:24 PM
FWIW, I am a young amateur who works more than 50 hours a week. I actually think the amateur OWNER rules are FAR, FAR more prohibitive to growing this sport than the adult amateur rules. I have to ride my borrowed horse in the jumpers just to get 3'6" experience.

Definitely in agreement here. Amateur rules are easy to understand and easy to rationalize. Amateur Owner rules however, not so much.

Linny
Apr. 2, 2009, 11:19 PM
Nope, mom's not a pro...by far, she fell off like 15 years ago and never got back on! LOL! She broke her foot in a few places, scared her to bits!
Sorry I know the basics of the rules but I'm not insanely educated on it but have learned a few things from this thread! Gotta love an awesome discussion!

You can ride mom's horse and show mom's horse. In fact I'm pretty certain you can ride in ammy owners because she (the owner) is immediate family.
The ammy rules are somewhat contorted because there are alot of folks out there that "just figure that they are ammy's." The girl who fills in teaching beginners (for pay) and who rides the horses when the owner says they'd like a weekly training ride may not be any better a rider than I am (and that ain't real good;)) but they are accepting remuneration for riding and/or teaching. What was happening was that people were claiming to just be "grooms" or bookkeepers" and were actually teaching students or schooling horses. They were getting paid to ride but concealing it behind a title like "groom" and riding in ammy divisions.
I have been horseless for years and yet have ridden other people's horses and even shown them. I'm a modest rider but because I have offered to help (for free) by riding when they cannot, holding for farrier etc., I have been given near "lease" status on certain horses. (Not only am I not paid, I try to help the owers by buying things for the horses, new halter, saddle pad, even shoes etc.) As long as I am NOT PAID for my riding (and am not employed by the barn) I am an ammy.
As for the "owner" clause, I agree with the poster who said that if they want to revive the 3'6 hunters they need to look at the "owner clause." Again, I know why it's there but maybe it's time to make a change.

meupatdoes
Apr. 3, 2009, 07:15 AM
So where do we put the people out there who don't train horses for a living but work in the horse world as grooms and barn managers, yet they can't show as Ammy's?

In the pro divisions.

Simple as that.

A lot of people would love to teach the occasional up down lesson, or ride some of the horses in the barn that they work at, but because the know the rules, and accept them, they don't. No one was ever forced to get on a horse that would break their ammy status, or forced to be a groom in a barn where they ride other people's horses. It is actually possible to read the rule book (without having every last COTH member explain it to you), and abide by it whether one thinks it is "silly" or "fair" or whatever.

Your (repeated) posts indicate that you either have truly never read the rules, or that you just don't care to understand them.

Trixie
Apr. 3, 2009, 07:59 AM
I am not suggesting that people could make enough extra money to offset all of their expenses. I mean, seriously, if I am working 50 hours work am I really going to be able to hack enough horses to make enough money to even pay for one local show? I doubt it. My point was more that the rule as it stands does not seperate someone who gets paid to hack a horse for someone from someone who actually has the knowledge and ability to be a trainer. There is a pretty big difference there.

The rule, as it stands, does NOT differentiate amateur and professional by accomplishment, ONLY by money, because we don't have a standard for instructors in this country.

However, if you're not earning enough money to even pay for one local show, what's the point of giving up your amateur status to get paid to ride? We can nitpick this to death, but the truth is that if it's about the money, after working a 50 hour week, you can do better elsewhere, if it's about getting paid to ride, you are engaging in a professional activity. The rule is the way it is (extensive) only because of cheaters.


Yes, yes, I can hear all you nay-sayers revving up to argue that we shouldn't change the rule or try to crack down on cheaters because it would be hard to do. It might even be an invasion of privacy to ask someone to establish her source of income if that's how we want to sort ammies from pros. But just remember that the American public somehow has found a way to submit to remarkable invasions of privacy at airports after 9/11.

I think there's a very big difference between someone's amateur status at the horse shows and issues of national security. I've got a W-2 from my real job, but I'm sure as hell not giving the USEF carte blanche to look through my banking records, and if a trainer is paying cash, it's out the window anyway.

cbiscuit
Apr. 3, 2009, 08:38 AM
Looking for fairness in horse showing is a waste of time. We're probably the least equitable and least meritocratic sport in the world (maybe sailing is worse? Speed boat racing?). Fortunately, the horses have no idea. If they ever found out, it would ruin everything.

So, though it used to drive me nuts, shamateurs have my blessing (much good may it do them). Both the secret stall muckers and the secret leasers are breaking rules that aren't designed to do anything, really, except preserve a system built on privilege, and there are lots of examples (like the Saturday up-down teacher) of people it's hard to get mad at. I get that there are folks who flagrantly violated the spirit of the rule, and that's why we have rules about bookkeepers, etc. But that's not the up-down teacher's problem, that's just bad and reactionary rule-making. Usually, it seems, the difference between an amateur who's winning and a shamateur who's winning is a big chunk of change or a marriage. That hardly seems worth fighting about.

mvp
Apr. 3, 2009, 08:48 AM
There is more than one way to distinguish a pro from an ammy. But drawing up those lines along source of income is just the place to start because of how the USEF (after the AHSA) created its definitions.

I understand that making a horse show fair does not warrant the compromises to privacy that preventing hijacked airplanes might. But then I don't think the invasion of privacy need be quite as great, either. Really, you have to admit that we have collectively submitted to really personal inspections when the threat (some decided) warranted it. So those sacrosanct boundaries are not fixed and eternal, but changed when enough people with enough power can make a compelling argument to move them.

What's wrong with asking an ammy to simply have a W-2 that can be requested should a protest of her status be lodged? Black out the numbers and leave the employer's info or tax id number visible. Maybe I'm just less ashamed of my job and more interested in making showing worthwhile than other working stiffs, but I don't see the big deal in a request to at least have a W-2 that easily establishes my ammy status. I'm sure there are other signs of amminess we could use instead.

I do think that it serves the riding world well to sort pros and ammies based on something other than riding ability. Let the great-riding ammy take full advantage of her talent or hard-won skill. Yes, that also comes in part from access to hours in the saddle. So new riders or those with one horse will have a tough time catching up. The point is to make it possible (or even attractive) for them to try to improve (and continue pouring money into the horse industry) by setting up competitions that rewards their efforts.

The USEF and its constituents just have to decide that the issue is worth pursuing, and then people will get creative and thoughtful about improving the sport. I suspect that the archetypal pro and ammy have changed since the rule was drafted long ago. Perhaps the USEF just needs to catch up with the times.

Ferreting out shammies, however, at least makes an attempt to place like with like in competition, and that's the basis for sport. We sort boxers and wrestlers by weight categories and you can often find fantastic contests between scrappy little guys, where a match between a bantam-weight fighter and heavy weight would not hold the same appeal (to say the least!).

RockinHorse
Apr. 3, 2009, 09:02 AM
What's wrong with asking an ammy to simply have a W-2 that can be requested should a protest of her status be lodged? Black out the numbers and leave the employer's info or tax id number visible. Maybe I'm just less ashamed of my job and more interested in making showing worthwhile than other working stiffs, but I don't see the big deal in a request to at least have a W-2 that easily establishes my ammy status. I'm sure there are other signs of amminess we could use instead.



The problem I see with this is that it assumes that a professional never has any additional source of income. Based on this scenario, pro's could go out and work at McD's for a day, get a W-2 and be good to go as an ammy for the year.

Giddy-up
Apr. 3, 2009, 09:11 AM
What's wrong with asking an ammy to simply have a W-2 that can be requested should a protest of her status be lodged?

That's assuming the ammy has a job. What if they have no job?

cbiscuit
Apr. 3, 2009, 09:11 AM
Whilst I'm putting in my two cents, collecting W-2s or other income information and using that to declare eligibility for riding competitions is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I thought it was April fools, but here someone is talking about it on April 2nd. Seriously???

Trixie
Apr. 3, 2009, 09:14 AM
What's wrong with asking an ammy to simply have a W-2 that can be requested should a protest of her status be lodged? Black out the numbers and leave the employer's info or tax id number visible. Maybe I'm just less ashamed of my job and more interested in making showing worthwhile than other working stiffs, but I don't see the big deal in a request to at least have a W-2 that easily establishes my ammy status. I'm sure there are other signs of amminess we could use instead.

Because it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't actually "establish" anything.

I don't understand why you'd think those that don't wish to provide a W-2 are "ashamed" of their jobs, it's just that your idea doesn't actually PROVE that anyone is an amateur, all it proves is that for some amount of time during a year, I was "employed" by a company. It doesn't tell you how many hours I was there, or whether or not I was engaging in professional activities in my off time.

It also doesn't stop cheaters: those that are hacking horses and paid in cash or reduced board. Nor does this idea account for amateurs who are retired or who don't work.

mvp
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:05 AM
Yup, it's certainly easier to poke holes in out-of-the-box ideas than to defend the status quo... and then to point out exactly what's wrong with it. You will certainly be right, but also trapped in the situation you describe. It the won battle worth a lost war?

I don't think so, so I follow these threads to get a sense of what others think is wrong. But this is only half of their value. The other virtue of a collective discussion lies in the possibility that many people pointing out problems but also making suggestions will come up with something better.

Out of another thread I started on the W-2 ammies addressing a different permutation of this topic, one poster came up with the idea of sorting ammies by "lifetime points" such that ammies with great access to riding and showing opportunities (the shammy or the especially wealthy "professional amateur") would not constantly out-do the one horse ammy.

Hats off to this creative poster! Out of a long and sometimes acrimonious discussion, she (he?) came up with an idea that beat the snot out of my original proposal. That's the kind of productive discussion we all have a chance to join if we decide to look for a solution, not obstacles. It can be done, but that takes a good faith effort, ideally done in some USEF committee, not here in the virtual world. But thanks to all the readers and posters in this thread. I'm learning a lot.

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:06 AM
What's wrong with asking an ammy to simply have a W-2 that can be requested should a protest of her status be lodged? Black out the numbers and leave the employer's info or tax id number visible. Maybe I'm just less ashamed of my job and more interested in making showing worthwhile than other working stiffs, but I don't see the big deal in a request to at least have a W-2 that easily establishes my ammy status. I'm sure there are other signs of amminess we could use instead.


If you are a Shamateur it's doubtful that you actually have a w-2 for work performed at the barn, for the trainer or from the owners of the horses being shown. You may have no w-2 at all. So under your method does the lack of a w-2 mean an individual is OK as an Amateur?

Let's say I'm retired and happily collecting a pension with the 1099 form to prove it. But meanwhile back at the ranch I'm teaching all sorts of lessons. Under your method I show my tax form and continue breaking the rules.

Or I could be collecting unemployment and giving lessons for cash. Same problem.

So really all this proposal does is annoy those who go by the rules and give those who don't a free pass.

Also, it's really none of USEF's business to pry into anyone's employment status without a protest being filed and even then I don't think they are entitled to see w-2 forms.

seahorse
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:13 AM
I have no idea how to stop shamatures in the amateur divisions, however what really bugs me is people showing in the amateur/owner divisions that are not amateurs and/or the real owner of the horse.

What would the tax consequences be for requiring documented horse sales/leases with figures included?

I know many would say that what they pay for a horse is no ones business, but real estate transactions are public knowledge, why not horses. Besides adding visibility to actual horse prices and eliminating a lot of hidden commissions, it would expose the $1 buys in a/o's.

It would also expose the $1 leases that barn employees use to say it is their horse and not actually owned by the trainer's customer, so they can show in the adults.

Just a few thoughts.

Trixie
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:28 AM
I wish shamminess wasn't so hard to prove.

Last year I was told outright by a girl who I know works at a few different barns and is paid under the table that she was paid cash so she could... continue to ride in the LOCAL CHILDREN'S ADULT DIVISION (not even bringing home much in prize money, FWIW). I thought it was hugely offensive, particularly since at the shows she was going to, she was beating out primarily children and a few working amateurs.

What could I do about it? Unfortunately, nothing. IIRC, it costs money to file a complaint with the VHSA, and I'm already spending my shoestring showing my horse. Further, the burden of proof would've been on me to prove that she was a pro, and all I had was word of mouth.

I understand that the VHSA and USEF don't want people filing constant unfounded complaints, but they've sure made it inconvenient. How can I, as one of the "small people" have a prayer of eradicating that sort of behavior? In what other ways can we prove anything? Unfortunately, as someone says, it's set up to annoy the rule followers and reward the rulebreakers.


I have no idea how to stop shamatures in the amateur divisions, however what really bugs me is people showing in the amateur/owner divisions that are not amateurs and/or the real owner of the horse.

