PDA

View Full Version : When you are paid for one service but are required to ride...



smm20
Jun. 26, 2009, 10:54 PM
This is a spinoff from the babysitting/Ammy status thread.

How does the Amateur rule apply to people who are paid to do one job (eg. drive cattle) but for whatever reason, need to use a horse as transportation or as some essential component of the job?

Examples:
Actor in a movie needs to ride a horse for a scene.
Park ranger patrols outer park boundary and checks fence on horseback.

In both of these examples, the individual is being paid for services other than riding (acting abilities, park ranger duties) but riding is nonetheless an essential component of the job. If the actor refused to ride, she would lose the part. The ranger cannot physically get to the park's outer boundary in a car or on an ATV.

*Note - I actually know a park ranger in this situation. The areas in question really are only accessible by foot or horseback. I also know some trail maintenance employees who use mules to transport heavy equipment (like sledgehammers and chain saws) and also ride.

Now, on to my personal interest in this conundrum: as an archaeologist, I have been asked if I am interested in participitating in a horseback survey of sites (not in the US either). The job description is archaeologist. The means of transportation up and down washes in the desert is on horseback. If I was paid to do this, would I be a pro?

Obviously, as the survey date gets closer, I will call USEF, but just wondering if anyone else has been in a similar situation.

magnolia73
Jun. 27, 2009, 08:46 AM
Huh- it sounds like you could interpret your situation as a violation of amateur status. The way it is worded is that if the people you are working for as an archeologist own the horses and you ride.... its a violation. BUT it sounds like if say, your University hires a local livery, you would not be in violation.



Regardless of one’s equestrian skills and/or accomplishments, a person is an amateur
for all competitions conducted under Federation rules who after his/her 18th birthday, as
defined in GR101, has not engaged in any of the following activities which would make
him/her a professional. Exception: In the Dressage Division, individuals are only eligible to
compete as amateurs from the beginning of the calendar year in which they reach age 22.
See DR119.3. In the Reining Division, amateur status will be determined per Reining
Division Non Pro Conditions; see amateur status RN105. (For professionals wishing to be
re-classified as amateurs, see GR1308.2a): EC 11/17/08 Effective immediately
a. Accepts remuneration for riding, driving, showing, training, schooling or
conducting clinics or seminars.
b. Accepts remuneration for giving riding or driving lessons, lessons in showmanship,
instructions in equitation or horse training. (Persons acting as counselors at summer
camps, who are not hired in the exclusive capacity of riding instructors are excluded
and persons giving instruction and training to the handicapped).
Accepts remuneration for employment in other capacity (e.g., secretary, bookkeeper,
veterinarian, groom, farrier) and gives instruction, rides, drives, shows, trains or schools
horses, other than horses actually owned or leased by him/her, when his/her employer
or a member of the family of said employer or a corporation which a member of his/her
family controls, owns, boards or trains said horses.
d. Accepts remuneration for the use of his or her name, photograph or other form of
personal association as a horseman in connection with any advertisement or article
(including but not limited to clothing, product, equipment, etc.) to be sold.
EC 2/17/09 Effective immediately
e. Accepts prize money in equitation or showmanship classes. Prize money may be
accepted by amateur riders in Dressage.
f. Rides, drives or shows, any horse for which he/she or a member of his/her family or
a corporation which a member of his/her family controls, receives remuneration for
boarding, training, riding, driving or showing. (A family member of a trainer may not
absolve themselves of this rule by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a
horse owned by a client of the trainer).
g. Gives instruction to any person or rides, drives or shows any horse, for which activity
another person in his/her family or corporation which a member of his/her family controls
will receive remuneration for the activity. (A family member of a trainer may not absolve
themselves of this rule by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a horse
owned by a client of the trainer).
h. Accepts remuneration, as defined in GR1306.2d, for selling horses/ponies, acts as a
paid agent in the sale of horses/ponies or takes horses/ponies on consignment for the
purpose of sale or training other than those owned wholly or in part by him/her or by a
member of his/her family or farm/ranch/syndicate/partnership/corporation which he/she
or a member of his/her family controls.
i. Advertising professional services such as training or giving lessons by way of
business cards, print ads, or internet.
j. For Amateurs in Jumper Sections, see JP117.
k. For Amateurs in Eventing sections, see EV Appendix 3 - Participation in Horse
Trials.
2. The following activities do not affect the amateur status of a person who is otherwise
qualified:
a. The writing of books or articles pertaining to horses.
b. Accepting remuneration for officiating as a judge, steward, technical delegate,
course designer, announcer or participating as a TV commentator, or accepting bona
fide remuneration for services as a veterinarian, groom, farrier, tack shop operator or
breeder, or for accepting bona fide remuneration for boarding services.
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
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.
e. Having the occupation of veterinarian, groom, farrier or owning a tack shop or
breeding or boarding stable in itself, does not affect the amateur status of a person who
is otherwise qualified.
f. Any person who is serving an internship for college credit through his/her
respective, accredited college program, and who has never held professional status,
can accept reimbursement for expenses without profit.

