PDA

View Full Version : overlegislated amateurs



KJW
Apr. 4, 2009, 07:52 AM
Does anyone else find the rule change for the AO jumper riders to be a move in the wrong direction? With all due respect for a hard job, the USEF once again appears to be an overlegislative monopoly with this rule change. To review, the powers that be in Kentucky discoved an inconsistency in the AO hunter and AO jumper rules. As it stands now a rider showing in the AO hunters could not ride any other horse at that show that they did not own. I have always found that rule offensive and limiting. It basically states that if you are wealthy enough to own everything then come play. If I have an AO rider at a show and would like to try another professionals horse in the ring with my AO rider why can't we test drive around a low hunter class? I have never understood why riders are forced to part with their horses to move up. If my adult has a three foot horse and wants to buy a three six horse the three foot horse becomes useless to her. Now they want to extend the rule to include the AO jumpers. I think a move is needed but lets go the other way. Deregulate for a change. In Canada there are no AO jumpers just Amatuer levels. If my rider moves up from 1.10m in Canada she can continue riding her 1.10 horse. They have Amateur Level 1, amateur level 2, etc. What would be the harm in coming clean with the titles of the classes. Really AO classes are a matter of paperwork. The best AO jumper in the country is not even owned by it's rider right now except legally and within the rules on paper. We all can buy horses for a dollar with an agreement to sell back at the real owners asking. I suggest in the jumpers running classes restricted to amateurs at whatever height their horse should be doing. Same across the board in the hunter ring. Amateur 2'6", Amateur 2'9", etc. For that matter why not come clean with the working divisions. A 1.40 ten year old from europe suddenly becomes a first year green? How about level 3 hunters, level 4 hunters etc.
We are in an age where the USEF has become a run away train with regulations. they want to teach us how to ride, direct horse shows, tell us who can teach in our barns at home, judge horse shows from the KY office, and restrict divisions to the point where only the very wealthy can perform. Let's consider looking for ways to simplify and deregulate where possible.
thanks for your time. I would love to hear input before the rule that was supposed to go into effect in December actually does. They moved the effective date to April but now it's back to December. Perhaps they don't love the direction of the move either. Again thanks for reading.

`reppy
Apr. 4, 2009, 09:04 AM
I agree. Not that I have a 3'6" or 3" hunter at the moment but one day I hope to have my mare doing the A/Os and if for some reason I want to ride another horse I own or lease in the 3" divsion, I want to be able to!

Ravencrest_Camp
Apr. 4, 2009, 09:40 AM
Does anyone else find the rule change for the AO jumper riders to be a move in the wrong direction? With all due respect for a hard job, the USEF once again appears to be an overlegislative monopoly with this rule change. To review, the powers that be in Kentucky discoved an inconsistency in the AO hunter and AO jumper rules. As it stands now a rider showing in the AO hunters could not ride any other horse at that show that they did not own. I have always found that rule offensive and limiting. It basically states that if you are wealthy enough to own everything then come play. If I have an AO rider at a show and would like to try another professionals horse in the ring with my AO rider why can't we test drive around a low hunter class? I have never understood why riders are forced to part with their horses to move up. If my adult has a three foot horse and wants to buy a three six horse the three foot horse becomes useless to her. Now they want to extend the rule to include the AO jumpers. I think a move is needed but lets go the other way. Deregulate for a change. In Canada there are no AO jumpers just Amatuer levels. If my rider moves up from 1.10m in Canada she can continue riding her 1.10 horse. They have Amateur Level 1, amateur level 2, etc. What would be the harm in coming clean with the titles of the classes. Really AO classes are a matter of paperwork. The best AO jumper in the country is not even owned by it's rider right now except legally and within the rules on paper. We all can buy horses for a dollar with an agreement to sell back at the real owners asking. I suggest in the jumpers running classes restricted to amateurs at whatever height their horse should be doing. Same across the board in the hunter ring. Amateur 2'6", Amateur 2'9", etc. For that matter why not come clean with the working divisions. A 1.40 ten year old from europe suddenly becomes a first year green? How about level 3 hunters, level 4 hunters etc.
We are in an age where the USEF has become a run away train with regulations. they want to teach us how to ride, direct horse shows, tell us who can teach in our barns at home, judge horse shows from the KY office, and restrict divisions to the point where only the very wealthy can perform. Let's consider looking for ways to simplify and deregulate where possible.
thanks for your time. I would love to hear input before the rule that was supposed to go into effect in December actually does. They moved the effective date to April but now it's back to December. Perhaps they don't love the direction of the move either. Again thanks for reading.

It's not that we in Canada are any more enlightened. The fact of the matter is that we don't have enough jumper riders to fill both an amateur division and an amateur owner division. Especially as you move up the levels.

I don't see this as a problem of USEF over regulation. If competitors would abide by the spirit and letter of the amateur rules and avoid trying to find loop holes, there would be no need for the USEF to bring in new rules to tighten up the regulations.

