PDA

View Full Version : Another Ammy Question



hot~2~trot
May. 2, 2009, 12:03 PM
I have a question about ammy statuses. My friend has a 5 stall barn at her house and wants to bring her 3 horses, my horse, and another girls horse in to board. I will not be paying board, just for my vet/farrier/supplements but will be asked to help take care of the 5 horses. I will be paid to supervise two young girls at the barn, in them helping feed, care, and ride horses, as well as take them to their extracurricular activities, the pool, the movies... mostly like a babysitter... I will not be giving instruction.

This friend lets me show her horse at the same shows she shows in, as we compete the mare at different levels. I pay entry fees and trainer fees on the horse, as well as most of my food (although occasionally I do all prep work (grooming, lunging, unbraiding and tacking... groom work) and she will buy my dinner).

Will taking care of her horse change my ammy status? I would assume not as I am not being paid to ride a horse or give instruction, ever. I actually ride the horse at a lower level than she shows the mare. Should I get a signed agreement in writing that states what duties I will be paid for and which I will be not, so that there is never a question? I really am not qualified to be a pro, and don't claim to be, however, it is definitely a cheaper boarding option (more like a self care facility) and a cheap way of showing (no hauling bills or stall bills).

Monarch
May. 2, 2009, 01:17 PM
My understanding is - If you are paid for anything (babysitting, bookwork..) by the person who owns the horse and you show the horse, it would make your classification a pro. If I am wrong on this I am sure I will be corrected.
M

Lucassb
May. 2, 2009, 05:37 PM
Unfortunately the rule does not allow you to separate what you get paid for vs. what you do not get paid for. If you get paid to groom, and then also show the horse... you are considered a pro.


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.

gottagrey
May. 2, 2009, 10:57 PM
I see this more as an boarding situation - not a situation in which you are working for a trainer, teaching etc. It's a private barn w/ a few stalls and your friend has offered up a stall to you in exchange for helping around the barn.. am I correct? To be on the safe side I don't necessarily agree w/ Lucassb's reponse/post - because your friend is not your employer and you are not her employee per se. Certainly if I boarded my horse at my friends house and helped out w/ the barn chores, and showed her horse - I wouldn't be in violation of any rule. My interpretation of your post is more like along the lines of sharing chores at a barn in exchange for a stall vs employment. To be on the safe side shoot off an email to USEF or give them a call for clarification...

overthemoon
May. 2, 2009, 11:28 PM
I don't think the problem is the boarding, but the fact that the OP will be getting paid to look after the other students. The rule that Lucassb posted specfically says that the type of employment is irrelevant.

In such a case, would it be possible for you to do a half [free] lease on your BO's mare so that she would categorically fall under the exception of horses leased or owned by the competitor?

Rescue_Rider9
May. 3, 2009, 12:41 AM
So if one rides and shows a horse for a trainer and recieves free training... they violate this rule... correct?

joiedevie99
May. 3, 2009, 08:58 AM
You would be employed for an individual (receives free board as compensation for babysitting) and also ride that individuals horse. That makes you a pro. If you are employed by someone in any capacity, you cannot also ride that persons horse (at home or at a show).

hot~2~trot
May. 3, 2009, 09:34 AM
Thanks guys! I'll make a change of plans.

overthemoon
May. 3, 2009, 11:01 AM
You would be employed for an individual (receives free board as compensation for babysitting) and also ride that individuals horse. That makes you a pro. If you are employed by someone in any capacity, you cannot also ride that persons horse (at home or at a show).

Unless you are leasing said horse.

Hence my suggestion about the free lease.

Janet
May. 3, 2009, 11:04 AM
I see this more as an boarding situation - not a situation in which you are working for a trainer, teaching etc. It's a private barn w/ a few stalls and your friend has offered up a stall to you in exchange for helping around the barn.. am I correct? To be on the safe side I don't necessarily agree w/ Lucassb's reponse/post - because your friend is not your employer and you are not her employee per se. Certainly if I boarded my horse at my friends house and helped out w/ the barn chores, and showed her horse - I wouldn't be in violation of any rule. My interpretation of your post is more like along the lines of sharing chores at a barn in exchange for a stall vs employment. To be on the safe side shoot off an email to USEF or give them a call for clarification...

The USEF amateur rules are very clear that "free board" is considered "remuneration " ("pay")
GR 1306.2.d)
(Note: Horse board, prize money, partial support or objects of more than $300 are considered remuneration, not small tokens of appreciation). Because she is receiveing "remuneration", the barn owner IS her employer in USEF terms, even if not in IRS terms.

