PDA

View Full Version : Can an ammy show sale horses?



heartinrye
May. 4, 2009, 08:24 PM
My friend has moved to a new (more expensive- horsey wise) part of the country. She sold her horse when she left, and is currently riding at a barn that has a few sale horses.
She rides them with no reimbursement and pays for a lesson on 1 per week. She doesn't pay board or expenses on them, either their owners or BO/Trainer pays (if BO owns the horse...) for everything.
She wants to show but isn't sure if she is breaking the ammy rule.
She pays for all of her own bills as well as trailering, stalls, all show fees. Is she still an ammy, even if someone is paying trainer to try and sell the horses and she is showing the horses? (Sporadically, as in twice every 3 months or so, usually not the same horse)

Also, BO/Trainer wanted to pay her a little something when a horse sold at the show she showed it at- is that ok?

thanks guys!

DuffyAgain
May. 4, 2009, 08:49 PM
No "getting a little something" if horsie sells. Ammies not allowed to receive commissions. The rest sounds fine, based on what I'm reading.

Tini Sea Soldier
May. 4, 2009, 10:48 PM
My friend has moved to a new (more expensive- horsey wise) part of the country. She sold her horse when she left, and is currently riding at a barn that has a few sale horses.
She rides them with no reimbursement and pays for a lesson on 1 per week. She doesn't pay board or expenses on them, either their owners or BO/Trainer pays (if BO owns the horse...) for everything.
She wants to show but isn't sure if she is breaking the ammy rule.
She pays for all of her own bills as well as trailering, stalls, all show fees. Is she still an ammy, even if someone is paying trainer to try and sell the horses and she is showing the horses? (Sporadically, as in twice every 3 months or so, usually not the same horse)

Also, BO/Trainer wanted to pay her a little something when a horse sold at the show she showed it at- is that ok?

thanks guys!



Here comes the shamateur train wreck... I keep flipping the channel but it seems to be on every station.

::sigh:: Maybe instead of a giving her a little "something" in a monetary sense... a "VERY NICE" tack store Gift Certificate should be given as a token of appreciation. Last time I checked, USEF wasn't auditing Bevals.

horsepoor
May. 4, 2009, 10:51 PM
All of it sounds fine to me, as I understand the rules, except the "little something" they wanted to pay her. However, I did wonder if that was just reimbursing her for the show fees, etc., since the horse sold at the show and she had already paid for the show fees/etc. (did she get to show?). If that was the case, I'm not sure it was a problem...?

feather river
May. 5, 2009, 04:35 AM
And we wonder why the USEF keeps tightening the amateur rules. you go and read the rule book and you think--hey, that is simple enough. but then here comes another "amateur" who wants to ride and show other people's horses, have someone else pay the bills, and not call themselves a "professional". I thought only the junior riders did this.

Amateur-a person who engages in a pursuit for pleasure and not as a profession.

Maybe we just need to add a third category. Amateur, Professional, and let-me-do-whatever-I-want.:eek:

Pirateer
May. 5, 2009, 05:00 AM
Wow, you guys are cranky for no reason.

This person IS an amateur. Accepting money from the trainer if the horse sells would make them a pro (also if she accepted gifts of lessons, board, etc).

She can accept remuneration for expenses (reasonable) like gas money, hotel room, etc. But that is it.

PlantersPunch
May. 5, 2009, 06:03 AM
And we wonder why the USEF keeps tightening the amateur rules. you go and read the rule book and you think--hey, that is simple enough. but then here comes another "amateur" who wants to ride and show other people's horses, have someone else pay the bills, and not call themselves a "professional". I thought only the junior riders did this.

Amateur-a person who engages in a pursuit for pleasure and not as a profession.

Maybe we just need to add a third category. Amateur, Professional, and let-me-do-whatever-I-want.:eek:

Wow I think this is a little harsh. Obviously the "little something" at the end is a no go, but she clearly said her friend doesn't have her own horse and pays all the show fees. I don't think it's fair to say that someone riding horses other than their own doesn't fit the definition of someone who rides "in pursuit of pleasure and not as a professional."