Smiles
Apr. 4, 2009, 09:55 AM
It depends on which ZONE you are in whether of not you can cross enter into other divisions... You can ask for a rule change you have to get into contact with your zone. Here in zone 5 I can show in the amatuer adult and amatuer owner at the same show. I can even ride a LEASED HORSE in the amatuer adult as long as usef has the proper paper work. I can also ride in the low amatuer owner jumper and ride a different horse in the amatuer adult jumper if I so please. What I can't do is cross enter into the high a/o and amatuer adult. Which is the way it should be because frankly someone jumping 4.6ft and higher has no place showing against the aa jumpers.

Also if you want to try someone horse out at a show why do you have to show it??? Why can't you ride it after hours over the jumps in the show ring? Must shows have a ring (ie not a schooling ring) :winkgrin: where you can try a horse out in show ring conditions. If your so hell bent on showing it have your trainer show it in the low.?.

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:18 AM
KJW are you referring to this?:
"Lexington, KY - April 3, 2009 - A Presidential Modification has been granted for rule JP 117.1a, postponing the effective date from April 1, 2009 until December 1, 2009.
JP 117.1 now reads:
JP117 Sections/Classes Restricted to Junior, Amateur/Owner, or Young Riders. 1. Amateur Owner Jumper: A horse that is ridden by an Amateur Owner or an amateur member of the owner's family. In either case, classes are restricted to riders who are no longer eligible to compete as junior exhibitors. Leased horses are not eligible, and multiple ownership is not permitted unless all owners are members of the same family.
a. An amateur who rides for a person outside of his/her family may not ride in a class restricted to Amateur Owners at the same competition. BOD 1/18/09 Effective 12/1/09"

It's for jumpers only.

Hunter cross entering is part of zone specs.

Molly99
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:40 AM
the new rule states nothing about cross entering between the adult's and AO's. It is simply to make the Jumpers follow the same AO rules that has been in effect for the hunters for MANY years.

They are trying to make things EASIER to understand, but having them rules the same.

And I believe this came from the USHJA Amateur committee. They felt that it would be easier to understand if they match, and I tend to agree.

It was very hard to explain to someone why you could do it one way in the jumpers, but not in the hunters.

Cross entry between the adults and AO, is governed by each zone.

This rule only states that if you show in an AO class, you must own (or USEF lease) all the horses you show over fences at that show (you can still hack for someone with mulitple rides in an U/S)

Jumphigh83
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:47 AM
If so many people didn't feel the need to cheat (or test the limits of the rules) there would be no need to over legislate....but fear not, if they enforce the rules like they do the EXISTING rule, no one needs to worry. Business as usual basically...;)

sopha
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:52 AM
Amateurs who show in the owner divisions can show a horse they don't own in equitation classes, so if you need to try something, show it there.

twobays
Apr. 4, 2009, 11:23 AM
the USEF once again appears to be an overlegislative monopoly with this rule change

THIS is the problem. Until the USEF has some competitive market forces encouraging their rules to fall in line with the interests of the average competitor, its going to be more of the same.

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 4, 2009, 11:35 AM
THIS is the problem. Until the USEF has some competitive market forces encouraging their rules to fall in line with the interests of the average competitor, its going to be more of the same.

Define 'average exhibitor'

If it's an amateur owner with a string of show horses that he or she shows themselves then there might be a problem with the new rule.

If it's someone who shows one horse that maybe doesn't even belong to them then the new rule isn't a problem.

But JumpHigh is right, if everyone obeyed the rules no need to keep closing loopholes and the odds of it being enforced without protests is slim anyway.

PNWjumper
Apr. 4, 2009, 01:36 PM
The thing that I find so funny is that the AO Jumpers have a hard enough time filling as is. Doesn't seem like MORE restrictions is what the division needs! As it is I'm always competing against a bunch of the Juniors with maybe one or two other AOs in the group.....only time I see straight AO competition is in the year end results (since we all often end up at different shows).

Of course I don't have a very unbiased feeling about all of this. I'm seriously irritated that thanks to my zone, I can't show my green(er) TB in the AA jumpers while showing my mare in the AO Jumpers, meaning that I'm limited with what I can do on my TB at a time when he needs more rounds. And the thing that has me so annoyed is the fact that the regulation does nothing to prohibit competition consistently....if I just bring my TB I can show in the AAs, but if I bring them both I can't.

I understand that they're trying to make as level of a playing field as possible, but as it's been said many times over.....RULES ONLY RESTRICT THOSE WHO PLAY BY THEM! Which is seriously frustrating as I watch so many others find loopholes and straight out break them!