I think we should do away with amateur owner entirely and have a 3'6" A/A. It caters to only those who can afford their own horse, many competent but genuine amateurs can't. A 3'3" a/o division, is, in my opinion, equally silly. The way it's set up now actually prevents people from moving up in the sport.


It would also expose the $1 leases that barn employees use to say it is their horse and not actually owned by the trainer's customer, so they can show in the adults.

Unfortunately, you can't even show a leased horse in the A/Os.

seahorse
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:36 AM
Should we have any amateur divisions at all, whether aa or ao? If we keep them then we need tighter controls. USEF needs to enforce the rules themselves and not expect its members to do it for them.

LetsChat
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:42 AM
I wish shamminess wasn't so hard to prove.

Last year I was told outright by a girl who I know works at a few different barns and is paid under the table that she was paid cash so she could... continue to ride in the LOCAL CHILDREN'S ADULT DIVISION (not even bringing home much in prize money, FWIW). I thought it was hugely offensive, particularly since at the shows she was going to, she was beating out primarily children and a few working amateurs.


I was just about to write this. CASH everybody. Most of this is done in cash or if they do write checks they will say it was for grooming, or horse show prep (non riding of course) or a whole slew of other things. Which takes away any need for a W2 because let's be honest, if they are scamming the USEF they are probably scamming the USA government too by NOT declaring taxes, as long as they are riding horses that people own as pets, not as a business, no one on the spending side is declaring the expense... meaning it isn't recognized as income either.... Also someone mentioned the lease fee and purchase price. You can go around that by either PAYING $10,000+ for the lease fee or some price that is significant OR you can have a document, I pay you $100,000 for the horse and you agree to buy it back in one year for the same price, the money - like a deposit for an apartment is kept in an interest bearing account and interest is paid to the actual owner. Are they going to investigate every transaction and what if I legitimately paid $15,000 for a horse that I make into an A/O horse then whose to say if someone pays $50,000 for the lease then it isn't a legit sale, I mean are we going to have to get appraisers in on this too? Again, I stand by the fact that there IS NO WAY they can ever prove anything and that is why there is such rampant cheating. Oh well, like many have stated this is an elitist sport that really doesn't cater to all, ride for you and do the best YOU can or get out because getting all crazy about this is futile, there is NO POSSIBLE RESOLUTION!

scheibyee
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:52 AM
Unfortunately, you can't even show a leased horse in the A/Os.

I'm pretty sure she meant in the A/A's while riding a customers horse that the trainer is getting paid for, basically the barn worker is a shammy but covering it up with a $1 lease.

Renn/aissance
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:59 AM
The $200 price tag on making a protest makes this a little less appealing. Also the fact that you are the one who has to PROVE that the person is breaking the rules.

That price tag is prohibitive for a lot of us. I understand that it's meant to discourage people from spuriously reporting people simply out of spite, but given the economy and the number of people that seem to be actually reporting, why not knock that fee down?


Last year I was told outright by a girl who I know works at a few different barns and is paid under the table that she was paid cash so she could... continue to ride in the LOCAL CHILDREN'S ADULT DIVISION (not even bringing home much in prize money, FWIW). I thought it was hugely offensive, particularly since at the shows she was going to, she was beating out primarily children and a few working amateurs.

What could I do about it? Unfortunately, nothing. IIRC, it costs money to file a complaint with the VHSA, and I'm already spending my shoestring showing my horse. Further, the burden of proof would've been on me to prove that she was a pro, and all I had was word of mouth.

I don't know if the same is true for the VHSA, but I filed a protest last year about a woman in a local MD show association who was competing as an amateur at the same shows she was being paid to train students. The association refused to even consider that she was not an amateur because she held a USEF ammy card, never mind that I presented them with brochures advertising her services, checks made out to her, and the names of people who were willing to admit that they had paid her for training. There had been other complaints made out against this woman, rejected for the same reason, who later won the association sportsmanship award--which made me sick to my stomach. My understanding is that I have to file a protest against a shammy at the show at which they compete, and if she doesn't show at USEF shows, I'm going to have a devil of a time figuring out how to get her set down.

luvs2ridewbs
Apr. 3, 2009, 11:21 AM
I just wanted to say that barn workers are required to get a 1099 for the IRS. If you are getting paid under the table and (worse) collecting unemployment at the same time, you are not just a cheating ammy but now you have BIG problems with the IRS. USEF should not be responsible for outing IRS violaters. I also think that the type of person who is cheating the IRS is probabaly the same type of person who becomes a shammy.

Trixie
Apr. 3, 2009, 11:28 AM
A lot of folks have no problem cheating the IRS or the USEF.

I think the main thing we can do is try to be a lot less tolerant of it. Insist on only paying with checks, voice your disapproval when you see people cheating or trainers being shady. A lot of people simply won't speak up.

jse
Apr. 3, 2009, 11:49 AM
In the pro divisions.

Simple as that.

A lot of people would love to teach the occasional up down lesson, or ride some of the horses in the barn that they work at, but because the know the rules, and accept them, they don't. No one was ever forced to get on a horse that would break their ammy status, or forced to be a groom in a barn where they ride other people's horses. It is actually possible to read the rule book (without having every last COTH member explain it to you), and abide by it whether one thinks it is "silly" or "fair" or whatever.

Your (repeated) posts indicate that you either have truly never read the rules, or that you just don't care to understand them.

WooHoo! Thanks for the flame!
Obviously you haven't read my post that states that I'm not insanely educated on the rules. Hence why I've asked so many questions.
I have never shown on the A circuit so I have no reason to read the rules but I have friends and a husband who do and I was just interested because I do plan on some day showing. Until then, I have no real reason to read the rules and I appreciate my COTH friends and the discussion this thread has created. Don't get your under-roo's all tied up, man!
ETA: Was just thinking and re-read your post and there's no reason to be snarky about this, what's wrong with asking questions? What's wrong with participating in a conversation to become a little more educated? Sure I could go converse with my friends about it but I enjoy conversing with you guys as well. Bottom line, it sucks for the people who actually follow the rules to have people out there cheat and show in a division that they shouldn't be showing in. But the reality is, this kind of thing happens in every world of showing be it breed shows or big A shows. And catching people is like finding a needle in a haystack, for sure.

jse
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:16 PM
I just wanted to say that barn workers are required to get a 1099 for the IRS. If you are getting paid under the table and (worse) collecting unemployment at the same time, you are not just a cheating ammy but now you have BIG problems with the IRS. USEF should not be responsible for outing IRS violaters. I also think that the type of person who is cheating the IRS is probabaly the same type of person who becomes a shammy.

I worked in a few barns one year and didn't receive 1099's because my bosses didn't want to do deal with the trouble of taking out taxes. However, I still filed my taxes and reported my earnings...may have gotten them in trouble but, better them than me!

Janet
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:25 PM
What's wrong with asking an ammy to simply have a W-2 that can be requested should a protest of her status be lodged? Black out the numbers and leave the employer's info or tax id number visible. Maybe I'm just less ashamed of my job and more interested in making showing worthwhile than other working stiffs, but I don't see the big deal in a request to at least have a W-2 that easily establishes my ammy status. I'm sure there are other signs of amminess we could use instead.

But a W2 WOULDN'T establish your Amateur status.

Consider one of the most notorious "amateur" cases- which led to the rules about being "paid in another capacity". An accomplished rider was being paid by a barn (on the books, so presumably with a W-2) as a book keeper. But in fact she was spending all day riding and training their horses, and competing in the A/O division on her own horse on the weekend.

But she HAD a W-2 as a book keeper, so she would have been an amateur under your criteria.

Furthermore, there are plenty of declared pros who have a W-2 from a part time job. Are you proposing to re-classify them as amatuers?

Finally, don't forget the category for which the Amateur criteria were first developed- the non-working wives of husbands who could afford to support them in their horse habit. There are not as many as there used to be, but there are definitely still some, and they don't have a W-2.

Janet
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:37 PM
Yup, it's certainly easier to poke holes in out-of-the-box ideas than to defend the status quo... and then to point out exactly what's wrong with it. You will certainly be right, but also trapped in the situation you describe. It the won battle worth a lost war?
If you are referring to me, I am certainly not DEFENDING the status quo.

However some of the proposals (e.g. "have w-2" = "amateur") are clearly not credible.

It seems to me that the solution is to abandon the first line of the amateyur rules, and admit it IS about talent and experience, and not about $.

For instance, you could have two 3'6" hunter divisions- one restricted to riders who have not competed above 3'7" in the last two years, and one "open" with no restrictions.

You could have two 3' hunter divisions - one restricted to people who have not competed above 3' 3", and one "open" with no restrictions. Or, if there are enough entries, split it 3 ways - one restricted to people who have not competed above 3' 6", one restricted to people who have not competed above 3' 3", and one "open" with no restrictions. (all "in the last 2 years", or "in the last 5 years")

bluedapple
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:38 PM
I think the WORST rule is that you can't do both the adults and A/O's in zone 2 at the same show. What if you have a green horse and a made horse. What if you have a horse that can ONLY jump 3', not higher. You then have to show your green horse against pros in the pre-greens.

I feel like that discourages ammys from showing their own horses, and forces them to hire pros to ride for them.

Giddy-up
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:39 PM
the non-working wives of husbands who could afford to support them in their horse habit.

which I greatly yearn to one day become so no more ammy rules worries! :lol::winkgrin::lol:

Giddy-up
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:41 PM
I think the WORST rule is that you can't do both the adults and A/O's in zone 2 at the same show. What if you have a green horse and a made horse. What if you have a horse that can ONLY jump 3', not higher. You then have to show your green horse against pros in the pre-greens.

I feel like that discourages ammys from showing their own horses, and forces them to hire pros to ride for them.

That's a Zone rule. Write your Zone committee. Propose a rule change. Zone 5 changed their rules not too long ago to allow it.

scheibyee
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:42 PM
I think the WORST rule is that you can't do both the adults and A/O's in zone 2 at the same show. What if you have a green horse and a made horse. What if you have a horse that can ONLY jump 3', not higher. You then have to show your green horse against pros in the pre-greens.

I feel like that discourages ammys from showing their own horses, and forces them to hire pros to ride for them.

Definitely in agreement here but much like all of the rules, there are reasons they have to be this way b/c of unfair advantages it leaves a select few people. There have to be better ways to go about this and i'm sure if a good clause was thought up and enough people were there to back it, USEF would at least give it a look.

jse
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:43 PM
But a W2 WOULDN'T establish your Amateur status.

Consider one of the most notorious "amateur" cases- which led to the rules about being "paid in another capacity". An accomplished rider was being paid by a barn (on the books, so presumably with a W-2) as a book keeper. But in fact she was spending all day riding and training their horses, and competing in the A/O division on her own horse on the weekend.

But she HAD a W-2 as a book keeper, so she would have been an amateur under your criteria.

Furthermore, there are plenty of declared pros who have a W-2 from a part time job. Are you proposing to re-classify them as amatuers?

Finally, don't forget the category for which the Amateur criteria were first developed- the non-working wives of husbands who could afford to support them in their horse habit. There are not as many as there used to be, but there are definitely still some, and they don't have a W-2.

That's what I was thinking about the whole W-2 idea....you CAN prove through a W-2 that you have a job outside of horses. But what if someone is working riding horses for someone on the weekends and getting paid cash? There's really no way to track it except through hearsay.

Nikki^
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:11 PM
I have an idea:

1. How about writing an article in the COTH, PH, and USEF magazine about Shamateurs? The more people are aware of them the better.

2. How about forming a think tank to figure out how to keep the Shamateurs out of the Ammy classes. This thread (as many others) have excellent ideas. Perhaps dig them all up and put them on this thread? If we can all agree on how fix this problem we can submit it to the USEF. Remember, the USEF works for us, not the other way around ( though it seems that the USEF thinks we work for them....)

How about this idea for punishment: A year suspension for rider, trainer and owner of horse. No exceptions. Any Shammy caught will lose their ammy status for life.

Drop the Protest fee to $50.00

My suggestion (and I know it will get lots of rabble, rabble...)
How about getting rid of the A/O and A/A classes all together? That would solve the Shammy problem quickly. Have the same classes but leave the Ammy out of it. It can still be broken up by age groups too. Name the section Adult Hunters for those who lease horses and those who own a horse call it Adult Owner classes. Each section will have 3', 3'3 and 3'6 heights.

Don't the Pro riders stay in the Pre-green, Green Working and Working Hunters anyway? Those are consider open classes right?

Giddy-up
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:39 PM
My suggestion (and I know it will get lots of rabble, rabble...)
How about getting rid of the A/O and A/A classes all together? That would solve the Shammy problem quickly. Have the same classes but leave the Ammy out of it. It can still be broken up by age groups too. Name the section Adult Hunters for those who lease horses and those who own a horse call it Adult Owner classes. Each section will have 3', 3'3 and 3'6 heights.