I see nothing wrong with an amateur paying to show sale horses, especially if she has nothing else to ride.

jse
May. 5, 2009, 07:23 AM
:no:
And we wonder why the USEF keeps tightening the amateur rules. you go and read the rule book and you think--hey, that is simple enough. but then here comes another "amateur" who wants to ride and show other people's horses, have someone else pay the bills, and not call themselves a "professional". I thought only the junior riders did this.

Amateur-a person who engages in a pursuit for pleasure and not as a profession.

Maybe we just need to add a third category. Amateur, Professional, and let-me-do-whatever-I-want.:eek:

This attitude right here is what will keep me from showing as an Amateur when I start to show again next year. I'll take showing with the big guns over that kind of 'tude any day.

RockinHorse
May. 5, 2009, 07:38 AM
Wow, you guys are cranky for no reason.

This person IS an amateur. Accepting money from the trainer if the horse sells would make them a pro (also if she accepted gifts of lessons, board, etc).

She can accept remuneration for expenses (reasonable) like gas money, hotel room, etc. But that is it.


I don't believe that, as an amateur, hotel room expenses can be accepted any longer.

Janet
May. 5, 2009, 07:46 AM
She can accept remuneration for expenses (reasonable) like gas money, hotel room, etc. But that is it.
The rules now explicitly say that "hotel room" is NOT permitted.

advantagepa
May. 5, 2009, 09:10 AM
Come on people, stop being so lazy! All of the rules are online so all you have to do is look them up and spend the half hour to really understand them. If you still have a question after you have done your homework, then by all means, ask away, but don't just expect everyone else to do your work for you. If you want something done right, do it yourself, then there can be no question if you are in the clear or not. :no: I don't mean this as a personal attack, it just seems like the same ammy questions get asked all the time. Read the rule book first, ask questions second!

Smiles
May. 5, 2009, 09:30 AM
If you are a member of usef or even just want some clarification CALL THEM if you have a question about the rules... Thats what their there for. The people on these boards although they know somethings about the rules are not going to do you any services if you break them because well BB poster X on coth told me I was all good to go isn't going to fly if someone protests you. Seriously folks get your memberships worth of money and call to find out the right answer to a rule... :sleepy:

Nickelodian
May. 5, 2009, 10:16 AM
The way I read the ammy rules, the person can show a horse and have the bills paid for on that horse (board, entries, braiding, etc) and still be an ammy.

As long as your friend does not accept any cash for riding she would still be considered an ammy.

I think this rule kind of blurs the lines a little bit, but it's mostly a judgement call.



2. The following activities do not affect the amateur status of a person who is otherwise
qualified:

d. Accepting a token of appreciation, other than money, for riding, driving or showing in
halter/in hand. (Note: Horse board, prize money, partial support or objects of more than
$300 are considered remuneration, not small tokens of appreciation). (Also note:
accepting any amount of money, whether more or less than $300, is considered
remuneration.) Prize money won by an amateur-owner rider/driver/handler in any class
(other than equitation or showmanship) is not considered remuneration.

To me that means that the trainer could get her something from Beval's or the like and she'd still be an ammy.

Midge
May. 5, 2009, 11:07 AM
here comes another "amateur" who wants to ride and show other people's horses, have someone else pay the bills,

Uh, you DO know this does not keep you from being an ammy???

heartinrye
May. 5, 2009, 11:18 AM
Ok so it's ok to show horses that are not hers and that are for sale. But not ok to get cash for helping sell a horse (not being an agent, just happening to show the horse and someone become interested).
Thank you to everyone who was helpful.

heartinrye
May. 5, 2009, 11:19 AM
The way I read the ammy rules, the person can show a horse and have the bills paid for on that horse (board, entries, braiding, etc) and still be an ammy.

As long as your friend does not accept any cash for riding she would still be considered an ammy.

I think this rule kind of blurs the lines a little bit, but it's mostly a judgement call.