PineTreeFarm
Apr. 4, 2009, 01:47 PM
[quote=PNWjumper;3998278]
Of course I don't have a very unbiased feeling about all of this. I'm seriously irritated that thanks to my zone, I can't show my green(er) TB in the AA jumpers while showing my mare in the AO Jumpers, meaning that I'm limited with what I can do on my TB at a time when he needs more rounds. And the thing that has me so annoyed is the fact that the regulation does nothing to prohibit competition consistently....if I just bring my TB I can show in the AAs, but if I bring them both I can't.

/quote]

Isn't the AA jumper restriction in your zone based on the horse/rider combo? Just curious.

grandprixjump
Apr. 4, 2009, 02:40 PM
If more than 20% of your income comes from Horses, and that includes teaching, riding, showing, sales, etc. THEN YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL, if less than 20% you can qualify as an ammy....

And Maybe 20% is too much, but set it at such a level that it would be easy to figure out who is and who isn't an ammy. as far as horse sales go, divide the selling price, by the number of years the person has owned the horse and that is what counts for the year they sell the horse. I would think that would keep someone who had a very nice horse sell, they could still be an ammy by the rules and not be penalized for having a very nice horse sold...

twobays
Apr. 4, 2009, 03:49 PM
Define 'average exhibitor'

If it's an amateur owner with a string of show horses that he or she shows themselves then there might be a problem with the new rule.

If it's someone who shows one horse that maybe doesn't even belong to them then the new rule isn't a problem.

But JumpHigh is right, if everyone obeyed the rules no need to keep closing loopholes and the odds of it being enforced without protests is slim anyway.


I was defining "average competitor" as someone who wasn't breaking/bending the amateur rules.

Giddy-up
Apr. 4, 2009, 04:59 PM
the new rule states nothing about cross entering between the adult's and AO's. It is simply to make the Jumpers follow the same AO rules that has been in effect for the hunters for MANY years.

They are trying to make things EASIER to understand, but having them rules the same.

And I believe this came from the USHJA Amateur committee. They felt that it would be easier to understand if they match, and I tend to agree.

It was very hard to explain to someone why you could do it one way in the jumpers, but not in the hunters.

Cross entry between the adults and AO, is governed by each zone.

This rule only states that if you show in an AO class, you must own (or USEF lease) all the horses you show over fences at that show (you can still hack for someone with mulitple rides in an U/S)

This was my understanding as well & I have to agree--why should the AO jumper riders get to show anybody's horse at the same show, but the AO hunter riders aren't given the same opportunity? Making it equal makes it easier to understand & remember & follow.

CBoylen
Apr. 4, 2009, 06:08 PM
I'm glad the jumper and hunter rules match now. It was confusing, and seemed very unequal, and frankly there seems to be a lot of confusion over that part of the rule anyway.
I don't think though that the a/a exhibitors in the zones that allow cross entry would be pleased if they had removed the restriction from the a/o hunter rules instead of adding it to the jumpers. Having to own any other horses they show keeps the a/o riders from catch riding in the a/a, at least at the same show.
As an a/o rider though, I'd be very pleased if they did take it out ;).

00Jumper
Apr. 4, 2009, 06:38 PM
I do think this rule goes a long way towards leveling the playing field and keeping shamateurs from cross-entering willy-nilly. On the other hand, yes, it does make it really difficult to try a horse at a show.

On that note, however, I raise another question; in the jumper classes, would it be possible to show the trial horse hors-concours (spelling is probably all wrong there :lol:)? That would allow the rider to try the horse in a show environment without messing with the scoring for a class. For example, say I show a horse in the A/O jumpers (this sentence should clue you in automatically that this is a hypothetical situation :lol::lol:). I see a horse later in the day that I must have. I take Horse B into a 1.2m schooling jumper class, hors-concours, and get to jump it around to try it. Legal?

PNWjumper
Apr. 4, 2009, 10:35 PM
Isn't the AA jumper restriction in your zone based on the horse/rider combo? Just curious.

Nope. In my zone, if I ride one horse in the AO Jumpers (even if it's AO low or, in the case of one RIDICULOUS show, AO low held at 1.20m) I cannot ride any other horse in the AA jumpers. I mean seriously? I can't show one horse at 3'11" (1.20m) and another at 3'7" (1.10m)? I can understand prohibiting a horse/rider combo from entering both divisions.....or even a horse, for that matter. But prohibiting the rider from riding at both levels on THEIR OWN HORSES doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Again, I understand it's yet another attempt at creating a level playing field, but that doesn't mean I have to like it!

It's probably worth mentioning that I also have a huge problem with the dumbing down of jumper heights. I don't think they should be allowed to call any class lower than 4'6" Junior or AO Jumpers. I think that they should stick to different class names for the amateur "middle ground" between Ch/AA and Jr/AO. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

Kiljoywashere
Apr. 4, 2009, 11:04 PM
The whole set of restrictions is crazy! At a dressage show, I could (theoretically) show my Grand Prix horse at intermediare II and Grand Prix, and show the youngster that I'm bringing along at training level and first level, and it wouldn't matter at all except I would have to have two different coats. The horse should be limited to the appropriate division, not the rider.