shawneeAcres
Jun. 27, 2009, 08:56 AM
THis is just an example of how RIDICULOUS the whole amateur/pro thing is! Honestly if it were me I wouldn't worry about it, I'd do my job and ride an an amateur. The OP would not be "doing the job of a pro" in any way, shape or form. If that is the case then driving your car to and from work would make you a "pro" in the NASCAR world!!!

mvp
Jun. 27, 2009, 09:05 AM
This isn't directed at the OP, so much as the phenomenon: Sorry if you get caught in my ranty crossfire.

I believe you really have this question and will really call the USEF and have a serious conversation about it. Given the difficulty of defining a pro, I can see how you got here.

But seriously? People can't figure out the spirit of the law? If you think your hunter round is going to be smoothed out considerably, you may become indistinguishable from John French because of the saddle time on horses going to a field site, then you and all the other ammy/pro hairsplitters should worry.

I'm all about outting shammies, but you wouldn't be first on my list.

magnolia73
Jun. 27, 2009, 09:14 AM
I guess it is probably impossible to account for all scenarios. But perhaps the definition of employer should be expanded to include wording to exclude business where riding/training/providing service to horses is not a primary focus.

You never know when a poor sport will emerge and file a complaint....

smm20
Jun. 27, 2009, 02:16 PM
Magnolia may have cracked the case!

The university would pay for the use of the horses. They hire them from a local farmer. Now, I doubt that there would be an actual receipt....but it is harder to make a case that I am being paid to ride when the project is also paying for the horses.

And of course...who would actually try to protest me? But, I don't like violating rules - whether I'm caught or not. I don't even speed except sometimes when I'm not paying attention.

Janet
Jun. 27, 2009, 02:44 PM
Magnolia may have cracked the case!

The university would pay for the use of the horses. They hire them from a local farmer. Now, I doubt that there would be an actual receipt....but it is harder to make a case that I am being paid to ride when the project is also paying for the horses.
That deals with GR1306.1.c (remuneration in another capacity), but there is still GR1306.1.a
Accepts remuneration for riding...

But this case is so clearly outside the spirit of the rules that I would definitely call USEF.

bumknees
Jun. 27, 2009, 04:47 PM
Such an intresting question one I had never thought of. Not that any of it would ever apply to me ( and Op I woud love to be one of your profession I've always loved the idea of the job not necessarly the hot sitcky long days of digging etc to much of a red head with blinding white skin). If for not other reason other than to file it away in hte useless knowlege file in hte back of my brain I would love it if you would post the answer you recieve from the USEf...
Never know when the knowlege would come in handy...

PineTreeFarm
Jun. 27, 2009, 05:56 PM
I guess it is probably impossible to account for all scenarios. But perhaps the definition of employer should be expanded to include wording to exclude business where riding/training/providing service to horses is not a primary focus.



You'd think that would work. But the problem was riders were hired in a non riding capacity, never worked at the 'job' and just showed up and rode all day.

Let's say an owner of really good jumper also owns a business and he hires 'Ammie' to count paper clips at his business. 'Ammie' makes some money but maybe only counts paper clips for a few hours a day and rides the rest of the time. 'Ammie' no longer has a money problem and the business owner has an 'on staff' rider.

Hunter/JumperMom
Jul. 13, 2009, 07:45 AM
my take on this - to the OP, is don't worry about it. The job in question is not governed by the USEF, so should have no impact on the rules?

So if I took a summer job as a trail guide at the grand cannon, rode horses and donkeys up and down the mountain, and got paid for it, I would be considered a pro?

I don't think so.

USEF isn't going after these type of people.

Now I know of a person that owns a barn, gives lessons, trains horses, buys and sells horses, and shows as an ammy. Never met the person, but just have heard, this is the type of person I would think USEF is going after.

meupatdoes
Jul. 13, 2009, 08:23 AM
my take on this - to the OP, is don't worry about it. The job in question is not governed by the USEF, so should have no impact on the rules?

So if I took a summer job as a trail guide at the grand cannon, rode horses and donkeys up and down the mountain, and got paid for it, I would be considered a pro?

I don't think so.

USEF isn't going after these type of people.