To me that means that the trainer could get her something from Beval's or the like and she'd still be an ammy.


Ok I'm confused a little- as an ammy I can't accept prize money from the horse show? Is that what the rule book is saying?

OneMoreTime
May. 5, 2009, 11:25 AM
You CAN accept prize money, but NOT for Eq. or Showmanship.

overthemoon
May. 5, 2009, 11:26 AM
You CAN accept prize money, but NOT for Eq. or Showmanship.

Just curious, do you know the reasoning behind this?

Nickelodian
May. 5, 2009, 01:30 PM
Here is how I understand it:

If the ammy was showing someone else's horse, that owner paid all the bills, and then the ammy got paid the prize money directly, that would be considered renumeration. If the ammy was showing someone else's horse and paying the bills on that horse, the prize money could go to him/her.

Seal Harbor
May. 5, 2009, 01:38 PM
Just curious, do you know the reasoning behind this?
Those classes are judged on the rider or handler NOT the horse.

LetsChat
May. 5, 2009, 01:48 PM
Here is how I understand it:

If the ammy was showing someone else's horse, that owner paid all the bills, and then the ammy got paid the prize money directly, that would be considered renumeration. If the ammy was showing someone else's horse and paying the bills on that horse, the prize money could go to him/her.


If you read again post number 13 it states prize money to an Amateur Owner. Now I don't know if a USEF lease counts but I am pretty sure if sweet, old, innocent, I just want more time in the saddle honestly that is why I show 15 other horses that I don't own, takes the prize money you are probably paying them. Especially if it is prize money for a $2500 A/A jumper class that the person just "catch-rode" for the owner. Not sure but again post 13 states A/O only so it really isn't in the rules???

feather river
May. 5, 2009, 03:25 PM
:no:

This attitude right here is what will keep me from showing as an Amateur when I start to show again next year. I'll take showing with the big guns over that kind of 'tude any day.

hey it is not me. I don't care. I will ride with my ammy card against anyone--ammy, professional ammy, or professional. But the USEF if full of stewards who will take complaints from any cranky amateur lady who took a ribbon even one place behind this gal.

Wake up to reality. They just tightened up the ammy rule, and they did that for a reason. It is this kind of loose thinking that keeps making the USEF ratchet down every couple years.

You guys who live in the permissive society times need to wake up and smell the coffee. The Bush days of zero regulation are over! It is a new day baby.:D;)

meupatdoes
May. 5, 2009, 03:37 PM
It is this kind of loose thinking that keeps making the USEF ratchet down every couple years.


The example you cited IS NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN, a violation of the amateur rule.

That behavior isn't "loose thinking," it's 100% within both the letter and the spirit of the rule.

"Loose thinking" is trying to rewrite the rule book to the way YOU think it should be, which is exactly what you were doing.

Pirateer
May. 5, 2009, 03:46 PM
You guys who live in the permissive society times need to wake up and smell the coffee. The Bush days of zero regulation are over! It is a new day baby.:D;)

I should have guessed.:eek:

Jumphigh83
May. 5, 2009, 03:48 PM
OMG Just ride in the unrestricted divisions already. I have NEVER seen such contortions over riding in a restricted division let alone all the cat fights over the same! You know when you are cheating so DON'T. Enough said. :mad:
And what the HELL does Bush have to do with any of this?????????????

heartinrye
May. 5, 2009, 04:31 PM
hey it is not me. I don't care. I will ride with my ammy card against anyone--ammy, professional ammy, or professional. But the USEF if full of stewards who will take complaints from any cranky amateur lady who took a ribbon even one place behind this gal.



My friend so far has gone to ONE show with ONE horse. Owned by an older lady who can no longer ride, and is trying to sell green-bean crazy mare who tries to kill everyone but my friend. A different Pro saw her and bought her on the spot. I don't know why anyone would complain that my friend wasn't acting as a Ammy, since she was. She just aged out and isn't 100% on the rules, and THAT'S why I posted on here, to ask for her, before she did anything that would make her lose her Ammy status.
No one complained, she won her LOW ADULT jumper class fair and square. And that whopping $50, went towards the show bill which SHE paid, along with all of her meals and hotel room.

overthemoon
May. 5, 2009, 09:32 PM
Those classes are judged on the rider or handler NOT the horse.