M. O'Connor
Apr. 5, 2009, 08:12 AM
A/O=someone who is ABLE (for whatever reason) to own all the horses they ride

A/A=Maybe same as above, but also maybe someone who is able to lease, or borrow

A/A who wants to jump higher than 3' in the hunter ring, or who wants to jump higher than the AA divs in the jumper ring must go in the open divisions, or just jump higher at home.

AA's who want to move up need to be (for whatever reason) able to own all their horses to continue to compete against other amateurs.

A/O's need to be O's or not show their own horses in the AO divisions. They will still be able to show their own horses while they test drive someone else's horse in the open to all divisions--they will just have to enter the open divisions themselves with their horses that week, that's all.

mvp
Apr. 5, 2009, 09:52 AM
So is some of this about encouraging people to buy their own horses as they move up? No problem until you look at the average price tags of 3-footer and 3'6-er horses.

The bit of reality that the show world can't quite wrap it's little head around yet is that many people who would like to learn to jump bigger and become the better riders that come along with that are getting priced out altogether. And we wonder why we can't get together an Olympic team that might match the 1984 one....

The problem is big and will get worse. Thread related to the cost of competing in the Big Eq-- theoretically the training ground for the next generation of pros and Olympians-- suggest that kids and their parents are bailing on the whole enterprise. That's too bad. There may be some fantastically talented, dedicated kid in the enlarging ghetto of comparatively well-heeled people who aren't thinking seriously about making a career in the horse industry because of the cost of just getting to an eq final before they are 18 and have to go to college and/or hang out a shingle and hope to begin making a living.

When I look for a trainer, say, 15 years from now. I want to have a pool of knowledgeable people to choose from, not the more limited set of those who could afford to compete and make the necessary name for themselves. I'm really worried that as the Big Eq and horse world at large professionalizes, the barn rat kid who rode all sorts of horses, learned to choose bits, poultice, whatever will be gone because grooms and trainers do all that now.

Horseymama
Apr. 5, 2009, 10:42 AM
I mean really, what's the point? In the end, it's just about you and your horse, isn't it? So what if you compete against professionals and they beat you? The obvious answer to (for example) PNW Jumper's problem is that she just enter the level 6's or 7's with her big jumper and the level 3's with her greenie. She can do that at the same show.

Why all the fuss about being an amateur? Is it just about ribbons? Why not show in the open divisions and be happy? Why all these rules and rule changes and heated discussions about who's breaking rules, etc? Most shows have plenty of open divisions available in whatever height on any given day. If they don't, ask for them.

Somebody explain to me why it's so damn important to be an amateur! (Flame-suit on!)

jr
Apr. 5, 2009, 10:52 AM
The issue isn't always not wanting to compete agains professionals, but availability of the open classes on the weekend. The open, level oriented classes are held during the week at most shows and the junior and amateur classes on the weekend. Unless you have a verry accomodating job, that makes showing a younger horse in the open schooling classes and the AOs on the weekend difficult.

That said, I have to say I'm a proponent of not allowing someone to show in the AAs and AOs. The purpose of the AAs is to provide the true amateur who has limited time, $s, and often limited experience or talent a place to compete. With the advent of some real $ classes in the division,there has been a tendency in some areas for folks to jump down several levels to pick up some quick cash.

I think the easiest solution for those ammies with a greenie and an AO horse is to lobby shows to amend schedules to provide for some schooing classes on Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

grandprixjump
Apr. 5, 2009, 11:52 AM
I mean really, what's the point? In the end, it's just about you and your horse, isn't it? So what if you compete against professionals and they beat you? The obvious answer to (for example) PNW Jumper's problem is that she just enter the level 6's or 7's with her big jumper and the level 3's with her greenie. She can do that at the same show.

Why all the fuss about being an amateur? Is it just about ribbons? Why not show in the open divisions and be happy? Why all these rules and rule changes and heated discussions about who's breaking rules, etc? Most shows have plenty of open divisions available in whatever height on any given day. If they don't, ask for them.

Somebody explain to me why it's so damn important to be an amateur! (Flame-suit on!)

If you don't have a horse capable of jumping in the Prix's and does well at level 3 or 4. You have a choice of doing the level classes, Spending $600 (or more) for the week, and winning $50 in addback money. While as an ammy, you have the classics available at level 3 and 4 and might get your entry fees back and actually make a little. The shows, if you want to curtail the run of Shammy's, need to have some money available in the level classes for people moving up the levels or horses NOT CAPABLE (or NOT YET CAPABLE) of doing the Sunday classes.

Just my thoughts on the problem.