Janet
May. 3, 2009, 11:06 AM
Unless you are leasing said horse.

Hence my suggestion about the free lease.
I think it needs to be a FULL lease, and I think the lease needs to be registered with the USEF.

Coreene
May. 3, 2009, 11:07 AM
Free lease. AKA distorting so that a person can get around the rules. Just like the $1 "purchase" that is really a lease, but means the rule can be bent hard so that the person shows in the AOs.

Lucassb
May. 3, 2009, 11:24 AM
Free lease. AKA distorting so that a person can get around the rules. Just like the $1 "purchase" that is really a lease, but means the rule can be bent hard so that the person shows in the AOs.

Sad but true. And unfortunately it is because people are always looking for ways to get around the rules that we HAVE all of these restrictions in the first place. :(

gottagrey
May. 3, 2009, 11:48 AM
Sorry folks, I stand corrected, I didn't read/see (not enough coffee and waaaayy too much rain) the part in post where OP will be paid to oversee other employees - therefore making poster an employee... which then would be in violation of the Amateur Rules...

gottagrey
May. 3, 2009, 11:51 AM
The USEF amateur rules are very clear that "free board" is considered "remuneration " ("pay")
GR 1306.2.d) Because she is receiveing "remuneration", the barn owner IS her employer in USEF terms, even if not in IRS terms.

I'm wrong in the OP situation as I didn't read her post thoroughly but you mean to say that if I boarded my horse at a friends barn, didn't charge me board because she needs/wants horses at her place I would be in violation of the Am. Rule - if I showed my and/or her horse??

Lucassb
May. 3, 2009, 12:06 PM
I'm wrong in the OP situation as I didn't read her post thoroughly but you mean to say that if I boarded my horse at a friends barn, didn't charge me board because she needs/wants horses at her place I would be in violation of the Am. Rule - if I showed my and/or her horse??

Free board is specifically considered renumeration. See Janet's post above.

Janet
May. 3, 2009, 12:10 PM
I'm wrong in the OP situation as I didn't read her post thoroughly but you mean to say that if I boarded my horse at a friends barn, didn't charge me board because she needs/wants horses at her place I would be in violation of the Am. Rule - if I showed my and/or her horse??
The rule is clear that you are OK with riding the horse you OWN (or lease).

But yes, if you go by the letter of the rule, the free board would be considered "remuneration" , and riding the Barn owner's horse would make you "not-an-amateur".

It is a rule that clearly has lots of "unintended consequences", and I don't know how the hearing committee would handle some of the more "obviously not REALLY being paid for riding" cases. But the rule as written is very strict.

For a descrption of the origins of this rule, do a search for "amateur" and "bookkeeper".

happyhorse3
May. 3, 2009, 12:22 PM
Free lease. AKA distorting so that a person can get around the rules. Just like the $1 "purchase" that is really a lease, but means the rule can be bent hard so that the person shows in the AOs.

Coreene - You MUST be in the same zone I am in where this $1 lease and $1 purchase is still alive and well for certain people!:mad:

Janet
May. 3, 2009, 12:34 PM
Coreene - You MUST be in the same zone I am in where this $1 lease and $1 purchase is still alive and well for certain people!:mad:
Note that 1306.1 f) and g) now say

(A family member of a trainer may not
absolve themselves of this rule by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a
horse owned by a client of the trainer).
(apparently this came out of the Arabian discipline).

I expect it is only a matter of time before c) gets a similar restriction for "employees".

happyhorse3
May. 3, 2009, 12:56 PM
Note that 1306.1 f) and g) now say

(apparently this came out of the Arabian discipline).

I expect it is only a matter of time before c) gets a similar restriction for "employees".

So Janet, how do people blatantly get away with this?? The people that are doing this are employed by the trainer and when people started raising their voices about them riding horses that did not belong to them and the true "owners" were clients of the trainer, with the "heat" being on them the trainer simply recorded with the USEF that the shammy's were "onwers" or "leasers" of the horse. Why didn't or doesn't the USEF notice this??? I am so confused by the "rules" since they either are not being enforced or there really are giant loopholes? Educate me more please Janet. Thanks!

Janet
May. 3, 2009, 01:05 PM
So Janet, how do people blatantly get away with this?? The people that are doing this are employed by the trainer and when people started raising their voices about them riding horses that did not belong to them and the true "owners" were clients of the trainer, with the "heat" being on them the trainer simply recorded with the USEF that the shammy's were "onwers" or "leasers" of the horse. Why didn't or doesn't the USEF notice this??? I am so confused by the "rules" since they either are not being enforced or there really are giant loopholes? Educate me more please Janet. Thanks!