Don't the Pro riders stay in the Pre-green, Green Working and Working Hunters anyway? Those are consider open classes right?

But if there is nothing to stop the pro's from the "weekend" 3', 3'3", 3'6" classes they will show in there as well. Why wouldn't they?

RockinHorse
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:40 PM
I
My suggestion (and I know it will get lots of rabble, rabble...)
How about getting rid of the A/O and A/A classes all together? That would solve the Shammy problem quickly. Have the same classes but leave the Ammy out of it. It can still be broken up by age groups too. Name the section Adult Hunters for those who lease horses and those who own a horse call it Adult Owner classes. Each section will have 3', 3'3 and 3'6 heights.

Don't the Pro riders stay in the Pre-green, Green Working and Working Hunters anyway? Those are consider open classes right?

The Pro riders only stay in the Pre-green, Green and Working because they are not currently eligible for the other classes. If you take the Ammy out of the requirement and I have to start riding against the likes of Scott Stewart, I may as well just hang up my spurs right now :lol:

Janet
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:50 PM
The Pro riders only stay in the Pre-green, Green and Working because they are not currently eligible for the other classes. If you take the Ammy out of the requirement and I have to start riding against the likes of Scott Stewart, I may as well just hang up my spurs right now :lol:
Scott Stewart would not be eligible under my proposal, as he has definitely showed above 3'7" in the last 2 years.

RockinHorse
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:59 PM
Scott Stewart would not be eligible under my proposal, as he has definitely showed above 3'7" in the last 2 years.

That is true and I actually think your proposal makes the most sense of any that have been posted so far ;)

happyhorse3
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:16 PM
Janet - I don't think your ideas to change the divisions would work. Point being, the zone I am in as a certain shammy who is and will admit to everyone she is the "barn manager" but has been breaking the rules for years. She never ever has strayed out of the Adult Amateur Hunters (3') and my guess is she never will just so she can stay in the 3' and always be the winner. While for years she never owned the horses she showed (which is fine as the rules in the AA's say you don't have to own the horse you ride) she was riding and showing customer's and her trainer's horses while being paid as the "barn manager". All of a sudden when people started crying foul the several horses she was competing on are now magically "leased" to her. What I don't understand is how the USEF allows this when just by her record she was riding and competing on trainers and customers horses before the magic "leases" appeared.

Janet, there are other shammys that I know of that will also always stay at 3' so they are always eligible for it. I wish there was an easy answer!

Go Fish
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:18 PM
I've been a junior or amy for well over 45 years - shown under the old "open" system, breed shows, and now H/J. Let's face it...people cheat...with everything. It can be medication, amy status, switching horses, KILLING horses...the list goes on and on. And, I don't think it's reserved just for horseshows, either, when it comes to sport.

That being said, I really don't care all that much. I try to look at the big picture...yeah, there's a few cheaters out there, but I really don't see a great deal of it and it rarely has an effect on my horse, round, or placing, when you get down to it. And, I've got bigger fish to fry...like "where did that #$*&! distance go???" :D

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:21 PM
Under the 3'7" proposal anyone who showed Adult Amateur Jumpers might have to go in the Pro section.

Who will track what each rider showed in?
How will the show secretary know who is eligible?

In some zones there are lots of one day shows that have Adult Amateur Hunters. They don't always fill when split Older and Younger. So any further splits aren't going to do much.

There will be the usual suspects in the 3' division and the Pros in the other section. If the other section fills at all as the real Pros will be doing Green and Working, Conformation and Derby classes.

If you have a 3' 6" division for Adult Amateurs it won't fill, at least in my zone.

Each zone has unique entry patterns. There won't be a one size fits all solution. Best resolved at the zone level.

Nikki^
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:37 PM
Scott Stewart would not be eligible under my proposal, as he has definitely showed above 3'7" in the last 2 years.

Ok, to modify my idea to insert Janet's idea, then the Adult Hunter and the Adult Owners are only open to riders who have not shown 3'7 or above in the hunters.

This will take the Pro Riders out of the classes.

Pirateer
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:43 PM
Ok, to modify my idea to insert Janet's idea, then the Adult Hunter and the Adult Owners are only open to riders who have not shown 3'7 or above in the hunters.

This will take the Pro Riders out of the classes.

That won't work- what about all the pony riding pros? I know professionals that don't see a fence above 3' b/c they are teeny and ride ponies, but they'd still be eligible.

And how are we going to track this? Just think about how many horses get a "few" times of doing the 1st Years...All they have to do is re-register the horse and pretend no one knows where it came from.

damecheval
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:57 PM
Everybody from my barn obeys the Ammy rules, but I know plenty of riders that don't. For example, I've seen trainers, fairly well known, trainers ride their students horses in amateur classes. Nobody has called them out on it, because they don't always win. They do usually place decently though. I also know quite a few junior riders that catch ride. Is that legal? The money simply gets handed over to their parents. I've trained ponies before, but for nothing more in return than the chance to show them at no cost to me.

LetsChat
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:00 PM
Everybody from my barn obeys the Ammy rules, but I know plenty of riders that don't. For example, I've seen trainers, fairly well known, trainers ride their students horses in amateur classes. Nobody has called them out on it, because they don't always win. They do usually place decently though. I also know quite a few junior riders that catch ride. Is that legal? The money simply gets handed over to their parents. I've trained ponies before, but for nothing more in return than the chance to show them at no cost to me.

Juniors don't have the same rules, they can act like pros and still be under 18 hence still a junior.

Pirateer
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:01 PM
I also know quite a few junior riders that catch ride. Is that legal? The money simply gets handed over to their parents. I've trained ponies before, but for nothing more in return than the chance to show them at no cost to me.

Juniors can accept as much money or gifts as they want.
They don't have a professional or amateur status.
They are just "Juniors".

damecheval
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:02 PM
Is it really? So I can catch ride... :yes: Yay!

Giddy-up
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:10 PM
For example, I've seen trainers, fairly well known, trainers ride their students horses in amateur classes. Nobody has called them out on it, because they don't always win.

For real?? A trainer blatantly riding in a ammy restricted class? And show management doesn't notice or say anything even in the office?

happyhorse3
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:24 PM
For real?? A trainer blatantly riding in a ammy restricted class? And show management doesn't notice or say anything even in the office?

Oh, I can believe show management looking the other way, especially if that trainer bring many clients to their shows!:yes:

Nikki^
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:26 PM
That won't work- what about all the pony riding pros? I know professionals that don't see a fence above 3' b/c they are teeny and ride ponies, but they'd still be eligible.

And how are we going to track this? Just think about how many horses get a "few" times of doing the 1st Years...All they have to do is re-register the horse and pretend no one knows where it came from.

I thought you had to be under 18 to show ponies.

How you keep track is that you keep track the rider, not the horse.

damecheval
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:30 PM
For real?? A trainer blatantly riding in a ammy restricted class? And show management doesn't notice or say anything even in the office?

Mhmmm. Not in big shows, but local A-Circuit, sure. With friends that are running the show, it's not a problem. I've seen kids that get year end awards for both lead line and walk trot, too, just because their mother is the show manager. All they have to do is ride a different horse.

Janet
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:36 PM
Janet - I don't think your ideas to change the divisions would work. Point being, the zone I am in as a certain shammy who is and will admit to everyone she is the "barn manager" but has been breaking the rules for years. She never ever has strayed out of the Adult Amateur Hunters (3') and my guess is she never will just so she can stay in the 3' and always be the winner. While for years she never owned the horses she showed (which is fine as the rules in the AA's say you don't have to own the horse you ride) she was riding and showing customer's and her trainer's horses while being paid as the "barn manager". ...
Janet, there are other shammys that I know of that will also always stay at 3' so they are always eligible for it. I wish there was an easy answer!
But the point is that, under my proposal, it would be OK for her to compete in the "not competed above 3'3"" division.

If she has only ever competed up to 3' then, IMHO, even if she is very good at 3', she DOES belong in the "never competed above 3'3"" division.

It isn't the SAME as the amateur/pro distincion, but it is a LOT easier to define and enforce, and does create a realtively level playing field.

Janet
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:38 PM
I thought you had to be under 18 to show ponies.

You have to be under 18 to show ponies in a Pony Hunter or Pony Jumper division. But there are plenty of other classes (h/j and others) where adults can show ponies.

Janet
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:45 PM
That won't work- what about all the pony riding pros? I know professionals that don't see a fence above 3' b/c they are teeny and ride ponies, but they'd still be eligible.
Under my proposal, that WOULD be OK. It is DIFFERENT playing field, but it is still a level playing field. Competing against "pros that never go above 3'" would be allowed.

Personally, I think most "real" amateurs would rather compete against "a pro who only competes up to 3'" than "a legitimate (from $ perspective) amateur who won a Grand Prix yesterday"


And how are we going to track this? Just think about how many horses get a "few" times of doing the 1st Years...All they have to do is re-register the horse and pretend no one knows where it came from. It is a lot harder to create a new identity for a RIDER than for a horse

myvanya
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:50 PM
Would it be feasible to do, as some have proposed, the divisions where you can't enter if you have shown above X height, but then, if entries warrant, also add classes for those who have not shown above X height and have not won more than 2 firsts at a certain level as well? Basically maidens. That makes it so that the people just starting out can have their own division until they are doing well enough to hold their own. Or, as I believe was mentioned earlier, do something similar to how they do it in reining, where it is based on lifetime "earnings" which in the case of HJ would probably be more like a point system. I think there are a lot of ways we could make showing better without having to have amateurs and pros, and I think, based on the debate we have been having, isn't really addressing what it was intended to address in the first place.

Giddy-up
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:50 PM
Mhmmm. Not in big shows, but local A-Circuit, sure. With friends that are running the show, it's not a problem. I've seen kids that get year end awards for both lead line and walk trot, too, just because their mother is the show manager. All they have to do is ride a different horse.

In that case being that obvious...I would be filing a protest with USEF. If the trainer is that "big", they must have a business card or website or something that shows their professional activity. There is your "proof". And print it out before they get alerted & change their website content.

:confused: If you pay the $$ to file a protest & that person is found guilty--do you get your protest money back?

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 3, 2009, 04:05 PM
Under my proposal, that WOULD be OK. It is DIFFERENT playing field, but it is still a level playing field. Competing against "pros that never go above 3'" would be allowed.

Personally, I think most "real" amateurs would rather compete against "a pro who only competes up to 3'" than "a legitimate (from $ perspective) amateur who won a Grand Prix yesterday"

It is a lot harder to create a new identity for a RIDER than for a horse

Even if the 'Pro' never shows over 3' they still are likely riding several horses each day, training and teaching. So I still don't see how the playing field is level if I have to compete against a Pro.

Your example of the problem being an Amateur who won a GP yesterday isn't the usual situation. The more usual problem is the 3' Shamateur who shows in the Adult Amateur Hunters and Jumpers on sales horses belonging to their trainer/employer or on a horse that belongs to a client of their trainer. If an A/O Jumper rider is good enough to win a GP and still wants to show in Adult Amateur Jumper that's up to them to decide. Odds are they won't be riding the same horse.

Yes, it is harder to create a new rider identity but right now points go to the horse/pony not the rider so a new tracking system would have to be devised. And I can guess who would be paying for that. LOL

If the rules were simply enforced then there wouldn't be a need to figure out new solutions.

meupatdoes
Apr. 3, 2009, 04:22 PM
I have never shown on the A circuit so I have no reason to read the rules.

I would think that making a post defending your 'best friends' who were, according to you, unjustly set down by USEF because of a 'typo on the trainer's website' would be a reason to read the rules.

You know, before posting.


In addition to the fact that I would think your 'best friends' being set down might possibly have sparked your interest to type "USEF amateur rule" into google and see what comes up (it's on the first page of hits, btw), I always find it helpful to make at least a cursory effort at reading and understanding something before complaining about it, in writing, on a web forum.

Had you done so, you would have seen that they were clearly in violation and the typo had nothing to do with it.

Ymmv.

Btw.
Check out post #50 on this thread.
Then look 20 posts later.
Even reading this thread before posting away would have been ...helpful.

happyhorse3
Apr. 3, 2009, 05:55 PM
Even if the 'Pro' never shows over 3' they still are likely riding several horses each day, training and teaching. So I still don't see how the playing field is level if I have to compete against a Pro.

Your example of the problem being an Amateur who won a GP yesterday isn't the usual situation. The more usual problem is the 3' Shamateur who shows in the Adult Amateur Hunters and Jumpers on sales horses belonging to their trainer/employer or on a horse that belongs to a client of their trainer. If an A/O Jumper rider is good enough to win a GP and still wants to show in Adult Amateur Jumper that's up to them to decide. Odds are they won't be riding the same horse.