Like I said in the other thread, they need to simplify the Ammy rules NOT MAKE THEM MORE DIFFICULT to interpretate. If you make 20% of your income from horses, THEN YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL, if less than 20% you can be an Ammy. And maybe it should be 10%. But something along those lines. The only grey area then would be someone selling a great horse, if sold for BIG MONEY, could mess up their percentage, but maybe divide the selling price, by the number of years they owned the horse and that amount is what counts for the selling year.

twobays
Apr. 5, 2009, 01:15 PM
Like I said in the other thread, they need to simplify the Ammy rules NOT MAKE THEM MORE DIFFICULT to interpretate. If you make 20% of your income from horses, THEN YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL, if less than 20% you can be an Ammy. And maybe it should be 10%. But something along those lines. The only grey area then would be someone selling a great horse, if sold for BIG MONEY, could mess up their percentage, but maybe divide the selling price, by the number of years they owned the horse and that amount is what counts for the selling year.

Any horse sales would be a problem. Say I bring along a baby for two years, get it going around/winning 3' nicely, but I realize it isn't going to be able to do the 3'6", which was what I initially wanted. I sell the 3' horse for say, 50k (which in some regions is pretty conservative), which under your system $25k of that would count towards my ammy/pro status. Unless I'm making 75k+ at my regular job, that $25k is going to bump me into pro status, even if I never taught a lesson or accepted a single dollar for riding.

That system is going to punish people for attempting to bring along their own horses, which, quite frankly, is that very last thing our sport needs.

I don't know why people start trying to contrive ridiculously complicated ways to re-do ammy rules. ENFORCE the rules we have now; make it easier to lodge a complaint. USEF has all the necessary tools to keep shammys out of the ring, they/we just aren't using them.

Jumphigh83
Apr. 5, 2009, 01:53 PM
Just like in government we don't need MORE laws we need more INTEGRITY! Personal responsibility and righteous conduct, not more and more loop holes to slither through. They know who they are (the CHEATS) and they know they are WRONG but they have NO moral conscience. What is wrong with people today????

Giddy-up
Apr. 5, 2009, 02:52 PM
I mean really, what's the point? In the end, it's just about you and your horse, isn't it? So what if you compete against professionals and they beat you? The obvious answer to (for example) PNW Jumper's problem is that she just enter the level 6's or 7's with her big jumper and the level 3's with her greenie. She can do that at the same show.

Why all the fuss about being an amateur? Is it just about ribbons? Why not show in the open divisions and be happy? Why all these rules and rule changes and heated discussions about who's breaking rules, etc? Most shows have plenty of open divisions available in whatever height on any given day. If they don't, ask for them.

Somebody explain to me why it's so damn important to be an amateur! (Flame-suit on!)
\
Because I want to show on the weekends--which is mostly when the ammy classes go. I have a FT job & limited vacation time so being able to show whenever I want on a week day isn't an option for me.

twobays
Apr. 5, 2009, 03:05 PM
\
Because I want to show on the weekends--which is mostly when the ammy classes go. I have a FT job & limited vacation time so being able to show whenever I want on a week day isn't an option for me.

Plus, there isn't anything WRONG with wanting to go out and compete against people in the same ballpark as you. Its the same reason why the racing world has races for fillies/mares and races for the boys. Group people by skill as best you can and if you get a really talented ammy/filly, you let them move up to the big time (pro divisions/boy's races).

We do this for the love of riding and our horses, but taking home a ribbon every once in a while is part of the fun of showing. There isn't anything wrong with not wanting to always compete against pros.

CrazyDog
Apr. 5, 2009, 03:18 PM
The whole set of restrictions is crazy! At a dressage show, I could (theoretically) show my Grand Prix horse at intermediare II and Grand Prix, and show the youngster that I'm bringing along at training level and first level, and it wouldn't matter at all except I would have to have two different coats. The horse should be limited to the appropriate division, not the rider.

This how they run the jumpers in the UK. At rated shows, horses are eligible for certain classes on the basis of how much prize money they have won with classes starting at 0.90m. There are often open classes at 1.05m and above with no winnings restrictions.

There are 'amateur' classes, but the only requirement is that the rider not be in the top 450 on the rider ranking list in the UK which means that they are open to most people who earn a living with horses.

I really don't have a problem with this. I think that riding against pros raises the level of my own riding and the amateurs always seem to give the pros a run for their money.

Giddy-up
Apr. 5, 2009, 04:46 PM
In the jumpers where the only thing that counts is faults & time, riding against the pros isn't that big an issue (I feel). Anybody can run at the jumps & pray they stay up in hope of being the fastest.

But in the hunters where accuracy & precision come into play with judging, my sitting in a desk chair 40 hours/week while a pro sits in the tack 40 hours/week is going to put me at a disadvantage.

happyhorse3
Apr. 5, 2009, 05:07 PM
In the jumpers where the only thing that counts is faults & time, riding against the pros isn't that big an issue (I feel). Anybody can run at the jumps & pray they stay up in hope of being the fastest.

But in the hunters where accuracy & precision come into play with judging, my sitting in a desk chair 40 hours/week while a pro sits in the tack 40 hours/week is going to put me at a disadvantage.