Yes, I know what the classes are...

I'm just curious as to why the USEF sees putting a good equitation round in [and getting your earnings] as a pro, but putting a good hunter round in [and getting your earnings] as an ammy.

Janet
May. 5, 2009, 09:56 PM
Yes, I know what the classes are...

I'm just curious as to why the USEF sees putting a good equitation round in [and getting your earnings] as a pro, but putting a good hunter round in [and getting your earnings] as an ammy.
That isn't the point.

When a hunter or jumper wins prize money, the money goes to the OWNER. So you are getting the money in your role as OWNER, not as RIDER.

In an equitation class, it is kind of moot as- because of this rule- they never offer prize money anyway. But if they did, you would be getting the money in your role as RIDER - which would make you not-an-amateur.

Janet
May. 5, 2009, 10:23 PM
If you read again post number 13 it states prize money to an Amateur Owner. ... Not sure but again post 13 states A/O only so it really isn't in the rules???
The point of "amateur-owner" in the rules quoted in post 13 is that the prize money in a "horse" class goes to the OWNER (It isn't about the Hunter A/O division).

So receiving prize money in your role as OWNER is not considered payment for your role as RIDER, even if you ride a horse you own.

But if you are riding a horse that belongs ot someone lese, the prioze money must go to tHE owner. If the RIDER in that case takes the prize money, it would make the rider "not-an-amateur"

feather river
May. 6, 2009, 03:13 AM
My friend so far has gone to ONE show with ONE horse. Owned by an older lady who can no longer ride, and is trying to sell green-bean crazy mare who tries to kill everyone but my friend. A different Pro saw her and bought her on the spot. I don't know why anyone would complain that my friend wasn't acting as a Ammy, since she was. She just aged out and isn't 100% on the rules, and THAT'S why I posted on here, to ask for her, before she did anything that would make her lose her Ammy status.
No one complained, she won her LOW ADULT jumper class fair and square. And that whopping $50, went towards the show bill which SHE paid, along with all of her meals and hotel room.

oh, this is one of those I am writing for my friend kind of deals. what, are you her agent? she can't post on here herself? well, as you explain it this is all after the fact anyway, so why are you/she bothering? why not call the USEF police office in Lexington and ask them? Probably because they are all Gestapo and would just lock you friend up for the fun of it.

Yet you come on here and ask a question that you don't like the answers to, then pick on my post where I try to state the reality of how the USEF looks at just these kinds of borderline situations. It is bad enough being an ammy and being a somewhat competent horseperson who is trying to show and sell their own horses without these kinds of situations mucking it up.

feather river
May. 6, 2009, 03:18 AM
The example you cited IS NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN, a violation of the amateur rule.

That behavior isn't "loose thinking," it's 100% within both the letter and the spirit of the rule.

"Loose thinking" is trying to rewrite the rule book to the way YOU think it should be, which is exactly what you were doing.

where was I rewriting the rule book? have you missed the past several years of subtle changes to the amateur rule? you need to keep up on the rules violations posted in the magazine. I don't care what the rule is. It is what it is.

And when an ammy decides they can ride and show someone else's horse to help sell the horse that just begs for the USEF police to jump all over that situation.

Slow down in cone zones. This is a cone zone.:winkgrin::cool:

Janet
May. 6, 2009, 05:47 AM
And when an ammy decides they can ride and show someone else's horse to help sell the horse that just begs for the USEF police to jump all over that situation.

I beg to differ. As long as she deosn't receive (direct or indirect) remuneration, it isn't against the rules to help someone else sell a horse.

When the rule change was passed, teh behavior it was intended to stop was clear: the so-called-amateur who was riding training and selling multiple horses for other people, and saying "Don't give me training fees. Wait until the horse sells and give me the same amount as a 'Commission'."