You are so right. The shammy in the long run is racking up quite a winning record for the horses he/she rides (and does not own) and don't you think it makes that horse sell for a lot more money because of the winning record and all done by a supposed amateur. Sure brings the value of that horse up when it comes time to sell it. I suspect this is what is going on in a lot of cases. The trainers and the owners as well as the shammy are all in on the cheat. Yes, all to make money and stroke the shammy's ego! It's time people open their eyes and see this for what it is. Often times it runs deeper than the shammy. These are often time plain and simple sale horses getting a "great" show record on the backs of the true amateurs!

Janet
Apr. 3, 2009, 06:09 PM
Yes, it is harder to create a new rider identity but right now points go to the horse/pony not the rider so a new tracking system would have to be devised. And I can guess who would be paying for that. LOL Rider results are already being tracked in several other disciplines, so it should not be too hard to add it for h/j.

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 3, 2009, 06:37 PM
Rider results are already being tracked in several other disciplines, so it should not be too hard to add it for h/j.

I didn't say it couldn't be done. But it will cost $$ no matter how you look at it. Some development work will need to be done.

And show secretaries will need a system that is easily verified. Right now they just have to look at your card. If you expect secretaries to start doing online verification of every entry for over/under a certain fence height status then think again. Don't like the 'office fee' now ? Start adding extra work and see what happens.

The way to get around that would be for USEF to issue cards each year certifying what divisions you can compete in. If that card is issued based on what the USEF members says on the application then not much more cost but the accuracy will be questionable.

If USEF has to research the status then we are back to more $$$ but the eligibility would be more accurate or at least you'd hope so.
So if you want to pay more money to USEF or in office fees then raise your hand for this proposal.

The Adult Amateur specs are set at the zone level as are the restrictions on cross entering between A/O and AA. Don't like the restrictions? Contact your zone and make a suggestion or a proposal.

Pirateer
Apr. 3, 2009, 06:46 PM
The Adult Amateur specs are set at the zone level as are the restrictions on cross entering between A/O and AA. Don't like the restrictions? Contact your zone and make a suggestion or a proposal.

My zone lets you cross enter between AA and AO (on the same horse...blech). I'm all for restricting horse/rider combo (or even horse restricted).

damecheval
Apr. 3, 2009, 07:02 PM
In that case being that obvious...I would be filing a protest with USEF. If the trainer is that "big", they must have a business card or website or something that shows their professional activity. There is your "proof". And print it out before they get alerted & change their website content.

:confused: If you pay the $$ to file a protest & that person is found guilty--do you get your protest money back?

Fairly well know, and only locally. If this were a big trainer, then I would have filed a protest. But a trainer that's known only in the surrounding 3 or so towns and doesn't really win much? It just doesn't seem worth it.

Peggy
Apr. 3, 2009, 11:20 PM
<snip>
I don't know if the same is true for the VHSA, but I filed a protest last year about a woman in a local MD show association who was competing as an amateur at the same shows she was being paid to train students. The association refused to even consider that she was not an amateur because she held a USEF ammy card, never mind that I presented them with brochures advertising her services, checks made out to her, and the names of people who were willing to admit that they had paid her for training. There had been other complaints made out against this woman, rejected for the same reason, who later won the association sportsmanship award--which made me sick to my stomach. My understanding is that I have to file a protest against a shammy at the show at which they compete, and if she doesn't show at USEF shows, I'm going to have a devil of a time figuring out how to get her set down.If my interpretation of the rules is correct, you do not have to show to be protested. I base this on the fact that one section of the rule starts out "If the violation occurs at a competition."

Parker_Rider
Apr. 4, 2009, 01:03 AM
Janet, your proposal works in theory, but not reality. What if on my jumper I can show 3'6" and eventually hope to be in the A/Os, but my mare can't jump above 3' because of an injury and I'd want to do the eq/adult hunters on her? I'd be ineligible and therefore, couldn't ride one of my horses despite being a legit ammy. OR if I was showing 3'6" in 2008, but because of a winter injury on my horse, had to drop back down to 3'0" the next year? I don't think your proposal is very forgiving in that regard. Or maybe I'm missing the minutiae of the plan (I admit I read it quickly). I commend the brain storming to get rid of the shammy problem though!!!

(haha, my bf is reading this over my shoulder and wanted to know "why we all had a problem with "shammies"... don't they dry things quickly and effectively?" :lol: :lol:)

SmileItLooksGoodOnYou
Apr. 4, 2009, 05:44 AM
Maybe the answer here is a semi-pro section.

A true Ammy section, a true pro section, and something in between. People who ride other people's horses, groom, do barn chores, etc....

Obviously there are plenty of issues with this, but it seems like the rules could be written such that it's if horse industry is not your primary occupation (you have a full time day job in an office, hospital, firm, retail store, etc etc etc) but you do more than ride your own horse(s). You have a trainer that you ride and show under. I'm sure there'd be plenty of writing that went into it, but no worse than the current Ammy rules.

Say there's a "semi-pro" class to fit the specs of high/low AA and AO jumpers and AA and AO hunters.

Fewer entries into both divisions, and more ring time at shows....

I think the trainers who allow shammys to do what they do should be held responsible for that. If that were the case a semi-pro division would probably be quite popular as a choice for trainers to suggest their clients enter if there's anything at all that would keep them out of the ammy division honestly.

Linny
Apr. 4, 2009, 08:42 AM
Steward related question:

Above someone referred to a (known) pro riding in ammy classes and not being called on it. Who's responsibility is it? If I'm ringside and like many others, know this person to be a pro, I have to plunk down $200 to lodge a protest. My question is what of the stewards? If this person is a fairly well known pro in the area is a steward (who is aware of this person's status) OBLIGATED to call him/her out? Is the steward committing a violation by knowingly allowing this person to show as an ammy? I know stewards travel a lot but lets face it, the horseshow world is a small one. Before long you pretty much know "who is who" and "who is what." If I'm ringside and overhear a steward comment that "that rider is a pro, this is an ammy class" and yet nothing gets done. Is the steward in violation?

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 4, 2009, 09:09 AM
Maybe the answer here is a semi-pro section.

A true Ammy section, a true pro section, and something in between. People who ride other people's horses, groom, do barn chores, etc....

Obviously there are plenty of issues with this, but it seems like the rules could be written such that it's if horse industry is not your primary occupation (you have a full time day job in an office, hospital, firm, retail store, etc etc etc) but you do more than ride your own horse(s). You have a trainer that you ride and show under. I'm sure there'd be plenty of writing that went into it, but no worse than the current Ammy rules.

Say there's a "semi-pro" class to fit the specs of high/low AA and AO jumpers and AA and AO hunters.

Fewer entries into both divisions, and more ring time at shows....

I think the trainers who allow shammys to do what they do should be held responsible for that. If that were the case a semi-pro division would probably be quite popular as a choice for trainers to suggest their clients enter if there's anything at all that would keep them out of the ammy division honestly.

The Adult Amateur division was created in part to allow Ammies who did not own their own horses to compete against non pros. So if you classify people riding other people's horses as semi pro you'll probably move 30-40% of the legit ammies into the semi pro division.

I think the w-2 idea has been done. Having a w2 or 1099 from a non horse related activity does not guarantee that you aren't breaking the current amateur rules. Some of the shammies receive compensation by way of barter agreements. They get discounts off lessons or leases or board etc in return for work. No w2 for that stuff. I gave this example previously. A retired person has a 1099 for pension or an unemployed person has a tax document. They have lots of free time and work for cash. They would be legit ammies under the w2 test.

Fewer entries is not a good goal.

Trainers who permit this activity are punished. Earlier in this thread a specific situation was mentioned involving 'working students'. You can read all about that on USEF's website. The trainer was suspended for a month.

Most of the suggestions proposed would either :
a) annoy legit ammies
b) force legit ammies to show in the 'high' or 'semi pro' division
c) legitimize many of the shammies.

Midge
Apr. 4, 2009, 09:22 AM
Even if the 'Pro' never shows over 3' they still are likely riding several horses each day, training and teaching. So I still don't see how the playing field is level if I have to compete against a Pro.



What if you have a green horse and a made horse. What if you have a horse that can ONLY jump 3', not higher. You then have to show your green horse against pros in the pre-greens. I feel like that discourages ammys from showing their own horses, and forces them to hire pros to ride for them.


Many younger amateurs do work outside the horse industry. The reason why it would be so nice to be able to get paid to ride someone else's horse is when you are already working 50 hours a week and want to get in more riding hours and don't have tons of money from working those 50 hours, it would be pretty awesome to get a few extra bucks and still have some ride time.


Part of the issue I have with potentially losing my ammy status to take a horse job is that I run out of classes to bring up a horse in very quickly in my area.


I pulled out a couple quotes I think point out a problem with the pros and cons of the ammy rule. Much of the above quotes are about wanting it all for their specific circumstances. Guess what? There is no such thing as a level playing field. There is always someone richer, more talented,a better rider, a better horse. I folow the rules. I want everyone else to, too. I do NOT want to ride in the division so dumbed down that I am winning 'the best of the worst' division.

Hopefuly, my five year old will come out in the baby greens sometime this year. Here is the point; if I show in the baby green division and get nothing, or show in the pre adults and win, it says nothing about the quality of my trip. I am going to be a little tight here, a little long there and have a rough change. Or two. The only difference is the ribbon. Riding against other 2'6" adults didn't make me better, it just dumbed down the competition until I was the winner, at least that day. I am also capable of being last in the dumbed down division and a ribbon winner in the hard division. Depends on the day.

Smiles
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:14 AM
Steward related question:

Above someone referred to a (known) pro riding in ammy classes and not being called on it. Who's responsibility is it? If I'm ringside and like many others, know this person to be a pro, I have to plunk down $200 to lodge a protest. My question is what of the stewards? If this person is a fairly well known pro in the area is a steward (who is aware of this person's status) OBLIGATED to call him/her out? Is the steward committing a violation by knowingly allowing this person to show as an ammy? I know stewards travel a lot but lets face it, the horseshow world is a small one. Before long you pretty much know "who is who" and "who is what." If I'm ringside and overhear a steward comment that "that rider is a pro, this is an ammy class" and yet nothing gets done. Is the steward in violation?

I have wonder this too? The steward is there to enforce rules and watch for violation, correct? Well if they are told that a person is in violation isn't it their job to do something about it $200 protest or not (ie investagate or follow up)? I just don't get why the magical $200 is the only reason why usef goes into action or gets envolved. I'll say it again why have rules if the governing body doesn't bother to police and enforce them...

Ghazzu
Apr. 4, 2009, 11:55 AM
I am decent but in no way, shape, or form good enough of a rider IMO to be considered "pro."

Professional status is defined by money, not talent, though.

ynl063w
Apr. 4, 2009, 12:34 PM
I pulled out a couple quotes I think point out a problem with the pros and cons of the ammy rule. Much of the above quotes are about wanting it all for their specific circumstances. Guess what? There is no such thing as a level playing field. There is always someone richer, more talented,a better rider, a better horse. I folow the rules. I want everyone else to, too. I do NOT want to ride in the division so dumbed down that I am winning 'the best of the worst' division.

Hopefuly, my five year old will come out in the baby greens sometime this year. Here is the point; if I show in the baby green division and get nothing, or show in the pre adults and win, it says nothing about the quality of my trip. I am going to be a little tight here, a little long there and have a rough change. Or two. The only difference is the ribbon. Riding against other 2'6" adults didn't make me better, it just dumbed down the competition until I was the winner, at least that day. I am also capable of being last in the dumbed down division and a ribbon winner in the hard division. Depends on the day.

I was going to post something like this, but thanks to Midge there's no need. Very well said Midge! I prefer to show against the pros, and in the lower divisions they are not unbeatable if you put in a good trip. There is a reason the pros aren't showing those particular horses in the higher divisions - they're either green or have issues.

happyhorse3
Apr. 4, 2009, 02:19 PM
While it's true there will never be a level playing field when it comes to money or someone having a nicer horse but are you guys saying it's ok to ignore a USEF rule just because "life isn't fair." I don't understand this. Their is a rule about amateur/professional and it is being broke a lot. Does that mean we should just look the other way. Last time I checked there was no rule about being too rich or having too nice a horse.

ynl063w
Apr. 4, 2009, 03:26 PM
While it's true there will never be a level playing field when it comes to money or someone having a nicer horse but are you guys saying it's ok to ignore a USEF rule just because "life isn't fair." I don't understand this. Their is a rule about amateur/professional and it is being broke a lot. Does that mean we should just look the other way. Last time I checked there was no rule about being too rich or having too nice a horse.