EXACTLY!!!;)

Jumphigh83
Apr. 5, 2009, 05:55 PM
WRONG WRONG WRONG....It takes MORE precision and MORE accuracy to "run" at big jumps and LIVE to tell about it. I can't stand it when jumper riders are characterized as Kamikazes. Skill is skill whether you are jumping a brown jump with green trim (hunters) or a red white and blue jump over a liverpool. Gaaahhh!!!!

PNWjumper
Apr. 5, 2009, 08:24 PM
I'll show against pros all day long in the jumpers. I really don't have a problem with it and that's not my point with being frustrated at not being able to ride in the AAs and AOs at the same time. Part of the frustration is money oriented. I'd like to be able to ride in all of the classes with prize money that I'm eligible for while still being able to bring along my green ones in CLASSES THAT I'M ELIGIBLE FOR. Same goes for year end points. So from a cross-entry point of view, I really only have a complaint for my zone since many others allow cross-entry for same-rider-different-horse combos.

From a more general view, my problem is that I WANT to show in the AO Jumpers with my mare that I've brought up to that level. I AM an amateur and I've worked hard to get us both here.

I would LIKE to show in the AAs with my greenie. I don't go in to win (and we're rarely in the ribbons since he's still so green), but I'd like to be able to get him around the courses, and it would be really nice to get to show him in two classes back to back each day of the show (and I would do so unjudged if they didn't charge the same fee and restrict you to ONE class a day). I would be perfectly happy to show him in 2 open classes each day if they existed, but they often don't. There's a level 3 and an AA that run back to back. On occaision shows throw in a Training Jumpers as well. At those shows I will happily stick to the open classes on my greenie and show in the AOs on my mare.

But then some shows present problems such as the open classes go wed-fri and there are ONLY ammy classes on the weekend. There's nothing I'm eligible to show my green horse in because of my AO mare at those shows. I end up paying the full class fee to take my boy into the AA jumpers hors concour. It just seems silly (and yet worth it to get him around the ring again).

But again, my biggest issue isn't with the cross entry restriction. My biggest issue is with the fact that they're dumbing down the classes and still calling them by the same name and keeping the same restrictions. Anyone who's been showing for more than a few years surely agrees that a 3'11" class should NEVER be called the "AO Jumpers," not even with the "low" moniker. And Modified Jr/AO running at 3'9".....shouldn't that be AA high???? So again, I'll say that my biggest problem is at shows where they're running the AAs at 3'6" (or 3'7" now that we're in meters, I suppose) and I'm prohibited from showing one horse in the 3'7" class at the same time I'm showing another horse in the 3'11" jumpers.....WTF???? Four inches is enough to prohibit cross entry???? I don't necessarily disagree with being prohibited from showing in the 4'6" classes on one horse and the 3'6" on another (I still think it misses the point and is a half-assed effort to level the playing field.....but I'm willing to follow it). But with the lowering of class heights it gets beyond ridiculous. And I realize this is a zone-to-zone issue. I doubt that the same issues exist in the big show areas.

My other point is that I AM AN AMATEUR. Let me show in the classes I'm eligible for! I maybe fit in one horseshow a month with my guys. I have a full time job and little kids at home and just can't do more. I'd like to get as much done at these shows as I can. It's prohibitively expensive for me to take horses to a show where I can only show in one division and have one class a day.

Horseymama
Apr. 5, 2009, 08:26 PM
\
Because I want to show on the weekends--which is mostly when the ammy classes go. I have a FT job & limited vacation time so being able to show whenever I want on a week day isn't an option for me.

But what if it were...I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm not so sure that having such a lengthy and detailed difference between pros and amateurs is what is good for our sport. There are a lot of shows where there are open classes on the weekends, and I'm sure show managers would put more if there were more interest. There is often an open Mini-Prix or "Futures" class in the jumpers, besides the Grand Prix, and the Hunter Derbies are open.

What does having such a distinct difference between pros and amateurs do for us? Each year the rule has to be written with more detail and gets harder and harder to understand. Is it just so show managers can have 5 day horse shows and rack up more money in entries, stalls, etc? Is it just so pros can convince you that they need to ride your horse in a division the first two or three days? Is it just so that we can get points, points and more points? Why do we even need 5 (or six) day horse shows?

How do other countries (besides Canada) do it? Read what Crazy Dog says about the UK above. Why wouldn't that work here? How do other sports do it? Is there this weirdness between Amateurs and Shamateurs in other sports? There's always going to be someone who is more rich, has a fancier horse, and has more time to ride, no matter who you are or what division you're in.

It seems like if you were a person with a FT job and limited time, that it would cost more to send a horse with a trainer, pay for all the hauling, entries, bedding, day fees, grooming fees and such to have your horse hauled down on Monday just so you can ride Saturday and Sunday.