This is NOT that case.

Fly_High
May. 6, 2009, 08:46 AM
I think it can be very frustrating as an adult amateur that does not have your own horse. You are at the mercy of others to grab a catch ride or a lesson mount or a sale horse. I rode many sale horses in the past at shows, they were the only thing I had to ride. I also rode them in lessons and exercised/practiced with them on the side. I have only been showing for 3 years and have competed on 15 different horses. I am a competent rider and very good with green horses. I just took a greenie I am working on for a client of my trainers to his first show 2 weeks ago. I don't get paid to ride the horse, I just do it for fun and to help out this girl who has become scared because of her poorly run college riding program. I am not going to A shows so I guess it isn't as important, but I don't pay a trailering fee or training fee when I am showing that horse, his owners do (which might be considered indirect remuneration). I totally understand why amateur rules are in place and who they are meant to stop/protect, but no one in their right mind should think I am even close to a professional. I am just a poor girl who likes to ride and can't afford her own horse, so will ride anything she can get her hands on.

Trixie
May. 6, 2009, 08:48 AM
I beg to differ. As long as she deosn't receive (direct or indirect) remuneration, it isn't against the rules to help someone else sell a horse.

Agree. As long as ammy isn't making any money off it whatsoever, there's no gray area here. She's not receiving remuneration, therefore, she's still an amateur.

However, if she receives a "little something" when the horse sells, THEN it bcecomes a problem.

meupatdoes
May. 6, 2009, 10:51 AM
where was I rewriting the rule book? have you missed the past several years of subtle changes to the amateur rule? you need to keep up on the rules violations posted in the magazine. I don't care what the rule is. It is what it is.

1. First of all I am somewhat confused why you are yammering about this if you "don't care what the rule is."
Is your argument seriously, 'I don't care what the rule is this is how I think it should be so there?"

2. You were rewriting the rule book when you wrote,"but then here comes another "amateur" who wants to ride and show other people's horses, have someone else pay the bills, and not call themselves a "professional"."

Your statement implies that if someone rides and shows horses for whom somebody else pays the bills, it is cheating or somehow morally iffy for them to do so as an amateur.

It is not.
It never has been.
It is what it is.

Maybe you should stop telling people they need to keep up on the rules violations in the magazine until you actually care what the rule is, and have taken the time to read it.

ponyjumper4
May. 6, 2009, 11:13 AM
oh, this is one of those I am writing for my friend kind of deals. what, are you her agent? she can't post on here herself? well, as you explain it this is all after the fact anyway, so why are you/she bothering? why not call the USEF police office in Lexington and ask them? Probably because they are all Gestapo and would just lock you friend up for the fun of it.

Why would anyone new want to come here and get this kind of response? :no:

feather river
May. 6, 2009, 04:12 PM
1. First of all I am somewhat confused why you are yammering about this if you "don't care what the rule is."
Is your argument seriously, 'I don't care what the rule is this is how I think it should be so there?"

2. You were rewriting the rule book when you wrote,"but then here comes another "amateur" who wants to ride and show other people's horses, have someone else pay the bills, and not call themselves a "professional"."

Your statement implies that if someone rides and shows horses for whom somebody else pays the bills, it is cheating or somehow morally iffy for them to do so as an amateur.

It is not.
It never has been.
It is what it is.

Maybe you should stop telling people they need to keep up on the rules violations in the magazine until you actually care what the rule is, and have taken the time to read it.

see USEF Rule GR1306.2.c added effective immediately on 2/17/09:
2. The following activities do not affect the amateur status of a person who is otherwise
qualified:
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

This gal could have a problem if she accepts the horse owner or whoever paying her travel, hotel, room and board or any equipment costs.

There is the rule>:cry:

meupatdoes
May. 6, 2009, 04:22 PM
see USEF Rule GR1306.2.c added effective immediately on 2/17/09:
2. The following activities do not affect the amateur status of a person who is otherwise
qualified:
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

This gal could have a problem if she accepts the horse owner or whoever paying her travel, hotel, room and board or any equipment costs.