I haven't ever seen any posts by anyone in this forum indicating that he or she thinks it's okay to ignore the rules. Some people have resigned themselves to the fact that there are people out there who will cheat in ways that make it extremely difficult to prove they are in fact cheating, and have decided to focus more on their own riding rather than what others are doing simply because that is a better use of their time. That does not mean they think it's okay to cheat.

Giddy-up
Apr. 4, 2009, 04:55 PM
Steward related question:

Above someone referred to a (known) pro riding in ammy classes and not being called on it. Who's responsibility is it? If I'm ringside and like many others, know this person to be a pro, I have to plunk down $200 to lodge a protest. My question is what of the stewards? If this person is a fairly well known pro in the area is a steward (who is aware of this person's status) OBLIGATED to call him/her out? Is the steward committing a violation by knowingly allowing this person to show as an ammy? I know stewards travel a lot but lets face it, the horseshow world is a small one. Before long you pretty much know "who is who" and "who is what." If I'm ringside and overhear a steward comment that "that rider is a pro, this is an ammy class" and yet nothing gets done. Is the steward in violation?


I have wonder this too? The steward is there to enforce rules and watch for violation, correct? Well if they are told that a person is in violation isn't it their job to do something about it $200 protest or not (ie investagate or follow up)? I just don't get why the magical $200 is the only reason why usef goes into action or gets envolved. I'll say it again why have rules if the governing body doesn't bother to police and enforce them...

I am confused on the role of a steward as well.

I have been told a steward is there to interpret the rules, not enforce them. If you want enforcement, you file a protest thru USEF.

Now whether that is true or not I don't know. I have seen some stewards who actually do their jobs & other who spend their time (hiding?) in the show office that couldn't find their way thru the USEF rulebook if they had to. :rolleyes:

mvp
Apr. 4, 2009, 09:59 PM
Love this thread because it's like taking a survey or core-sample of the horse show world. OK, so posters are self-selected.

But it has generated some good ideas and detailed looks at what goes wrong in sorting ammies from pros. But how does this virtual discussion relate to the real world?

Is it enough to vote with my feet and wallet and expect the USEF or show managers to notice?

Sometimes I assume that the people at the top are primarily trainers and very involved ammies (read: more or less independently wealthy). It it would not surprise me that the current rules benefit them, primarily financially.

In this thread, for example, it strikes me as odd that one would want competition rules to accommodate people shopping for horses at shows. From a trainer's perspective, however, it makes real sense to make a horse show a place to do business.

SO, does anyone have actual experience on USEF committees? How does a member or the hoi polloi (sp?) get on one of those puppies? Where do they get their information about that the masses want?

Is there an even better way to be effective?

Any clue would be most welcome.

BAB
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:15 PM
I'm just about at the end of teaching the Stewards Clinic in Lexington this week. I fly home tomorrow after 3 weeks on the road and not seeing my home and family for that long. Sometime next week, if someone sends me a private message, I will get back to you on the role of a steward in enforcing the rules. Notice that I said enforcing, it's not just interpretation. I will tell you what I teach on the role of the steward at a horse show. It's just too late now, I'm too tired and am going to bed, so just wait. Unless someone else speaks to it, I will talk more to you all next week. Please let me know if someone else does speak to it before I get to it. I won't have time to go back to read all of what is said to find out myself and I don't have time to just repeat what someone else says.

Thanks you all and later,

Bev

Renn/aissance
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:29 PM
Ok, to modify my idea to insert Janet's idea, then the Adult Hunter and the Adult Owners are only open to riders who have not shown 3'7 or above in the hunters.

To further specify to allow in the junior riders who show or have shown their horses in the Workings, the amateurs who show their A/O horses in a Hunter Derby and take the optional 4' fences, and the ammies who show in the USET:

"An individual is eligible to enter an Adult Owner class if s/he has not during his/her adult career [or has not within the last one/three/five years of his/her adult career] shown in a hunter class where the majority of or all of the fences exceed 3'7"."


So if you want to pay more money to USEF or in office fees then raise your hand for this proposal.

If USEF or USHJA actually uses the money I pay them to make rule changes that will affect me, I will dance for joy. ;)

Parker_Rider
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:37 PM
In this thread, for example, it strikes me as odd that one would want competition rules to accommodate people shopping for horses at shows. From a trainer's perspective, however, it makes real sense to make a horse show a place to do business.



Horse shows are a great place to do business. I love my horse, but the caveat to the money going through the wire transfer was that he went around the show ring. I nearly quit because my mare wouldn't go (injury) and my other gelding wouldn't go (burn out) and there was no way I was going to take another horse home without taking it through a week of the craziness.
However, I don't know about bending rules to make this happen, that seems a little silly that someone couldn't operate within the current rules (e.g. jumper level classes or a lower hunter class). But yes, if you're spending $$ on a horse, it's nice to have ridden it around a class or two before you plunk down any money. You don't necessarily have to go in the A/Os or an ammy class to do it in, though.

On another note, I for sure am interested in BAB's answer to the steward question!!

mvp
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:47 PM
I think there are plenty of ways to try a horse at a show. Hors de Concourse (sp?) is an obvious one. I think the Florida circuits have dedicated rings for trying horses. My point was that changing competition rules to help buyers and sellers might be an example of making the "sport" chase the money... which everyone vigorously denies!

fourmares
Apr. 5, 2009, 12:57 AM
I think that the suggested A/O rule that riders not have shown in a hunter class with fences over 3'7" is horrible... why can't an ammy show their own horse in the 2nd years and the opens? I did, and you can too. You don't HAVE to let the pros have all the fun.

As far as the rule... here's my problem with it. I own a barn. I have a couple of boarders (couple as in two.) One doesn't ride. One is one of my best friends. We are both 40 something, and both share the same trainer. Our trainer travels a lot, so we often ride and even show without our trainer. Technically under the rule she can watch me ride at home and offer suggestions, but I can't do the same for her or I am breaking the rule... she can set jumps for me at shows and help me learn my course and offer helpful tips, but I can't do the same for her or I break the rule... if we trade horses for a lesson (or just for kicks and giggles), she's fine, I'm breaking the rule. Technically I can't even tell her if she's on the wrong diagonal at home without breaking the rules... I have a big mouth... so I suppose I ought to be riding in the pro divisions... ya, right... As much as I enjoy the heck out of beating the local pros, I shouldn't have to be limited to the pro divisions, and not show in the equitation divisions mearly because I own a barn and my friend and I help each other out when our trainer is out of town.

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 5, 2009, 07:09 AM
But yes, if you're spending $$ on a horse, it's nice to have ridden it around a class or two before you plunk down any money. You don't necessarily have to go in the A/Os or an ammy class to do it in, though.


If you are trying a horse at a show I hope you aren't riding it in an A/O class.:D

mvp
Apr. 5, 2009, 08:58 AM
Thanks for posting Fourmares because I think you describe a very common situation. Yours also parallels that of the good ammy who give the up-down less on Saturdays or explains a concept to a trainer's kid in some new way that really helps her. You ought not to be "punished"-- told you can only show on weekdays, against Olympians, and shouldn't bother with eq. if you'd like to-- because you made pocket money.

You are the kind of long-term, knowledgeable ammy that the horse industry ought to encourage. You (we?) probably do a nice job not only under saddle but also with the day-to-day care of our horses and that's good for the long-term future of horsemanship.

I'm just pointing this out because it may help the other posters working to develop really sensitive, effective ideas for regulating the ammy ring. I firmly believe that horse showing is entirely made up (I know, a radical claim right?) so we can make it go any way we would like. The rules ought to be written and enforced such that they pursue a worthwhile goal. They can be modified as need be. It's just a question of figuring out what "we" want, or at least seeing if USEF's rule-makers are responsive both to their membership at large and also to the long-term project of encouraging good riding in this country.

I do like the idea of "lifetime points" as similar to lifetime earnings used to sort horses in reining (from another thread). That might be a trackable, inoffensive way of sorting people (albeit indirectly) by access to riding opportunities. I think that's the heart of the ammy/pro problem and distinction, right?

I also like the dressage world where the horse's level is all that matters. I don't think that world would implode because a GP rider does a fantabulous job on another horse at Training Level. In fact, many of us would pull up a lawn chair and watch her ride from mounting up to last salute.

We all can get riding lessons by watching the pros or talented shammies on any horse, but we might be hard pressed to keep entering divisions where we were pretty sure our entry fees were going up in smoke for the preventable reason that the show management or USEF had abandoned the idea of allowing like to compete against like.

Giddy-up
Apr. 5, 2009, 03:00 PM
As far as the rule... here's my problem with it. I own a barn. I have a couple of boarders (couple as in two.) One doesn't ride. One is one of my best friends. We are both 40 something, and both share the same trainer. Our trainer travels a lot, so we often ride and even show without our trainer. Technically under the rule she can watch me ride at home and offer suggestions, but I can't do the same for her or I am breaking the rule... she can set jumps for me at shows and help me learn my course and offer helpful tips, but I can't do the same for her or I break the rule... if we trade horses for a lesson (or just for kicks and giggles), she's fine, I'm breaking the rule. Technically I can't even tell her if she's on the wrong diagonal at home without breaking the rules... I have a big mouth... so I suppose I ought to be riding in the pro divisions... ya, right... As much as I enjoy the heck out of beating the local pros, I shouldn't have to be limited to the pro divisions, and not show in the equitation divisions mearly because I own a barn and my friend and I help each other out when our trainer is out of town.

While I understand how the rule is unfair for you, if it wasn't there imagine what would happen. Ammy's that own a barn would now over-charge for basic board & they offer comments or ground crew (re: lessons) with it as a "perk". It would be like having lessons worked into the board cost.

Unfortunately making all the rules are needed to close out loopholes for all the cheaters.

Linny
Apr. 5, 2009, 05:29 PM
However, I don't know about bending rules to make this happen, that seems a little silly that someone couldn't operate within the current rules (e.g. jumper level classes or a lower hunter class). But yes, if you're spending $$ on a horse, it's nice to have ridden it around a class or two before you plunk down any money. You don't necessarily have to go in the A/Os or an ammy class to do it in, though.

On another note, I for sure am interested in BAB's answer to the steward question!!

I guess the issue is that if you are trying a 3'6 horse that is not elig for the 1st years there is no place to show at 3'6. If you are trying a 3' horse there are usually some sort of "local" "special" etc classes and of course the ammys. In this area there is an Open Hunter for members of the local affiliate, open to pros/ammys. If the purpose of the rides is to try the horse, the level of ribbons is less important that the knowledge gained.
Also, is it possible to "audit" a class in a show? Could I "try out" a possible A/O purchase by showing him (at full expense) as a non judged entry? Are there non judged warm-ups or schooling classes at 3'6? I mean the horse doesn't know or care that he's being judged, it's for the edification of the rider.

(I know these are probably dumb questions but I'm many years away from showing at anything but very small shows.)

RockinHorse
Apr. 5, 2009, 06:46 PM
the good ammy <snip> or explains a concept to a trainer's kid in some new way that really helps her. You ought not to be "punished"-- told you can only show on weekdays, against Olympians, and shouldn't bother with eq. if you'd like to-- because you made pocket money.



If the good ammy isn't getting paid for explaining the concept there is no problem with retaining ammy status.

Parker_Rider
Apr. 5, 2009, 08:27 PM
I guess the issue is that if you are trying a 3'6 horse that is not elig for the 1st years there is no place to show at 3'6. If you are trying a 3' horse there are usually some sort of "local" "special" etc classes and of course the ammys. In this area there is an Open Hunter for members of the local affiliate, open to pros/ammys. If the purpose of the rides is to try the horse, the level of ribbons is less important that the knowledge gained.
Also, is it possible to "audit" a class in a show? Could I "try out" a possible A/O purchase by showing him (at full expense) as a non judged entry? Are there non judged warm-ups or schooling classes at 3'6? I mean the horse doesn't know or care that he's being judged, it's for the edification of the rider.

(I know these are probably dumb questions but I'm many years away from showing at anything but very small shows.)

Not dumb questions at all... I swear, I've been riding the AA/A shows for a while and things never cease to take me by surprise! I don't know the hunter rules very well, I'll be honest with you, I've been in jumper land for a long, long time. But at some shows for some classes there are "no judges" where you can pay your entry fee, ride the course and not compete. My guess is that if you're wanting to show a 3'6" hunter at 3'6", you'd probably have to enter in an eq class because for a lot of the low hunter classes, if the horse or rider has shown above a certain height, you're ineligible. That's kind of a half-answer, sorry I can't be more specific!

fourmares
Apr. 6, 2009, 01:28 AM
Giddy-up - truely, I'm not a moron. I understand why the rule is the way it is concerning barn owners... we have (or had) a BO around here that did exactly what you are suggesting... However, if, for example, there was a law where more innocent people got thrown in prison than guilty ones we'd change it in a hurry. I think when you try to create a rule to cover all possible ways that people might cheat and then add to it to cover any ways that people find ways to cheat anyways you end up with a rule that has unintended consequences. In a lot of respects the ammy rule ought to be like the Supreme Court's method of determining whether something is pornography... you know it when you see it.