Is it really the best thing for our sport to have tons and tons of classes going in multiple different rings for days on end? All the adult amateurs and amateur owners and pre-adults and long stirrups, etc. Or would it be better to have, say one or two "special" classes and then just have open classes based on the horses (like we already do)? We could probably have a nice A-rated horse show in 3 days! That seems much more accessible to the "average" income person with a job to me!

mvp
Apr. 5, 2009, 08:45 PM
The fact that it's primarily BNTs or at least trainers on committees, and the complaints about the cost of sending a horse to a 5-day show for the pro to ride....

Perhaps trainers want it this way. Think about what a PITA it would be if all your ammies wanted to show their own and had the opportunity. You would have nothing to ride. You would have to stand in the ring, set poles and do the general dog's work of teaching people to ride. Who knows, you might even have to stay home to teach rather than show 45 weeks a year and collect fees and expenses?

I think the guy writing the check wins, so paying ammies need to vote with their feet. But I'm surprised at how many people don't choose a trainer for his or her ability to teach them to do without constant help. Being able to make up my own, and get to the ring by myself at a horse show is my goal. I do a pretty good job on both counts, but that means I'm probably not the ideal client.

Giddy-up
Apr. 6, 2009, 10:40 AM
WRONG WRONG WRONG....It takes MORE precision and MORE accuracy to "run" at big jumps and LIVE to tell about it. I can't stand it when jumper riders are characterized as Kamikazes. Skill is skill whether you are jumping a brown jump with green trim (hunters) or a red white and blue jump over a liverpool. Gaaahhh!!!!

I ride in the jumpers as well, but let's be real--only in the jumpers can you miss at 1/2 the jumps, leap up the neck, not get lead changes, 3 leg a jump & everything else BUT if you are clear & the fastest you can still be the winner. It doesn't mean it's right or what I personally agree with, but that is how it is. Try that in the hunter ring & if there are at least 6 others I bet you aren't getting a ribbon or at least not the blue one.

And for what it's worth I am not talking "big" jumpers. I don't know many weekend warriors that do the 4' or bigger stuff (most are 3', maybe 3'6"). But if you want to make all the classes "open" that means the pros & the ammies are going to be showing together whether it's the 3' jumpers or the 5' jumpers. And yes, usually the precise accurately ridden course will win, but you will still get the wild ones that just keep running that can win as well.

eclipse
Apr. 6, 2009, 11:04 AM
If more than 20% of your income comes from Horses, and that includes teaching, riding, showing, sales, etc. THEN YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL, if less than 20% you can qualify as an ammy....

And Maybe 20% is too much, but set it at such a level that it would be easy to figure out who is and who isn't an ammy. as far as horse sales go, divide the selling price, by the number of years the person has owned the horse and that is what counts for the year they sell the horse. I would think that would keep someone who had a very nice horse sell, they could still be an ammy by the rules and not be penalized for having a very nice horse sold...

Won't work! We used to have a similar rule to this in Canada & guess what, some people (cough cough certain BNT around here) had a normal job (ie, he was a stockbroker making a pretty penny) and then did some teaching as well. Because he was making a lot of dough outside the horse world, his mega bucks lessons & boarding didn't add up to the 10% of his earnings. He also had a string of horses & represented Canada internationally. We all knew he was a pro but because of the percentage rule he was showing in ammie classes! Fair.......nope, but legal. Now he's in pro & open classes because we have the same rule as the USA & yes, now it's fairer!

scheibyee
Apr. 6, 2009, 11:24 AM
Okay i was completely unaware of this rule altogether. So I can't show my A/O hunter and my barn's jumper at the same show? Sorry for being completely uninformed but is this a new rule? I used to always show my old A/O and two of my barns jumpers?

Giddy-up
Apr. 6, 2009, 01:01 PM
Okay i was completely unaware of this rule altogether. So I can't show my A/O hunter and my barn's jumper at the same show? Sorry for being completely uninformed but is this a new rule? I used to always show my old A/O and two of my barns jumpers?

I can't cut & paste, but in the USEF rulebook check out HU 107.2. That's for the ao hunters. If you show in the ao hunters, you can not show any other horse at that show if it's not owned by you (or your family). Unless you live in a Zone that allows cross entry between the ao & aa hunters with a USEF lease on the aa horse.

Are you related to the barn that owns the jumpers?

If not, I would say if you showed your ao hunter you should not have shown the barn's jumpers at the same show. This "new" rule change wouldn't affect your situation.

scheibyee
Apr. 6, 2009, 01:04 PM
Eeek thanks.... definitely didn't know that. That seems like quite the dumb rule to me. What are the shamateurs doing to force that one to be necessary?

Giddy-up
Apr. 6, 2009, 01:44 PM
If you showed your AO jumper, you could (under the old rules) show another horse at the same show NOT owned by you. Say the farm's sale horse in the aa hunters or aa jumpers.