Yes. About a year ago (my timing may be wrong), there was quite a lot of posting here (and complaints to the USEF) about some "working students" who were riding and showing the trainers' horses in Adult Amateur classes. The USEF apparently got in touch with them, and next thing you know each of the working students had a registered lease on the horse she was showing.

The USEF did notice. But under the current rules, once the horses were leased, they were oK. Still remains to be seen if they will address what happened before the entered into the leases, since technically they should have "sat out" a year and reapplied for amateur status.

overthemoon
May. 3, 2009, 01:22 PM
I think the working student thing is possibly a grey area - not in the rules, per se, but in the actuality of the students being ammies vs. pros. I know when I was a working student, I was certainly not (nor am I now) a pro. Thankfully, I was a junior at the time so never ran into that issue when I was given the opportunity to show. However, I think it would be unfortunate if someone who was genuinely an ammy doing drudge work as a ws for experience was unable to show when the opportunity presented itself due to lack of suitable divisions.

At some shows here (in eastern Canada) we have Non-Pro divisions as well, which I believe, though I am not certain as I've never shown in them myself, differ from the amateur classes in the sense that while you may be getting compensated for something horse related, you are not getting paid to ride or train any horses. Though, I guess in a working student situation, you are technically getting remuneration (most likely house & board) to ride.

I guess you can't please everyone!

For reference:

ARTICLE G411 NON-PRO 1 & 2 HUNTER
1. Non-professional rider is defined as senior competitor who:
a) does not receive remuneration for riding/showing other people's horses
b) is not an NCCP fully certified Level 3 or higher coach. Any person who
has ridden on a senior Three-Day or Jumping team is not eligible to
show.
2. Non-professional rider classes/division may be implemented in all recognized
hunter/jumper/equitation competitions.
3. NON-PRO 1, 3' (0.90m), is run according to specifications for
children's/adult amateur hunter classes.
4. NON-PRO 2, 3'6" (1.10m), is run according to specifications junior/amateur
hunter classes.

overthemoon
May. 3, 2009, 01:25 PM
Also, another similar question:

Would a student of a trainer who is getting no compensation whatsoever to ride said trainer's horses (just the luck of getting to ride for free!) be able to legally show in an ammy division? They do not own or lease the horse, and although it isn't obvious to me how they might be considered getting "remuneration" for the scenario, I don't exactly spend time scrutinizing ammy status rules.

Janet
May. 3, 2009, 01:27 PM
Also, another similar question:

Would a student of a trainer who is getting no compensation whatsoever to ride said trainer's horses (just the luck of getting to ride for free!) be able to legally show in an ammy division? They do not own or lease the horse, and although it isn't obvious to me how they might be considered getting "remuneration" for the scenario, I don't exactly spend time scrutinizing ammy status rules.
The key would be
"getting no compensation whatsoever FOR ANYTHING, FROM THE TRAINER, THE BARN OWNER OR THE HORSE OWNER"

overthemoon
May. 3, 2009, 01:30 PM
Would that change at all if the trainer/horse owner was paying for the entry fees?

The rider would still not be getting any sort of direct remuneration; just an opportunity to show for free, basically.

Janet
May. 3, 2009, 02:19 PM
Would that change at all if the trainer/horse owner was paying for the entry fees?

The rider would still not be getting any sort of direct remuneration; just an opportunity to show for free, basically.
I don't understand the question.

If the rider is recieving remuneration (from the trainer, the barn owner, or the horse owner) for ANYTHING, then just sitting on the horse makes her "not an amateur", whether or not she ever goes to a show.

If she is not recieving renumeration (for ANYTHING) from anyone connected with the horse, then she can remain an amateur, no matter who pays the entry fees. But if anyone connected with the horse pays her hotel or travel bill, then she would be not-an-amateur.

happyhorse3
May. 3, 2009, 02:30 PM
Yes. About a year ago (my timing may be wrong), there was quite a lot of posting here (and complaints to the USEF) about some "working students" who were riding and showing the trainers' horses in Adult Amateur classes. The USEF apparently got in touch with them, and next thing you know each of the working students had a registered lease on the horse she was showing.

The USEF did notice. But under the current rules, once the horses were leased, they were oK. Still remains to be seen if they will address what happened before the entered into the leases, since technically they should have "sat out" a year and reapplied for amateur status.