Midge
Apr. 6, 2009, 07:34 AM
Fourmares, not to pick on you, but this is the same thing I complained about earlier in the thread. People want the rules to flex their way. You want to a) make money on a boarding operation, b)be able to give your boarders friendly advice or hack their horses and c) ride in the ammy divisions. Why should you be able to do those things? What makes you an ammy in that situation?

Mainly, people in your situation don't want to have to show against the pros. Well, why should I have to show against you?

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 6, 2009, 10:02 AM
Thanks for posting Fourmares because I think you describe a very common situation. Yours also parallels that of the good ammy who give the up-down less on Saturdays or explains a concept to a trainer's kid in some new way that really helps her. You ought not to be "punished"-- told you can only show on weekdays, against Olympians, and shouldn't bother with eq. if you'd like to-- because you made pocket money.



If you are doing up down lessons and getting paid you may be 'good' but you are not an Ammie.

If you simply explain a concept and don't get paid by the student or by the trainer ( including free lessons, board etc) no problem.

If you want to show against other Ammie's then follow the rules.
And it's it's only 'pocket change' that you are being paid then it won't hurt you to stop doing those lessons. Why should you be able to engage in pro ativities and show as an Ammie?
Of course if you want to work for free then go for it.

Giddy-up
Apr. 6, 2009, 10:10 AM
Giddy-up - truely, I'm not a moron. I understand why the rule is the way it is concerning barn owners... we have (or had) a BO around here that did exactly what you are suggesting... However, if, for example, there was a law where more innocent people got thrown in prison than guilty ones we'd change it in a hurry. I think when you try to create a rule to cover all possible ways that people might cheat and then add to it to cover any ways that people find ways to cheat anyways you end up with a rule that has unintended consequences. In a lot of respects the ammy rule ought to be like the Supreme Court's method of determining whether something is pornography... you know it when you see it.

I am sorry. I wasn't implying that you were. You understand the rules. :)

jse
Apr. 6, 2009, 01:27 PM
I would think that making a post defending your 'best friends' who were, according to you, unjustly set down by USEF because of a 'typo on the trainer's website' would be a reason to read the rules.

You know, before posting.


In addition to the fact that I would think your 'best friends' being set down might possibly have sparked your interest to type "USEF amateur rule" into google and see what comes up (it's on the first page of hits, btw), I always find it helpful to make at least a cursory effort at reading and understanding something before complaining about it, in writing, on a web forum.

Had you done so, you would have seen that they were clearly in violation and the typo had nothing to do with it.

Ymmv.

Btw.
Check out post #50 on this thread.
Then look 20 posts later.
Even reading this thread before posting away would have been ...helpful.

What is your problem???
Really? What is a forum for if you can't discuss things? I don't see anyone else having a problem with my questions except you. So get off your high horse.
As for my 'best friends' (why you quote that, I have no idea) I would think I know a bit more about the case than you considering I myself received the letters here at home while they were at WEF this winter and I myself read the letters from the USEF myself in order to relay information onto them.
Their letters clearly stated that their website listed them as "co-trainers" and that was in violation of the rules. Therefore it sparked the investigation against them.

Montanas_Girl
Apr. 6, 2009, 01:44 PM
I've read most of this thread but not all of it, so forgive me if I've missed something here or there.

My beef with the current amatuer rules is that they don't serve the intended purpose at all - which is a reasonably level playing field. What I would like to see (but probably never will) is a complete re-evaluation of the way we set up the divisions at our shows, especially in the hunters. Would it not make more sense to have, say, 3' "Restricted Rider" (or whatever) hunters, 3' "Restricted Horse" hunters, and 3' Open hunters, with the same distinctions made at all height levels? Restrictions could be based in some way on past performance - no more than X blue ribbons or X championships (or something like that) at that height or higher. Yes, you would still have people who try to cheat the system. We're never going to NOT have those people around.

I think it is supremely ridiculous that I, as a student trying to support my horse habit, cannot take a lesson on a schoolie when my guy is lame because I clean stalls once a week to help offset my board cost and still show as an amatuer. In WHAT world does that make me a professional? I understand why that loophole was closed in the rules, but...really? It's almost laughable.

meupatdoes
Apr. 6, 2009, 01:48 PM
What is your problem???
Really? What is a forum for if you can't discuss things? I don't see anyone else having a problem with my questions except you. So get off your high horse.
As for my 'best friends' (why you quote that, I have no idea) I would think I know a bit more about the case than you considering I myself received the letters here at home while they were at WEF this winter and I myself read the letters from the USEF myself in order to relay information onto them.
Their letters clearly stated that their website listed them as "co-trainers" and that was in violation of the rules. Therefore it sparked the investigation against them.

Well, if it's "discussion" you're after, why not try to participate in a manner that actually contributes to the discussion?

Ways to participate positively include:
1. putting the name of the rule into google and trying to read it yourself before simply asking someone else to explain it to you
2. not complaining about the rule before reading it
3. actually reading other people's contributions to the discussion before posting yourself.

Doing the above would indicate that you are actually interested both in having a discussion and furthering it.

Instead you don't bother to read what has already been posted, complain before familiarizing yourself with the topic, and expect everyone else to take the time and effort to explain it to you (even though if you would have just read the thread you would have seen it was already explained) because you don't feel like taking the time or effort to familiarize yourself.
Never mind that the answers you seek are easily available online, and the other have ALREADY contributed stuff that directly addresses your interests, you'll just come in mid-sentence and someone will be sure to explain it again, right?

Apparently you want to participate in the discussion but not contribute to it in any way, or even, you know, read it.

There is a difference between "discussing" things and treating the other posters like your personal answers.com


That's my problem.
The others here are probably more polite, and more patient, than I am.

jse
Apr. 6, 2009, 01:55 PM
Well, if it's "discussion" you're after, why not try to participate in a manner that actually contributes to the discussion?

Ways to participate positively include:
1. putting the name of the rule into google and trying to read it yourself before simply asking someone else to explain it to you
2. not complaining about the rule before reading it
3. actually reading other people's contributions to the discussion before posting yourself.

Doing the above would indicate that you are actually interested both in having a discussion and furthering it.

Instead you don't bother to read what has already been posted, complain before familiarizing yourself with the topic, and expect everyone else to take the time and effort to explain it to you (even though if you would have just read the thread you would have seen it was already explained) because you don't feel like taking the time or effort to familiarize yourself.
Never mind that the answers you seek are easily available online, and the other have ALREADY contributed stuff that directly addresses your interests, you'll just come in mid-sentence and someone will be sure to explain it again, right?

Apparently you want to participate in the discussion but not contribute to it in any way, or even, you know, read it.

There is a difference between "discussing" things and treating the other posters like your personal answers.com


That's my problem.
The others here are probably more polite, and more patient, than I am.
Please tell me....where did I complain? I just stated different scenarios in which it would be somewhat difficult to determine if someone was a "pro" or an "ammy". I know, I know, there are rules that state exactly how to determine such things, however, I'm sure the rules bend here and there for certain people. You can't argue that.
And it never hurts to be polite or patient with people. Might want to think about doing that some day. Being ugly and snarky doesn't help you out at all.
As for the rules, I believe someone suggested and said that it might be a good idea to re-evaluate them. I think that would be a very good thing to do some day seeing as everyone in their mother is getting in trouble these days for violating the rules...

ETA: Go check out the over-legislated ammy thread. I believe that, though I haven't read the rules (OMG I'm Satan for that!), that many like myself don't bother to read the details because it's just too much! Therefore we get people who don't know they are committing a violation because they didn't bother to read the ridiculous amount of rules there are out there, they are just educated on the basics....

lonewolf
Apr. 6, 2009, 03:00 PM
I, too, would like to see the divisions totally re-structured based on past performance and skill, not $$$. That is how things work in most other sports.

The suggestions I like best are:

1) Janet's rule regarding limiting classes to people who have shown over a certain height (3'7). I would change it to, say, "People who have earned xxxx points over such-and-such a certain height," so that people first moving up would have a little leeway. It would be simple to enforce, which is good. However, I prefer the next option, below:

2) I personally would endorse the idea of "lifetime points" dividing open and restricted divisions. If possible, I would like to do this at each level. Meaning, when you accumulate xxxx points at the 3' level, you can no longer show in restricted ('ammy') 3' classes, and you would have to show the opens. You COULD, however, show in the restricted 3'6 classes until you got too many points, etc.

I DO understand and have read the rules. I know that they are written so that pros are pros "regardless of ability and accomplishments." I just don't know WHY they would be written that way. I think that accomplishments should matter a heck of a lot more than where your money comes from.

Final question: is there even a snowball's chance in He** that we could get something like this passed?

mvp
Apr. 6, 2009, 03:28 PM
Lonewolf does a nice job of summarizing and combining the features of other suggestions that might make showing not only equitable but also (and because equitable) even inviting.

To answer the last question first: There may be a snowball's chance if enough people at the top begin to lose money because the way things are.

Considering Fourmare's scenario and the logic that "A pocket-money earning pro is a Olympic pro"--that summarized from what look to be selective readings of my post about this, I think there is another group that might be interested in changing the rules: The local and C-show trainer who is certainly not an ammy, yet also does not enjoy the advantages that BNTs do.

Think about it: These people don't make fabulous commissions on expensive horses. They don't go from Florida to Vermont, racking up Daycare and training fees as they go along. They do stay home, teach many kids and ammies to ride, thus generating a huge chunk of the horse industry's GNP. So, if he or she found herself with an able, willing client to bring along it's likely that the small trainer will lose the business when the client wants to move into the rated world. Where does that leave the small trainer in terms of making a living or improving? She may be confronting something of a glass ceiling.

So the bona-fide-ammy defenders reading might not care about the small trainer's plight, but the fact that there is a plight of some kind of pro at all suggests that the horse show world is run be a very small, atypical set of elites at the top. A shocking discovery, right? My point is that it makes sense to create alliances among many underlings as an antidote to the current distribution of power and concern.

meupatdoes
Apr. 6, 2009, 03:30 PM
Pato's case is a silly one. His working students are my best friends. (They are on their way home from FL tomorrow! YAY! We spent the whole day today filling stalls with straw!)
They are suspended because of a type-o on his website (in which he does not maintain). His working students were listed as "co-trainers" for the longest time and that's not what they are.
USEF didn't buy that, therefore they got suspended. But I know for a fact what they do every day as working students as my husband was a working student for him as well.

That is where you complained.

You appeared to disagree with the suspension.
You appeared to be under the impression that if the USEF had believed they were 'working students', as opposed to 'co-trainers', that suspension would not have been merited.

Excuse my reading comprehension if it is faulty, but you appeared to be complaining about an unjustified action on the part of USEF in that post.

Had you, however, read the rule, or the rest of this thread, you would have realized that the suspension was justified precisely because they are working students who are riding horses in the trainer's program that do not belong to them. (And there are youtube videos and USEF records of both working students riding horses owned by the trainer in the amateur jumper divisions.)


I just stated different scenarios in which it would be somewhat difficult to determine if someone was a "pro" or an "ammy". I know, I know, there are rules that state exactly how to determine such things, however, I'm sure the rules bend here and there for certain people. You can't argue that.
The rules don't spontaeneously bend.
People who choose not to follow them bend them.
People who can't be effed to READ them bend them.




As for the rules, I believe someone suggested and said that it might be a good idea to re-evaluate them.
But you haven't read them.
You want to change them, even though you couldn't be bothered to read them.
Okie dokie.


many like myself don't bother to read the details because it's just too much! Therefore we get people who don't know they are committing a violation because they didn't bother to read the ridiculous amount of rules there are out there, they are just educated on the basics....
Yeah.
You clearly haven't even looked at the amateur rule.
It is less than a page long.
Clearly too much to expect anyone to read.

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 6, 2009, 03:49 PM
There is no 'working student' USEF membership classification. You can call yourself a working student but it doesn't imply a get out of jail free card if you break the rules.
If the rules were broken it makes no difference if the individuals were co-trainers, working students or whatever.

Trixie
Apr. 6, 2009, 03:54 PM
many like myself don't bother to read the details because it's just too much! Therefore we get people who don't know they are committing a violation because they didn't bother to read the ridiculous amount of rules there are out there, they are just educated on the basics....

It's actually fairly basic. Accept money for riding or teaching, and you're not an amateur. Work in a barn and ride their horses, not an amateur. That's pretty much it. It's not that complicated to educate oneself on the rules, I don't think "everyone and their mother" is being busted for violating them... generally, only those who are obviously and deliberately disobeying them.

I know that before I go to a horse show, I read what I'm eligible for prior to entry. It's common sense.

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 6, 2009, 04:12 PM
Considering Fourmare's scenario and the logic that "A pocket-money earning pro is a Olympic pro"--that summarized from what look to be selective readings of my post about this, I think there is another group that might be interested in changing the rules: The local and C-show trainer who is certainly not an ammy, yet also does not enjoy the advantages that BNTs do.

So the bona-fide-ammy defenders reading might not care about the small trainer's plight, but the fact that there is a plight of some kind of pro at all suggests that the horse show world is run be a very small, atypical set of elites at the top. A shocking discovery, right? My point is that it makes sense to create alliances among many underlings as an antidote to the current distribution of power and concern.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, Are you saying that a c show trainer should not be classified as a Pro?
If they want to be treated as an Amateur then they need another job that does not involve activities that USEF says make you a Pro. If they don't like being a Trainer then get another job.

What 'plight' do you mean? That they can't compete as an Ammie?

meupatdoes
Apr. 6, 2009, 04:13 PM
There is no 'working student' USEF membership classification. You can call yourself a working student but it doesn't imply a get out of jail free card if you break the rules.
If the rules were broken it makes no difference if the individuals were co-trainers, working students or whatever.

Calling yourself a working student implies a get INTO jail free card if you ever ride a horse in that program that you do not personally own or lease.

SonnysMom
Apr. 6, 2009, 04:24 PM
jse- people show under USEF on a voluntary basis. It is expected that you read the rules that govern that.
Just like driving a car. Try telling an officer you didn't know that law because you didn't bother to read the driver's manual. He isn't exactly going to have a lot of sympathy.
Showing horses and driving a car are both privileges not rights. With that comes the expection that if you choose to do these activities then you have a responsibility to read the rules/laws.
Also for showing as an ammie you need to go out of you way to apply for an ammie card so you can show in those classes. When you complete the application your are agreeing that you qualify as an ammie according to the rules set forth by USEF. It is nobody's fault but your own if you can't be bothered to read the rules that you have just agreed to by completing the application.

Giddy-up
Apr. 6, 2009, 04:32 PM
Therefore we get people who don't know they are committing a violation because they didn't bother to read the ridiculous amount of rules there are out there, they are just educated on the basics....

For what horse showing costs now, why wouldn't you want to know the rules of the game you are playing??? Kind of hard to complain about others if you don't know what the rules are.

Pleading ignorance after you break a rule cause you couldn't be bothered to read & understand it is not a good enough reason.

RockinHorse
Apr. 6, 2009, 06:51 PM
I believe that, though I haven't read the rules (OMG I'm Satan for that!), that many like myself don't bother to read the details because it's just too much! Therefore we get people who don't know they are committing a violation because they didn't bother to read the ridiculous amount of rules there are out there, they are just educated on the basics....


People who commit a violation because they did not read the rules are cheating just as much as those who commit a violation and did read the rules.

mvp
Apr. 6, 2009, 09:37 PM
Relax! I think that if you reread my post you might see a different point in there somewhere.

It was a question, a suspicion?, that the BNTS who enjoy a great deal of power on USEF committees don't even represent the pro constituency well. My main point was about power, representation and creating an allegiance (or at least sympathy) between two disenfranchised groups.

I also wanted to point out that many people-- not just ammies-- work hard to stay in the show world. As I described, local circuit trainers are among those. I know they aren't properly part of this discussion, but I don't think they deserve to be shown the door any more than would the ammy who complained about an industry that had no interest in allowing her to progress to 3'6" unless she had a small fortune to put down.

That's all I meant.

Linny
Apr. 6, 2009, 10:16 PM
It seems that alot of people don't think of themselves as pros and thus assume that they are ammy's in spite of what the rules say.

Parker_Rider
Apr. 6, 2009, 10:28 PM
ETA: Go check out the over-legislated ammy thread. I believe that, though I haven't read the rules (OMG I'm Satan for that!), that many like myself don't bother to read the details because it's just too much! Therefore we get people who don't know they are committing a violation because they didn't bother to read the ridiculous amount of rules there are out there, they are just educated on the basics....

Um... have you seen the books on the laws in your state/town? They're huge. Most know the basics. But puhleaze try telling a police officer "Oh, sir, I didn't realize that TPing a house was vandalism! I didn't read that in the Cliffnotes version of the law!" and see if you get away with it. Fat chance.

Same concept. You're expected to be a good citizen by following the laws and keeping order in the community; that applies to both your city/country as well as any associations you're affiliated with.

PonyPenny
Apr. 6, 2009, 10:37 PM
I have been reading the posts on this topic, and I do not understand what is so confusing about the amateur rules. Whether you think they are fair or not, they are what they are. No one is forcing anybody to compete. If you don't like the rules, don't compete. The whole fence height thing is a very confusing idea. Heck there are some trainers that do not jump at all. I live on the left coast and many of the vehicle codes are crazy. If I want to drive, I obey them. If I don't, I can get a ticket. The police officer and judge do not care what I think or my opinion of the law. It is what it is. Life is not always fair. Follow the rules as they are written and do not try to tweak them to fit your personal views.

dab
Apr. 6, 2009, 10:47 PM
I think the part-time trainers who want the rule change should be careful what they're asking for -- I suspect there are many amateurs, especially in today's economy, who would be willing to teach a few hours per week if it didn't limit their showing opportunities severely -- Getting and keeping clients could become more difficult if there's a big increase in the number of part-time trainers --

fourmares
Apr. 7, 2009, 01:16 AM
Fourmares, not to pick on you, but this is the same thing I complained about earlier in the thread. People want the rules to flex their way. You want to a) make money on a boarding operation, b)be able to give your boarders friendly advice or hack their horses and c) ride in the ammy divisions. Why should you be able to do those things? What makes you an ammy in that situation?

Mainly, people in your situation don't want to have to show against the pros. Well, why should I have to show against you?


Well, Midge... Why shouldn't I be able to give my friend, who is also my boarder, friendly advice FOR FREE... the same exact advice that she could give me without breaking the rules BTW, just because she pays me enough in board to cover her horses hay and shavings? I'm not talking about standing there giving her a lesson... if I so much parrot our trainer and remind her to drop her weight into her heal, technically I'm breaking the rule... on the other hand she could literally stand in the ring and give me free lessons every day and she's not breaking any rule. I'm not suggesting that I should get to be a trainer and charge "board" that is double what other local barns charge to hide my training fees... I'm just saying that just because someone has done that in the past me and everyone in my situation get "punished" for it too.

Why would you worry about showing against me? I'm a classic amature... I have a job and clean stalls every day. I take regular lessons... I've been riding for 35 years so I'm a pretty good local ammy, but I'm not fantastic. I have good days and days where I can't find a spot to save me. On my good days, on my good mare, I have no problem beating the local pros (though I'm not sure that is saying much... most of them aren't that great.)... I'm sure that you could beat me.

S A McKee
Apr. 7, 2009, 08:04 AM
Well, Midge... Why shouldn't I be able to give my friend, who is also my boarder, friendly advice FOR FREE... the same exact advice that she could give me without breaking the rules BTW, just because she pays me enough in board to cover her horses hay and shavings? I'm not talking about standing there giving her a lesson... if I so much parrot our trainer and remind her to drop her weight into her heal, technically I'm breaking the rule... on the other hand she could literally stand in the ring and give me free lessons every day and she's not breaking any rule.


What part of the Amateur rule says you can't give advice for free?

Giddy-up
Apr. 7, 2009, 08:36 AM
What part of the Amateur rule says you can't give advice for free?

There isn't. BUT fourmares has a boarding barn & she can't comment on any of the horses she is rec'ing board money for.

Giddy-up
Apr. 7, 2009, 08:43 AM
Think about it: These people don't make fabulous commissions on expensive horses. They don't go from Florida to Vermont, racking up Daycare and training fees as they go along. They do stay home, teach many kids and ammies to ride, thus generating a huge chunk of the horse industry's GNP. So, if he or she found herself with an able, willing client to bring along it's likely that the small trainer will lose the business when the client wants to move into the rated world. Where does that leave the small trainer in terms of making a living or improving? She may be confronting something of a glass ceiling.

Not everybody is going to be a BNT on the AA show circuit. And not every trainer wants to be. Some enjoy staying home, doing only the local shows if that much. If that "small" trainer wants to break loose & become "bigger", then they might have to wing it. Take the risk, walk away from your stay at home clients, start going to shows & pray you find enough show clients to pay the bills. This a tough business. Clients come & go at a whim.


I think the part-time trainers who want the rule change should be careful what they're asking for -- I suspect there are many amateurs, especially in today's economy, who would be willing to teach a few hours per week if it didn't limit their showing opportunities severely -- Getting and keeping clients could become more difficult if there's a big increase in the number of part-time trainers --

Very interesting perspective. :yes: Now those "semi-pros" are going to be pulling clients away from the "full time pros". There are only so many fish in the sea so somebody is going to go hungry.

S A McKee
Apr. 7, 2009, 08:44 AM
There isn't. BUT fourmares has a boarding barn & she can't comment on any of the horses she is rec'ing board money for.

Section f of the Amateur rule discusses riding horses that one receives remuneration for boarding.

Fourmares can't ride any of her boarder's horses under that section.

But what section says she can't give advice for free just because she's a barn owner?

Giddy-up
Apr. 7, 2009, 08:49 AM
Section f of the Amateur rule discusses riding horses that one receives remuneration for boarding.

Fourmares can't ride any of her boarder's horses under that section.

But what section says she can't give advice for free just because she's a barn owner?

And how is that different then from a lesson? When is it "free advice" & when is it a lesson since she is rec'ing payment? I could see many shammies then owning barns & giving lots of "free advice" on the sidelines to their boarders.

(not picking on fourmares--just using as an example :))

Midge
Apr. 7, 2009, 08:53 AM
Well, Midge... Why shouldn't I be able to give my friend, who is also my boarder, friendly advice FOR FREE... the same exact advice that she could give me without breaking the rules BTW, just because she pays me enough in board to cover her horses hay and shavings?.

Because you can't be paid for one service and give another 'for free'. I am in the same boat, but when I go to the horse show, I am agreeing to abide by the rules. When I was my trainer's braider, I could not ride other horses in his barn. All the other customers could ride extras, but not me. All the people who didn't even have to work for a living could ride as many of the horses as they wanted. I had to go to someone else's barn and ride a very generous friend's retiree to get an extra ride. As annoying as I personally find the rule, I understand it.

S A McKee
Apr. 7, 2009, 08:59 AM
And how is that different then from a lesson? When is it "free advice" & when is it a lesson since she is rec'ing payment? I could see many shammies then owning barns & giving lots of "free advice" on the sidelines to their boarders.

(not picking on fourmares--just using as an example :))

The sections that discuss lessons ( b,g) specify 'remuneration'
Section c doesn't apply because the barn owner isn't being paid in another capacity.

If the 'trainer' is related to the barn owner then section g would apply.

What section of rule 1306 applies?

jse
Apr. 7, 2009, 09:10 AM
That is where you complained.

You appeared to disagree with the suspension.
You appeared to be under the impression that if the USEF had believed they were 'working students', as opposed to 'co-trainers', that suspension would not have been merited.

Excuse my reading comprehension if it is faulty, but you appeared to be complaining about an unjustified action on the part of USEF in that post.

Had you, however, read the rule, or the rest of this thread, you would have realized that the suspension was justified precisely because they are working students who are riding horses in the trainer's program that do not belong to them. (And there are youtube videos and USEF records of both working students riding horses owned by the trainer in the amateur jumper divisions.)


The rules don't spontaeneously bend.
People who choose not to follow them bend them.
People who can't be effed to READ them bend them.



But you haven't read them.
You want to change them, even though you couldn't be bothered to read them.
Okie dokie.


Yeah.
You clearly haven't even looked at the amateur rule.
It is less than a page long.
Clearly too much to expect anyone to read.

YOU obviously and clearly have it out for someone and there's really no point in arguing with you. But I must say this, in reference to the future, "If you ain't got nothin' nice to say, don't say anything at all!" Like I said before, it doesn't pay to be mean to people. Sure it sparked me to go read the rules so you could quit chastising me, but you can bet when I see your name pop up in another conversation I will avoid communicating with you at all costs. You have no respect for me, I'll have no respect for you or your opinions or ideas. It's cool that you have no shame in cutting people down, however there are nicer ways to put things and engage in conversation the right way as others on this board do. (Talk about someone who doesn't read rules, what does it say about personal attacks on people for THIS here bulletin board???)