Now I know of a person that owns a barn, gives lessons, trains horses, buys and sells horses, and shows as an ammy. Never met the person, but just have heard, this is the type of person I would think USEF is going after.

There is a difference between being 'the type of person that USEF goes after' and being within the rules.

If you are a trail guide I think you fall both within the letter and the spirit of the rules, because you are essentially getting paid to chaperone people while they ride: you are the professional manning the riding operation and getting them safely in and out of the canyon.

As for "the type of jobs USEF governs," they govern every job as far as USEF amateur status is involved.
If Michael Bloomberg hires me to clean Gracie Mansion, I can not then subsequently jet off to Fla to ride Georgina's horse at WEF. Or take one of her horses on a trail ride. If someone is my employer, I can't go ride their horses.

What the rule IS is different from whether or not USEF will likely grant someone in the OPs situation an exception.

In this situation I certainly hope (and expect) they will.

findeight
Jul. 13, 2009, 08:42 AM
Well if you ride good and win alot, you might get a protest, if you suck? Nobody cares;).

But, in OPs case, if the university is paying for use of the horses, I don't see any kind of problem and, frankly, don't see much even if they did own them since that Ranger or archeaologist are not being paid to ride...a little different then that carriage driver question where they are paid to drive the horse.

By all means check with USEF for clarification if you wish.

And it is NOT a ridiculous rule judging by the number of shammys busted now almost monthly judging by the list in the back of the USEF magazine.

If some people did not cheat so friggin much, we would not need the rule. But there are still "book keepers" out there riding 6 to 8 a day at home. Too bad the innocents get swept up in the net with the sharks...but that's the way it has to be to keep at least some of the sharks away.

Trixie
Jul. 13, 2009, 08:44 AM
Call the USEF.



The job in question is not governed by the USEF, so should have no impact on the rules?

Most jobs are not "governed" by the USEF - and the USEF isn't in the business of governing jobs at all. That has no bearing on following the rules.


So if I took a summer job as a trail guide at the grand cannon, rode horses and donkeys up and down the mountain, and got paid for it, I would be considered a pro?

Yup, sorry, that's ABSOLUTELY a professional activity. You're acting in a professional capacity on horseback, TEACHING, and receiving remuneration.

I disagree with those that say "Just do it and ignore the rules." I think THAT violates the spirit of the rulebook far more than riding as a mode of transportation as an archaeologist.

findeight
Jul. 13, 2009, 09:32 AM
There is ( think it is still there) an exemption for "camp counselor", pertaining to kid day camps that include other general camp activities not restricted to horses.

But not one for somebody in the saddle all day specifically supervising (and offering advice) to dudes on trail rides who pay the guide's employer for the guides services.

That is also different from our archeaologist.

grandprixjump
Jul. 13, 2009, 04:58 PM
Personally I don't think the driver's out taking tourists around as a tour guide should be called a pro. But the people being paid extra to TRAIN the new horses for street work, IE, taking out horses with either a crash cart (something that if broken isn't expensive, or easily fixed) or a carriage NOT TAKING PASSENGERS. They are training the horse, and are being PAID to train the horses.

omare
Jul. 13, 2009, 05:03 PM
a. Accepts remuneration for riding, driving, showing, training, schooling or
conducting clinics or seminars.

I would not think it would affect your status --but it will certinaly be interesting to hear if the USAEq thinks otherwise.

To me you are not being paid to "ride" -but rather to be a park ranger, archelogist etc. It seems riding is incidental to the job you are being paid for and not the reason you are being paid.

In contrast, the paper clip counter is in essence being paid to ride-the paper clip counting is not the reason they are being paid.

Sing Mia Song
Jul. 13, 2009, 05:17 PM
Personally I don't think the driver's out taking tourists around as a tour guide should be called a pro.

What if the tourist carriage driver's chosen equestrian sport was competitive driving? USEF does not grant discipline-specific amateur status--if you are a pro hunter rider, you are also a pro for every other discipline, including competitive driving (no matter how badly you might suck at it). If you are a pro carriage driver, then you're a pro for every other discipline, including hunters.

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that we should just do away with amateur versus professional completely. You can't write a rule to cover every eventuality. The only way to prevent shamateurs is to get rid of amateur status altogether.

grandprixjump
Jul. 13, 2009, 06:10 PM
driving your car to and from work would make you a "pro" in the NASCAR world!!!

Driving YOUR OWN car, that you completely pay for, have title to, pay for maintenance of, etc. You could be an ammy. Driving a Taxi, Limo, Shuttle, School Bus, etc. Would make you a Pro, your being PAID to drive.