That's my point then Janet. Why didn't they notice the violation immediately. You are right then, technically they had been breaking the rules for years but it seems that the USEF has looked the other way. Does someone have to lodge a complaint. Seems pretty silly if the trainer pretty much admitted it when he "changed" the ownership names. I really sometimes wonder what are USEF fees do for us??:eek:

overthemoon
May. 3, 2009, 03:41 PM
I don't understand the question.

If the rider is recieving remuneration (from the trainer, the barn owner, or the horse owner) for ANYTHING, then just sitting on the horse makes her "not an amateur", whether or not she ever goes to a show.

If she is not recieving renumeration (for ANYTHING) from anyone connected with the horse, then she can remain an amateur, no matter who pays the entry fees. But if anyone connected with the horse pays her hotel or travel bill, then she would be not-an-amateur.

Just curious, as this is a hypothetical situation, but how does providing a free hotel room in which to stay differ from providing a horse to show free of cost? Where do you draw the line between a generous gift (maybe rider is owner's friend's daughter, and well liked by the family) and service rendered? I know the whole thing is a grey area, but what are the black and whites of the rules? ie, Owner may pay for entry fees but may not pay for hotel.

Janet
May. 3, 2009, 05:12 PM
Just curious, as this is a hypothetical situation, but how does providing a free hotel room in which to stay differ from providing a horse to show free of cost? Where do you draw the line between a generous gift (maybe rider is owner's friend's daughter, and well liked by the family) and service rendered? I know the whole thing is a grey area, but what are the black and whites of the rules? ie, Owner may pay for entry fees but may not pay for hotel.
This is the recently revised definition of what IS permitted-


c. Accepting reimbursement for any expenses directly related to the horse (i.e.
farrier/vet bills, entries) however, does not include travel,hotel, room and board or
equipment. EC 2/17/09 Effective immediately

overthemoon
May. 3, 2009, 05:46 PM
Good to know, thanks!

gottagrey
May. 3, 2009, 08:44 PM
The rule is clear that you are OK with riding the horse you OWN (or lease).

But yes, if you go by the letter of the rule, the free board would be considered "remuneration" , and riding the Barn owner's horse would make you "not-an-amateur".

It is a rule that clearly has lots of "unintended consequences", and I don't know how the hearing committee would handle some of the more "obviously not REALLY being paid for riding" cases. But the rule as written is very strict.

For a descrption of the origins of this rule, do a search for "amateur" and "bookkeeper".

Well you learn something new every day. Agree that is one of the unintended consequences of the AA rule.. a few bad apples made is difficult for majority who do play by the rules...

The other thing about this AA rule is its so strict yet, the USEF makes it fairly difficult to protest a person. Many of us see blatant violation of the rule - like ADs, horse show results, websites etc...you would think a person would be able to print out an Ad/Website which claims AA Rider Suzy is Trainer and A-1 farm, print out results of horse show which shows AA Rider Suzy was Champion in the AA Hunters and that would be enough...

happyhorse3
May. 3, 2009, 08:56 PM
Well you learn something new every day. Agree that is one of the unintended consequences of the AA rule.. a few bad apples made is difficult for majority who do play by the rules...

The other thing about this AA rule is its so strict yet, the USEF makes it fairly difficult to protest a person. Many of us see blatant violation of the rule - like ADs, horse show results, websites etc...you would think a person would be able to print out an Ad/Website which claims AA Rider Suzy is Trainer and A-1 farm, print out results of horse show which shows AA Rider Suzy was Champion in the AA Hunters and that would be enough...

If you look in the back of your monthly USEF magazine where they list the penalties, you will see that Ads and websites are they ONLY way they get caught. The rest are too smart or should I say sly to put anything in writing. This is why the ones that work for the trainer are always paid in cash and never advertised as trainers in anyway. Unfortunately as strict as the rule is written it seems to be the hardest to enforce.

Sing Mia Song
May. 3, 2009, 09:26 PM
That's my point then Janet. Why didn't they notice the violation immediately. You are right then, technically they had been breaking the rules for years but it seems that the USEF has looked the other way. Does someone have to lodge a complaint. Seems pretty silly if the trainer pretty much admitted it when he "changed" the ownership names. I really sometimes wonder what are USEF fees do for us??:eek:

I think it's unrealistic for the stewards to have to know the back story on every single horse, owner and rider in order to scrutinize for potential violations. There's just not that kind of manpower to be able to catch every violation.

That said, the Federation should rely more on complaints filed by other members who do suspect a violation, and I think the fee to file a protest is extremely excessive. It only punishes those who do play by the rules.