As for the rules, I read them, and you guys are right (and without reading them, I already knew half of them, go figure!). They are pretty cut and dry and I completely understand them. However, I don't see my curiosity and questions any different than those of everyone else discussing this subject. Yeah, rules are rules, but that doesn't stop me from saying that some of them are absolutely silly...you can't braid your boss's horse and ride? What does braiding have to do with someone's ability to ride???
I do stand by my belief that if they would re-evaluate and simplify the rules then we all wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Or maybe we would. Who knows. There's always two sides and two or three or four opinions on things. Which is why I enjoy reading and responding to you guys.

ETA: After thinking about it for a while, I realize and understand why the Ammy's get upset about people breaking their rules. The amateur classes were created for those who wanted to show and have fun. Someone in another thread suggested that the percentage of money that you make in the horse world should have an effect on your status. I think that makes sense. Because there are people out there (like I've stated before) who aren't at a Pro level when it comes to riding. Sure they can do a mean grooming on a horse, but they are still coming along in their riding and can't complete with the likes of Kent Farrington or Mclain Ward in the level and open classes (jumper world that is.). What is everyone's opinion on that?

BAB
Apr. 7, 2009, 10:13 AM
Thanks, Smiles, for the reminder to get back to you all about our responsibilites in amateur status problems.
There are quite a few duties of a steward listed in the Rule Book and I, and most stewards, do take them seriously. One is to investigate any alleged violation. If you report your suspicions of amateur status violations to a steward at a show, that steward is required to investigate. If the steward does nothing, yes, they are in violation of a rule and you should report that to USEF. A protest is fine, but you can also file an Evaluation form with USEF. They are available online or from the horse show office. And USEF does look at them and act if action is required. If the steward, in investigating the situation, cannot find sufficient evidence of violation, the steward should come back and tell you why, but should and must put it in the report that goes back to USEF after each show. USEF may take it upon themselves, and they have done it, to go investigate themselves. The amateur rule violations are the hardest to prove, there's no question about that, but sometimes there is proof - business cards, advertising, etc.
If there is definitive proof of amateur status violation that the steward can find, that steward must also report that and file a charge.
Hopefully, this answers your questions on the responsibility of a steward in this situation and what you should do if that steward takes no action to, at least, investigate.

Muny Sunk Stables, Inc
Apr. 7, 2009, 10:29 AM
LetsTalk put it good. No matter if you follow the rules or not usef rarely enforces the rules anyways. Some people are blatantly braking the rules... We all have them in our local or zone shows, but they continue to do it because usef will not do anything about them. What good is it to have rules when there is no one to police them.

While the USEF rules were set up to make it fair on exhibitors, sometimes they are ridiculously stupid. Say a horse has only a level 3-4 in them, the rider places that horse in it's perspective division. While the rider may have another horse that jumps in a higher division, the cross section rule from Child/Adult to Jr/Ams is a bit profound. A rider should be able to cross section if the horse/rider combination is different. While a rider can ride up to a level 4, while having a horse in the Child/Adults at the same show, is legal; going higher in the levels on another horse at the same show is not. This is ridiculous. If the horse show management companies as well as the USEF want to make more money, allow a different rider/horse combination. It inhibits further experience and stagnates that abilities of both horse and rider.

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 7, 2009, 11:01 AM
While the USEF rules were set up to make it fair on exhibitors, sometimes they are ridiculously stupid. Say a horse has only a level 3-4 in them, the rider places that horse in it's perspective division. While the rider may have another horse that jumps in a higher division, the cross section rule from Child/Adult to Jr/Ams is a bit profound. A rider should be able to cross section if the horse/rider combination is different. While a rider can ride up to a level 4, while having a horse in the Child/Adults at the same show, is legal; going higher in the levels on another horse at the same show is not. This is ridiculous. If the horse show management companies as well as the USEF want to make more money, allow a different rider/horse combination. It inhibits further experience and stagnates that abilities of both horse and rider.

Not exactly clear on what you are trying to say but the cross entry restrictions on Adult and Childrens Jumpers are set by the zones, not an accross the board specification from USEF.
And in many zones the restriction is on the horse/rider combo only.
If you don't care for the rule then speak to someone on your zone committee.

jse
Apr. 7, 2009, 11:04 AM
Not exactly clear on what you are trying to say but the cross entry restrictions on Adult and Childrens Jumpers are set by the zones, not an accross the board specification from USEF.
And in many zones the restriction is on the horse/rider combo only.
If you don't care for the rule then speak to someone on your zone committee.

Can you explain the rule simply to me. I read it and I don't understand?

Giddy-up
Apr. 7, 2009, 11:04 AM
The sections that discuss lessons ( b,g) specify 'remuneration'
Section c doesn't apply because the barn owner isn't being paid in another capacity.

If the 'trainer' is related to the barn owner then section g would apply.

What section of rule 1306 applies?

see Midge's reply a few above this. She is saying what I am trying to. :) I don't know where it's written specifically in the rules you can't do this or that, but accepting money for boarders really limits what you are able to do within your own barn as an ammy.

Smiles
Apr. 7, 2009, 11:17 AM
Thank you BAB... I wish we had more stewarts like yourself that do take the job seriously instead of sitting around the show office doing nothing.

Muny you can cross enter into different jumper divisions but its based on zone & horse/rider combination as PineTree said. For instance in zone five you can show a horse in the child/adult and then you can show another horse in the low jr/ao.

Giddy-up
Apr. 7, 2009, 11:26 AM
Can you explain the rule simply to me. I read it and I don't understand?

Junior & AO jumper are nationally recognized divisions & follow the same rules regardless of where the show is located.

Child & adult jumpers are Zone recognized & therefore each Zone makes up their own rules for the division. The show follows the rules for what Zone they are located in. So if you show in FL (Zone 4) during the winter you follow their rules then. If you show in IL (Zone 5) during the summer, you follow their rules.

Some Zones allow you to have a horse in the child/adult jumpers & another horse in the low junior/AO jumpers at the same show. Some Zones do not. Another reason why you need to read the rulebook & be familiar with your division specs--especially if you show in multiple zones.

jse
Apr. 7, 2009, 11:31 AM
Junior & AO jumper are nationally recognized divisions & follow the same rules regardless of where the show is located.

Child & adult jumpers are Zone recognized & therefore each Zone makes up their own rules for the division. The show follows the rules for what Zone they are located in. So if you show in FL (Zone 4) during the winter you follow their rules then. If you show in IL (Zone 5) during the summer, you follow their rules.

Some Zones allow you to have a horse in the child/adult jumpers & another horse in the low junior/AO jumpers at the same show. Some Zones do not. Another reason why you need to read the rulebook & be familiar with your division specs--especially if you show in multiple zones.

I DID read....I just didn't understand that one rule change specifically. Sorry, I'm not perfect. Thank you for clarifying though.

Summit Springs Farm
Apr. 7, 2009, 12:12 PM
What we do sometimes here is say I'll call one of my girlfriends and ask her to come over and watch me ride, since I don't ride alone anymore, she would be like me an amateur, and we talk about what I'm doing on my horse and she'll set jumps etc.
Are we not allowed as ammys to do that?
Help each other?
Cause I would have to stop riding then, because its just not a good idea for me to ride alone and I can't imagine any of my friends coming over and not telling me what they thought!!;)

Also its a very good idea to ride as many horses as one can to increase their ability, so we also exchange horses from time to time.

I don't know but I think one should be allowed to earn money anyway they can and be ammys as long as they are not being paid to ride. end of story.

S A McKee
Apr. 7, 2009, 12:18 PM
see Midge's reply a few above this. She is saying what I am trying to. :) I don't know where it's written specifically in the rules you can't do this or that, but accepting money for boarders really limits what you are able to do within your own barn as an ammy.

Not really.
You can't ride a boarders horse.
You can't give a lesson that you get paid for or that someone else in your immediate family gets paid for.
you can't do anything that makes you a pro, same as other Amateurs.

meupatdoes
Apr. 7, 2009, 12:28 PM
YOU obviously and clearly have it out for someone and there's really no point in arguing with you. But I must say this, in reference to the future, "If you ain't got nothin' nice to say, don't say anything at all!" Like I said before, it doesn't pay to be mean to people. Sure it sparked me to go read the rules so you could quit chastising me, but you can bet when I see your name pop up in another conversation I will avoid communicating with you at all costs. You have no respect for me, I'll have no respect for you or your opinions or ideas. It's cool that you have no shame in cutting people down, however there are nicer ways to put things and engage in conversation the right way as others on this board do. (Talk about someone who doesn't read rules, what does it say about personal attacks on people for THIS here bulletin board???)

Personal attacks?
Cutting people down?
Being 'mean'?

Are you for real?

I reread every last post I made that was directed at you, and maybe I am blind but I can not find ONE name or even an adjective that I called you.

My posts were limited to describing your apparent practice of commenting on stuff you haven't yet bothered to read, and on posting to a discussion without even bothering to familiarize yourself with the thread.

If you find a description of your own behavior so offensive, maybe you shouldn't behave that way. That's your call, but I certainly didn't call you any names, make personal attacks, or cut you down.

Sheesh.
Guess you didn't read my posts, either.

Giddy-up
Apr. 7, 2009, 12:32 PM
You can't give a lesson that you get paid for or that someone else in your immediate family gets paid for.

But how is it known that board doesn't include the lesson fee or the "free advice"?

Here you go for an example:

I am an ammy that opens a barn. I charge people for board. I offer my "free" advice while they are riding their horses. Sometimes it's random, sometimes it's say 4x a month I am feeling generous for oh say 30 minutes a time.

Now to push it further--I go to a show with my AO horse. Some of my boarders come too. I offer my "free" advice in the schooling ring & at the show ring to them.

To push it even further for the show scenario--I also charge 3x the normal shipping rate for transporting their horses to & from the show. igonore this--bad example

You are telling me the person that owns the barn & shows in the AOs is still an ammy with all the "free" advice they are handing out?

Summit Springs Farm
Apr. 7, 2009, 12:34 PM
They became a pro when they charged for shipping, can't do that as a ammy;)

Giddy-up
Apr. 7, 2009, 12:37 PM
They became a pro when they charged for shipping, can't do that as a ammy;)

dang...let me think of another way to cheat then. I guess I am not very good at this. :winkgrin:

ok, how about a "hold your stall fee" for each day your horse is off the property at a show? It would be added to the board bill.

Midge
Apr. 7, 2009, 12:42 PM
What we do sometimes here is say I'll call one of my girlfriends and ask her to come over and watch me ride, since I don't ride alone anymore, she would be like me an amateur, and we talk about what I'm doing on my horse and she'll set jumps etc.
Are we not allowed as ammys to do that?
Help each other?
Cause I would have to stop riding then, because its just not a good idea for me to ride alone and I can't imagine any of my friends coming over and not telling me what they thought!!;)

Also its a very good idea to ride as many horses as one can to increase their ability, so we also exchange horses from time to time.

I don't know but I think one should be allowed to earn money anyway they can and be ammys as long as they are not being paid to ride. end of story.

If you or your friends do not have any business relationship, you can help each other all you like. But, if your friend boards with you, you cannot ride her horse or give her 'advice'. She can ride yours and give YOU advice, however.

Unfortunately, there were 'ammys' employed by barns as bookkeepers who never looked at the books, but spent their days riding and training horses, which is where the rule came about that you couldn't work in any capacity and ride horses other than your own.

Summit Springs Farm
Apr. 7, 2009, 01:14 PM
If you or your friends do not have any business relationship, you can help each other all you like. But, if your friend boards with you, you cannot ride her horse or give her 'advice'. She can ride yours and give YOU advice, however.

Unfortunately, there were 'ammys' employed by barns as bookkeepers who never looked at the books, but spent their days riding and training horses, which is where the rule came about that you couldn't work in any capacity and ride horses other than your own.

Why couldn't you ride a boarder's horse? Because that would be viewed as you were paid by the board?

We're not trying to get around any rules, but we do like helping each other and sometimes it more beneficial when you can discuss peer to peer whats going on with you and your horse.
Sometimes we get confused its not how good a rider you are that's make you a pro its when you get paid in the capacity of the rules, that make you a pro.

sweetpea
Apr. 7, 2009, 01:23 PM
WHat if I go to a barn that I don't board at and ride as many horses as possible just for my experience. I do not get paid and usually pay a lesson for one of the rides?? I just need more time in the saddle.