There is the rule>:cry:

I'm sorry, maybe my reading comprehension is failing me but I don't understand how "but then here comes another "amateur" who wants to ride and show other people's horses, have someone else pay the bills, and not call themselves a "professional"." should have anything to with hotel bills or travel, if you bothered to read the OP's post, since the OP EXPLICITLY mentioned that the ammy in question was NOT getting hotel, travel or equipment bills paid and additionally EXPLICITLY mentioned that only direct horse bills were being paid. I believe the exact words were, "She pays for all of her own bills".

Now if you are sailing in yammering about hotel bills you are writing the OPs post for her.

Trixie
May. 6, 2009, 04:24 PM
This gal could have a problem if she accepts the horse owner or whoever paying her travel, hotel, room and board or any equipment costs.

But that wasn't what you were complaining about.

Nor was that what the OP was posting about.

As long as the rider doesn't receive remuneration, she's in the clear AS AN AMATEUR.

twobays
May. 6, 2009, 04:30 PM
You guys who live in the permissive society times need to wake up and smell the coffee. The Bush days of zero regulation are over! It is a new day baby.:D;)

:rolleyes: Please stop, you're embarassing yourself and making the rest of us look bad.

Obviously the situation isn't against the letter of the law, and I don't think most reasonable people would say its against the spirit of the rule either. Unless you only want people showing their own horses (because nearly all barn/trainer owned horses are for sale for a certain price), this situation is going to occur all the time.

I'm not sure what your problem is...it seems that you want people to self-enforce some arbitrary standard that isn't deliniated anywhere in any rule book.

FrenchFrytheEqHorse
May. 6, 2009, 07:29 PM
If ammys were somehow not allowed to show sale horses, how would one ever SEE an "amateur horse" go in it's division?? If I were in the market for an ammy horse, I would damn well want to see an amateur in the irons doing its intended division. Same as if I were looking for a children's hunter- of course it can go with a pro on it, but what about a kid?

So feather, are you suggesting that ammys should never show sale horses, period? What do you suggest larger barns do with their consignment horses? Show them in the professional divisions (what about the A/A horses? there's no 3 foot division open to horses who've broken their pre-green year, other than the A/As and children's)? And when a horse is being marketed as an ammy mount, how do you suggest it get shown in the amateur division during a consignment period? Should all amateur horses, regardless, be owned by their riders? Wait, there's already a division for that...

iridehorses
May. 7, 2009, 12:21 AM
someone told me theres a new ammy rule that the horse they show m,ust be owned by them also, so they wouldnt be able to get money for the horse, let alone show it

feather river
May. 7, 2009, 03:52 AM
:rolleyes: Please stop, you're embarassing yourself and making the rest of us look bad.

Obviously the situation isn't against the letter of the law, and I don't think most reasonable people would say its against the spirit of the rule either. Unless you only want people showing their own horses (because nearly all barn/trainer owned horses are for sale for a certain price), this situation is going to occur all the time.

I'm not sure what your problem is...it seems that you want people to self-enforce some arbitrary standard that isn't deliniated anywhere in any rule book.

I quoted from the rule book a couple posts previous to yours. All you have to do is go to the USEF rule itself and read it.:confused:

feather river
May. 7, 2009, 03:58 AM
Wow, you guys are cranky for no reason.


She can accept remuneration for expenses (reasonable) like gas money, hotel room, etc. But that is it.

No she cannot. You need to read the new rule effective in 2/09. You shouldn't give out this kind of advice--it just causes people to think they can do what the rule doesn't allow, just because they think it is "reasonable".

feather river
May. 7, 2009, 04:02 AM
The way I read the ammy rules, the person can show a horse and have the bills paid for on that horse (board, entries, braiding, etc) and still be an ammy.

As long as your friend does not accept any cash for riding she would still be considered an ammy.

I think this rule kind of blurs the lines a little bit, but it's mostly a judgement call.