USEF just made it so the AO hunter & AO jumper rule matched. The hunter rule has been there, the jumper rule was new.

lonewolf
Apr. 6, 2009, 01:52 PM
For what it's worth, I support the rule of not allowing A/O jumpers to ride other people's horses at shows. I have known WAY TOO MANY shamateurs at that level. I would say that most A/O jumper riders who 'do' horses full time are getting compensated in some way or another, or else have so much money that they are professionals in almost every sense of the word, but wealthy enough to be able to work for free. These people should not be competing and riding a full roster of horses against the true ammys.

I do think that someone should be able to show other horses if they own them as well, such as PNW jumper. However, I understand why they write the rule that way, because there are too many cases of riders 'buying' sale horses for a dollar so that they are eligible for ammy divisions.

I wish, more than anything, that people would respect the spirit of the law so that the letter didn't have to be written so rigidly. I think it sucks that poor kids who have to work as barn slaves in order to afford showing have to be pros, no matter how unskilled they may be. I also think it sucks that people who show a string of horses in the Olympic trials and Grand Prixs on a regular basis can also kick butt in the ammy classes. In a perfect world, a Grand Prix rider just wouldn't ride in the ammy classes, because it's the wrong thing to do, and you KNOW that they have NO problem showing during the week. And somehow, the divisions could be divided by skill instead of money (as in, you win 15 AA jumper classes, you must show in the 1.10s. When you move up to 1.20, you can start again as an ammy until you win at that height).

Barring those changes, which aren't going to happen, I would actually support eliminating the ammy/pro distinction altogether for the jumpers.

Trixie
Apr. 6, 2009, 02:07 PM
AA's who want to move up need to be (for whatever reason) able to own all their horses to continue to compete against other amateurs.

Why?

I continue to see this rule as fostering a type of elitism in the sport, as it prevents riders who may not be able to afford a horse from moving up in the hunters. There's no other stepping stone division between the AA's and the working/conformation hunters if your horse isn't a greenie, which leaves one stuck - nor can you ride a leased horse.

I'm one of those work 50+ hours a week ammies, ie, very genuinely an amateur. I ride a horse that I lease, who I have been showing for three or four years. He goes like a hunter and jumps better over bigger, though it's unlikely that he'll ever do the working hunters. He was not bought as a high money amateur prospect, he was bred by his owner to enjoy, I just lucked into being permitted to ride him. I cannot afford to buy him and keep him, if he were for sale. I can afford to ride him, show him a few times a year, and maybe hit a few shows that we enjoy: Warrenton or Upperville, maybe.

What this rule says to me is that I'm excluded from competing against my peers (both by level of riding height and by the book qualification) because I do not have the same financial means that they do. It tells me that the USEF would rather keep those who cannot afford much to stay at the lower levels, go professional, or go elsewhere.

M. O'Connor
Apr. 6, 2009, 03:32 PM
The issue isn't always not wanting to compete agains professionals, but availability of the open classes on the weekend. The open, level oriented classes are held during the week at most shows and the junior and amateur classes on the weekend. Unless you have a verry accomodating job, that makes showing a younger horse in the open schooling classes and the AOs on the weekend difficult.

That said, I have to say I'm a proponent of not allowing someone to show in the AAs and AOs. The purpose of the AAs is to provide the true amateur who has limited time, $s, and often limited experience or talent a place to compete. With the advent of some real $ classes in the division,there has been a tendency in some areas for folks to jump down several levels to pick up some quick cash.

I think the easiest solution for those ammies with a greenie and an AO horse is to lobby shows to amend schedules to provide for some schooing classes on Friday, Saturday or Sunday.


This is a HUGE issue for those who otherwise wouldn't care whether they showed in open or amateur classes. The pro divisions that are on the weekends are the 'big' classes. The lower ones are all on Tuesday-Thursday, with a couple on Friday, sometimes.

Horseymama
Apr. 6, 2009, 09:20 PM
I agree with that. We need more open classes on the weekends, especially in the hunters. I am a pro and I often have greenies that I own, and I hate taking them to a show where I can show them on Wed and Thurs only. Sometimes there is a schooling class before the amateur divisions, but not always. They need a class or two to get in the ring each day.

Jumper classes are a little better, usually there are the level 1's-3's on Sat, but sometimes not. As a pro with green horses that I show myself, this can be frustrating. If I am at a show all week long, I want to be able to get my own horses in the ring!

Sebastian
Apr. 6, 2009, 11:56 PM
I find the whole "A/O" division silly -- Hunters AND Jumpers.

Both Dressage and Eventing manage just fine with a straight Amateur or Open world.

A/O divisions are elitist. It's that simple.

Seb :)

Peggy
Apr. 7, 2009, 12:13 AM
It makes sense to keep the AO hunter and AO jumpers with the same rules. IMHO, it would also make sense to remove the "O" from the AO, coupled with USEF actually enforcing the "A." IOW, have amateur divisions divided by height for both hunters and jumpers.