And I do agree they need to get rid of Ammy rules, the main reason I see for Shamateurs is MONEY, the only real money available at the lower levels is as an Ammy, the level 3 Classics, etc. If they did away with the Ammy Status and didn't allow cross entries to the different classics, EVEN by rider, that would limit the FAKES, if you show in the Grand Prix, your not eligible for the level 3 Classic that week, So you show in the classics or Prix's with your best horse each week, but have to show your other horses in the level classes. Multiple entries allowed at each level, and maybe allow, ONE LEVEL up or down, but NO GP and same rider in a $10k level 3 class

danceronice
Jul. 13, 2009, 06:10 PM
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that we should just do away with amateur versus professional completely. You can't write a rule to cover every eventuality. The only way to prevent shamateurs is to get rid of amateur status altogether.

In dance, while pro-am students have restrictions (and are called "student amateurs", not "amateurs"), as far as "pro" versus "am" goes, an amateur becomes a pro when they declare they are a pro or when they enter a competition as a professional. They had an income rule, then they tried a percentage income rule, and then, once they became an IOC sport, gave up and let amateurs make money so that people who didn't suck stayed amateur longer.

OP: I cannot see how this violates the letter or the spirit. You're being hired as an archaeologist. They happen to be conducting this survey on horseback instead of on foot or on an ATV or by air or whatever. They would presumably have hired you even if your only riding qualification was you aren't violently allergic to horses and you can sit on one without falling off. They've obviously determined this is the best way to reach the sites and conduct the survey, presumably considering what kind of impact motor vehicles would make and that foot is impractical/implausible.

Really, if USAEq calls this a violation, I would think this WOULD be the one to, figuratively speaking, make a federal case out of, because if they say it IS a violation, they're actually saying that you can't do your non-horse-related job, which presumably helps pay for your riding like any other 9-5 work. There isn't even any kind of gray area as with the carriage drivers, who MIGHT maybe be competing in driving, or the trail guide whose job is contingent on their ability to ride and to handle non-riders on horseback.

FrenchFrytheEqHorse
Jul. 13, 2009, 06:12 PM
The OP mentions this job will be taking place in another country. Does the amateur rule apply even if the activity took place outside of USEF sanctioned territory (the US)?

Seal Harbor
Jul. 13, 2009, 06:16 PM
my take on this - to the OP, is don't worry about it. The job in question is not governed by the USEF, so should have no impact on the rules?

So if I took a summer job as a trail guide at the grand cannon, rode horses and donkeys up and down the mountain, and got paid for it, I would be considered a pro?

I don't think so.

USEF isn't going after these type of people.

Now I know of a person that owns a barn, gives lessons, trains horses, buys and sells horses, and shows as an ammy. Never met the person, but just have heard, this is the type of person I would think USEF is going after.
An amateur can do these things owns a barn, buys and sells horses - what they can't do is act as agent for someone else's horse in a sale or give lessons and train horses other than their own.

Trixie
Jul. 13, 2009, 06:35 PM
Personally I don't think the driver's out taking tourists around as a tour guide should be called a pro. But the people being paid extra to TRAIN the new horses for street work, IE, taking out horses with either a crash cart (something that if broken isn't expensive, or easily fixed) or a carriage NOT TAKING PASSENGERS. They are training the horse, and are being PAID to train the horses.

Perhaps in your opinion, but "drives" is still the wording specifically used in the rules. In fact, the very first part of the rules.


a. Accepts remuneration for riding, driving, showing, training, schooling or conducting clinics or seminars.

meupatdoes
Jul. 13, 2009, 06:53 PM
Driving YOUR OWN car, that you completely pay for, have title to, pay for maintenance of, etc. You could be an ammy. Driving a Taxi, Limo, Shuttle, School Bus, etc. Would make you a Pro, your being PAID to drive.

And I do agree they need to get rid of Ammy rules, the main reason I see for Shamateurs is MONEY, the only real money available at the lower levels is as an Ammy, the level 3 Classics, etc. If they did away with the Ammy Status and didn't allow cross entries to the different classics, EVEN by rider, that would limit the FAKES, if you show in the Grand Prix, your not eligible for the level 3 Classic that week, So you show in the classics or Prix's with your best horse each week, but have to show your other horses in the level classes. Multiple entries allowed at each level, and maybe allow, ONE LEVEL up or down, but NO GP and same rider in a $10k level 3 class

You could drive somebody else's car, that they completely pay for, as long as you aren't getting paid in any capacity by that same somebody else.

poltroon
Jul. 13, 2009, 07:04 PM
I am a stickler for rules, but I think our archaeologist's amateur standing is safe. The university obviously doesn't give a whit for your equestrian prowess nor does it benefit from your riding.