To me that means that the trainer could get her something from Beval's or the like and she'd still be an ammy.

Not if it is remuneration for teaching, showing or selling. The rule is clear.:lol:

Ajierene
May. 7, 2009, 06:18 AM
I think it can be very frustrating as an adult amateur that does not have your own horse. You are at the mercy of others to grab a catch ride or a lesson mount or a sale horse. I rode many sale horses in the past at shows, they were the only thing I had to ride. I also rode them in lessons and exercised/practiced with them on the side. I have only been showing for 3 years and have competed on 15 different horses. I am a competent rider and very good with green horses. I just took a greenie I am working on for a client of my trainers to his first show 2 weeks ago. I don't get paid to ride the horse, I just do it for fun and to help out this girl who has become scared because of her poorly run college riding program. I am not going to A shows so I guess it isn't as important, but I don't pay a trailering fee or training fee when I am showing that horse, his owners do (which might be considered indirect remuneration). I totally understand why amateur rules are in place and who they are meant to stop/protect, but no one in their right mind should think I am even close to a professional. I am just a poor girl who likes to ride and can't afford her own horse, so will ride anything she can get her hands on.

The difference is, while you are at the 'mercy of others' to find a horse, you also don't pay for anything. Whereas those of us that do own a horse have to pay for everything. The situation would be different if you were in a 'free lease' type situation. When I was in high school, I couldn't afford a horse and rode green horses, school horses and sale horses. More than a few were sold after I took them to shows, but I paid for lessons, paid trailering fees and paid for the shows. Financially speaking, I got nothing in return.

You, however, get a free ride. You get a horse (horses) to ride, get to go to shows for free and ride for free. So you are not exactly an amateur. While the rules may seem a bit unfair, they are designed to protect the people that pay their own way 100% from those that do not. While showing green horses and school horses will not likely propel you to the top of the ribbons, there are others out there that do the same thing you do with a seasoned hunter/equitation/jumper/whatever for the well-to-do owner that may not feel like showing, may be on the injured list, may not have time to ride and find some young, eager adult. So the young adult gets a horse they could never afford themselves.

I'm not trying to put down what you do, just saying that the rules are to separate the true amateurs who work hard to financially support their passion from those that get a free ride. The rules cannot discriminate quality of horse or so many problems would come up (such as changing a horse's name and entering them in the green classes so that they can say they are on a green horse and thus an amateur).

Janet
May. 7, 2009, 06:37 AM
someone told me theres a new ammy rule that the horse they show m,ust be owned by them also, so they wouldnt be able to get money for the horse, let alone show it

Not true.

There is a rule about showing in the Amateur Owner Hunters- You can't "ride for another person" at the same show. But no such restriction for other amateur classes.

Janet
May. 7, 2009, 06:44 AM
I'm not trying to put down what you do, just saying that the rules are to separate the true amateurs who work hard to financially support their passion from those that get a free ride. The rules cannot discriminate quality of horse or so many problems would come up (such as changing a horse's name and entering them in the green classes so that they can say they are on a green horse and thus an amateur).

NOT TRUE AT ALL.

The Amateur classes were originally intended SPECIFICALLY for those who get a free ride- either those with an "independant income" or no-working women whose husbands were prepared to supprt their "horse habit".

It was (and still is) INTENDED to separate those who MAKE MONEY from riding training, etc from those who DO NOT MAKE MONEY from it.

Whether you pay a fortune or nothing - whether you work hard for it, or you don't work at all for it, doesn't matter. Only if you "make money" or "don't make money".

Jumphigh83
May. 7, 2009, 08:09 AM
I guess it all depends on what the definition of "remuneration" is....AND after all these pages it should be clear to the federation that the rule needs to be tightened up or tossed...AND that they (the Federation) needs to enforce their own rules not leave it up to a clearly confused membership. ;)

3eme
May. 7, 2009, 09:06 AM
I guess it all depends on what the definition of "remuneration" is....AND after all these pages it should be clear to the federation that the rule needs to be tightened up or tossed...AND that they (the Federation) needs to enforce their own rules not leave it up to a clearly confused membership. ;)

SO AGREE.