Greg
May. 4, 2009, 12:52 PM
Just curious, as this is a hypothetical situation, but how does providing a free hotel room in which to stay differ from providing a horse to show free of cost? Where do you draw the line between a generous gift (maybe rider is owner's friend's daughter, and well liked by the family) and service rendered? I know the whole thing is a grey area, but what are the black and whites of the rules? ie, Owner may pay for entry fees but may not pay for hotel.
I think people get crazed about following the rule ABSOLUTELY. Personally, I do not see how babysitting in exchange for board should be a problem. If the kid you are babysitting likes to ride, and you holler "TURN IN A CIRCLE!!!!" when the kid is being run away with, it should not make you a professional! A barn owner would obviously appreciate a babysitter that is skilled enough to supervise little Sally while she rides her pony. Not in a lesson scenario, but in a "can call 911, recognize a potentaly dangerous situation" scenario, and also tighten a girth. This is not lesson material.

Whether the babysitting is paid in cash or taken out of the monthly board - it strikes me as a win/win situation, and hurray for the little girl who gets to ride while her Mom is at work!!!!!! The objections to people having lightly reimbursed scenarios like this one tend to hurt the sport. How many people can afford to pay a professional trainer to figure out if Sally actually wants to ride? Professionals make a living at training, and charge accordingly!

All the talk about "Grass ROOTS", seems to me like the grass roots is actually the college student willing to barter services, or be paid a paltry sum until it is for sure that Sally actually enjoys riding. The average person cannot afford to pay the going professional price, so Sally never even gets a chance to try it out! People have become so concerned about the ABSOLUTE following of the rule that the college student or babysitter can't show if they participate in helping out Sally. Who gets hurt here?

(the answer is Sally, if you aren't following my train of thought.)

Hunter Mom
May. 4, 2009, 01:09 PM
So if one rides and shows a horse for a trainer and receives free training... they violate this rule... correct?

Is it the horse or the rider who cannot receive training? I'm just wondering because it seems hard to separate the two.

I'm just thinking of lessons where my trainer tells me to, say, raise my hand or shift my weight - I'm riding better, but the reason was to improve the horse's performance.

Go Fish
May. 4, 2009, 03:30 PM
I would call the USEF to clarify...I think you may be okay if you don't train or give lessons. Isn't it okay to get board and training in exchange for grooming, stall cleaning, bookkeeping, babysitting, etc? In other words, so long as you don't "train."

Hunter Mom
May. 4, 2009, 03:43 PM
I would call the USEF to clarify...I think you may be okay if you don't train or give lessons. Isn't it okay to get board and training in exchange for grooming, stall cleaning, bookkeeping, babysitting, etc? In other words, so long as you don't "train."

I believe that USEF says no on this. For example, a farrier wouldn't qualify an amateur as they're paid to work with the horses they show. Braiders, too, if they're not showing their own horse (I believe).

ETA
USEF Rule:
"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."

Go Fish
May. 4, 2009, 04:00 PM
I believe that USEF says no on this. For example, a farrier wouldn't qualify an amateur as they're paid to work with the horses they show. Braiders, too, if they're not showing their own horse (I believe).

ETA
USEF Rule:
"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."

The key word here is "and" - you can be a veterinarian, groom, farrier, etc. and show amy so long as you "don't give instruction, ride, drive, etc. I know plenty of grooms, farriers, bookkeepers who show amy and are perfectly legal. They don't ride/train or instruct for money. That's the difference.

I stand by what I say...call the USEF for clarification.

Hunter Mom
May. 4, 2009, 04:15 PM
You're right - they can't do any of those things listed after "and" with other people's horses. Including training, schooling or showing.

i.e. my farrier can show his own horses as an ammy. My vet can do the same. However, they can't do it with any horses they work on, nor can they school those horses if they don't belong to them and remain amateurs.

Is the rule good? I don't know.

joiedevie99
May. 4, 2009, 04:21 PM
You can be a vet, groom, farrier, etc. and remain an amateur so long as you never ride (other than a groom walking on a loose rein) a horse owned by someone who pays you (regardless of what they pay you for). The minute you get on a horse owned by someone who pays you for anything (in money or services) you are a pro.

Go Fish
May. 4, 2009, 04:37 PM
You can be a vet, groom, farrier, etc. and remain an amateur so long as you never ride (other than a groom walking on a loose rein) a horse owned by someone who pays you (regardless of what they pay you for). The minute you get on a horse owned by someone who pays you for anything (in money or services) you are a pro.

Summed up nicely...pretty simple. Add teaching to that and pretty much everything is covered.

To clarify...riding someone else's horse or teaching and receiving discounted or free board, training, lessons, etc. gets you pro status. In other words, money doesn't necessarily have to exchange hands.