I say "toss it".

The U.S.A must be the only country to define whether you are an amateur or not by money. I mean, I 'get' it, but the results of this rule can be pretty stupid. I am an amateur, but was offered a sponsorship by a feed company last year (amateurs in Europe can be sponsored) BUT because I am a member of USEF (and I'm honest!) I had to decline.

What is REALLY stupid is that the "sponsorship" was no big deal. It was bags of feed at the bigger, more visible shows if I wore a saddle pad with their emblem. I can't exactly make a living off of a couple of bags of feed now can I? But, according to the USEF, 'ho-ing myself out like that would have made me a 'pro'. Come on!

Trixie
May. 7, 2009, 09:16 AM
You, however, get a free ride. You get a horse (horses) to ride, get to go to shows for free and ride for free. So you are not exactly an amateur. While the rules may seem a bit unfair, they are designed to protect the people that pay their own way 100% from those that do not. While showing green horses and school horses will not likely propel you to the top of the ribbons, there are others out there that do the same thing you do with a seasoned hunter/equitation/jumper/whatever for the well-to-do owner that may not feel like showing, may be on the injured list, may not have time to ride and find some young, eager adult. So the young adult gets a horse they could never afford themselves.

I'm not trying to put down what you do, just saying that the rules are to separate the true amateurs who work hard to financially support their passion from those that get a free ride. The rules cannot discriminate quality of horse or so many problems would come up (such as changing a horse's name and entering them in the green classes so that they can say they are on a green horse and thus an amateur).

NOT correct at all. That rider would in fact be EXACTLY an amateur. As long as they don’t accept remuneration.

The amateur rule was put into place to prevent riders from earning money in horses competing against those who don’t.

That’s ALL it does.

You don’t get to make up new “spirits of rule” just because they suit you. The letter of the law says that scenario is precisely an amateur.

FWIW, I’m an amateur who rides for other people. I do not accept any remuneration whatsoever. I also work a 45+ hour work week at a desk.

Moderator 1
May. 7, 2009, 09:56 AM
There are obviously questions about the rules, so we welcome posters to question, discuss and debate them here if they're not clear on a point, though the first resource/last word should likely be the USEF.

Some of the posts were getting a little heavy on attitude, so please stay respectful of each other while discussing.

Thanks!
Mod 1

Nickelodian
May. 7, 2009, 10:21 AM
Not if it is remuneration for teaching, showing or selling. The rule is clear.:lol:


And since I was responding to a question regarding RIDING, not teaching, showing, or selling, I think I was pretty clear as well.

Janet
May. 7, 2009, 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by feather river http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=4076008#post4076008)
Not if it is remuneration for teaching, showing or selling. The rule is clear.:lol:


And since I was responding to a question regarding RIDING, not teaching, showing, or selling, I think I was pretty clear as well.
The rules are clear that a SMALL (under $300) gift (and there are SOME things from Bevals that fit that criteria), whether for RIDING, training, showing or selling, is not considered "remuneration", and is thus permitted.

GreystoneKC
May. 7, 2009, 09:23 PM
Janet, I think everyone should read your posts on this thread. Clear. Concise. Intelligent.
(Not that everyone else's are not, but yours specifically are very helpful)

feather river
May. 8, 2009, 03:57 AM
And since I was responding to a question regarding RIDING, not teaching, showing, or selling, I think I was pretty clear as well.

check your post--you used the word "showing". maybe you thought you were typing "riding" but it is spelled differently than "showing". Maybe you need to be more clear.:confused:

feather river
May. 8, 2009, 04:06 AM
Janet, I think everyone should read your posts on this thread. Clear. Concise. Intelligent.
(Not that everyone else's are not, but yours specifically are very helpful)

Well not to put too fine a point on it, one could always log onto the USEF site, go to the 2009 Rule Book and read GR1306. It is clear and concise--don't know about that "intelligent" part however.:cool: