Still an amateur or not?

[daisyfields]

I'm not as saavy with the amateur rules as many here so hopefully someone can help me out. I believe I'm still considered one, but better to check. I've been helping my trainer put together a freestyle demonstration by chreographing the freestyles and the music, and by helping the kids learn the freestyles. I haven't taight the kids anything riding wise, just memorizing and understanding their freestyles. In return I'm recieveing some free lessons and rides. Under USDF/USEF rules would I still be considered an amateur?

[Janet]

I'm not as saavy with the amateur rules as many here so hopefully someone can help me out. I believe I'm still considered one, but better to check. I've been helping my trainer put together a freestyle demonstration by chreographing the freestyles and the music, and by helping the kids learn the freestyles. I haven't taight the kids anything riding wise, just memorizing and understanding their freestyles. In return I'm recieveing some free lessons and rides. Under USDF/USEF rules would I still be considered an amateur?
When you say "free rides", are they on horses belonging to, or boarded by, the trainer?

The relevant rule would seem to be
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.

[papony]

No matter what feedback you get from here, I would call USEF to be sure.

[daisyfields]

They are on horses used by the trainer for lessons. They belong to the stable where she works. It seems like I would no longer be considered an ammy, kind of crazy imho for makeing a few freestyles for a friend, but I'll call and check to make sure I guess.

[samd]

I think that if its a one time deal it should not affect you. I know for a few other disciplines unless your getting paid to ride/work for someone then it doesn't afffect your status.

[daisyfields]

I think that if its a one time deal it should not affect you. I know for a few other disciplines unless your getting paid to ride/work for someone then it doesn't afffect your status.

Hopefully:yes: Right now it's a one time thing, but the thereapeutic place she works at may do another fundraiser in the fall, and so I'd choreograph the freestyles for that demonstartion too. I'll have to call I guess; the rule quoted above isn't really clear so this week I'll call or e-mail and find out for sure. I really hope it doesn't change anything though.

[Applecore]

I've been in a similar situation and always kind of wondered about it. I think the catch here, if I read it correctly, is that *riding* IS the renumeration for the freestyle work. You're not getting paid anything for the freestyle instruction, right? So essentially, you're getting to ride and teaching kids about freestyles...all for free? No other compensation changing hands? Plus, it sounds like the horses aren't owned, boarded or trained by the trainer you're working for, if they're owned/boarded by the facility (although lesson horses are kind of a grey area as far as being 'trained' by the instructor).

In my situation, I was working off lessons doing groom work *only* - never rode/lunged/taught, etc. and the lessons were on my own horse or a friend's horse (not owned boarded or trained by said trainer).

Agree, though, always wise to call USDF to double check. I'd just be really surprised if that took your AA status away, unless I'm missing something.

[Coreene]

It is USEF you'd check with, not USDF.

[slc2]

Renumeration includes trading rides or lessons for services rendered, barter, you-scratch-my-back-i-scratch-yours, etc.

If the freestyle was for a charity event or therapeutic riding school, and won't be used in competition, that might be different.

[papony]

SLC2 - i wish you were right.

I was asked by my GMO to donate a "lesson" to their silent auction as a fund raisier. I am an AA who doesn't teach or train,etc but gets a lot of requests for lessons since i do well at the FEI levels. I would love to teach ocaisionally, but because of my work committments, i just don't have the time to do it often enough to make it worth giving up my amateur status. My GMO thought it would be cool to offer something that's not normally available. I checked with USEF and was told, in a rather snippy fashion that USEF would yank my amateur status if i taught even for charity, because if i was good enough to attract students, I should be a professional. When I reminded USEF that the rules stated that AA status depended on renumeration and not quality or demand, I was informed essentially, that the good will I would receive for such a benevolent act was considered renumeration and that if i wanted to change that I had to submit a formal rules change...... which i am planning to do btw.

So the bottom line is that you cannot give a lesson even if the money goes directly to a worthy 501C(3) and the instructor does not see a dime of money, barter or even token of appreciation. Pretty sad.

[Quest52]

USEF would yank my amateur status if i taught even for charity, because if i was good enough to attract students, I should be a professional.

This is an interesting statement used.

So in their minds, if I assist my fellow barn-mates for free, but I'm still "good enough to attract students" then I should be a professional.

This is interesting because, not too long ago, I brought up a thread talking about this. Talking about riding before as a professional and then no longer holding that job, and still then riding open, because I felt that it wasn't fair.

From that comment made by USEF, wouldn't that seem like that was the feeling tha was given?

[JMurray]

This is an interesting statement used.

So in their minds, if I assist my fellow barn-mates for free, but I'm still "good enough to attract students" then I should be a professional.

This is interesting because, not too long ago, I brought up a thread talking about this. Talking about riding before as a professional and then no longer holding that job, and still then riding open, because I felt that it wasn't fair.

From that comment made by USEF, wouldn't that seem like that was the feeling tha was given?

Are you interpreting this then that if an AA is good enough to be a professional then they should be one or show Open and not AA. I don't know how that could be enforced or a rule could be written in such a way that it would be understood clearly where the line is drawn. The rule is very clearly written now, but the USEF response to PApony muddies the waters a bit.

Or I am misunderstanding you, so apologies. But interesting to think about.

[Quest52]

In my pervious thread I was just talking about what I had previously done and been qualified as a professional, but had not had that position for years... so technically I would qualify as AA, but that I dind't feel comfortable riding AA and have decided to ride Open because I feel it is more "fair"

I don't think you're misinterpreting me at all. I'm not suggesting that rules should be changed, but just that it was interesting that the OP got a response like she did from the USEF which seemed to follow my thoughts about riding and showing.

By no means do I think one has to do that... but personally since I've ridden professionally and trained professionally previously, I find it only fair that I compete in Open... not exploit the rules.

[Whisper]

Do double-check with the USEF, but my understanding is that getting the practice rides would be allowed for an amateur, but getting free lessons would be considered compensation.

[slc2]

papony, i really think you are right. I think the organization is determined to make sure the 'amateur' designation really means something.

[fatorangehorse]

sadly PA pony you ARE right. I am an amateur who does nothing close to collecting $$ or trade of any kind for anything. Last year after that pony club in Iowa was hit SO hard by the F5 tornado - many lost homes, a number for horses were killed - families torn apart etc. . . Anyway I called the USEF to see if I offered my teaching services for free - in order to raise $$ for the club. They said no and were not very nice about it.

These types of examples are insane to me. We should be incenting the horse community to help eachother. A shame in my mind.

I do help some other local amateurs and kids because they ask. I never accept $$. I won't let them pay for gas or buy me lunch - because I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression.

[papony]

jmurray - the rules clearly state that AA status is based on renumeration not ability or show record so, in theory, a rider could make the Olympic Team and still be an AA as long as he/she didn't teach/train/etc for money/barter/etc. However, the verbal feedback I received from USEF was different.

This is where the fairness debate comes in. If we start to legislate AA status based on proficiency, where does one draw the line? Does that mean if you get three 70%s at a level you have to show open until you move up? I actually think it is good for the sport to see legitimate AAs doing well.

There is no question there are all sorts of AAs. Some have jobs, some don't, some ride full time but don't get paid for it, some fit horses around a myriad of work, family, community responsibilities, and ride whenever they can..... some buy fancy trained horses, some train their horses themselves.....there are many scenarios. Also, the level of AA competiveness is different at different levels in different parts of the country. Showing in a PSG AA class in Wellington is extremely competitive. You usually wont win if you can't score in the high 60s or low 70s. So its not an easy answer.

I agree with fatorangepony. I would love to be able to give back to the community by passing along what I have learned over the years and using it to raise money for charity at the same time. It's just that I'd rather keep my AA status while I am juggling the horse/career/charity board/etc balancing act. I do intend to ask for a rule change to allow this so if anyone wants to be a part of this effort, feel free to pm me.

[Whisper]

I believe the reason why they don't allow you to teach lessons for charity in that situation is that they feel the rider is paying for the lessons, and you are donating the money, even though you didn't have the funds actually in your possession.

If you teach lessons for a charitable organization without pay, ie. theraputic riding, I'm not sure if that is allowed or not, but it's a different situation than donating a lesson (as something of value) in a raffle or silent auction or something.

[Equi88]

so, in theory, a rider could make the Olympic Team and still be an AA

Didn't it used to be, that only Amateurs were allowed to start in the Olympics...?

daisyfields:
How about insted of getting free lessons for your work, just pay 1$. That way it's not compensation for your work, but simply a great deal on a lesson package.;)

[daisyfields]

So the bottom line is that you cannot give a lesson even if the money goes directly to a worthy 501C(3) and the instructor does not see a dime of money, barter or even token of appreciation. Pretty sad.

I'm not actually teaching lessons. I simply told them the freestyles and helped them remember a couple times so I could videotape them to make the music. The actual work that could be construed as that of a professional I guess, is the chreographing of the freestyles and making of music for them since it could be considered a service. I really do hate to think it would change my status, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[daisyfields]

Didn't it used to be, that only Amateurs were allowed to start in the Olympics...?

daisyfields:
How about insted of getting free lessons for your work, just pay 1$. That way it's not compensation for your work, but simply a great deal on a lesson package.;)

:lol: Thank you for that idea; I think I'll do just that :winkgrin:

[Dressage Art]

I would love to be able to give back to the community by passing along what I have learned over the years and using it to raise money for charity at the same time. It's just that I'd rather keep my AA status.Become a judge. You can still keep your AA status and donate your judging services if you like.

To OP. I know several professional freestyles designers who show as AAs. They have choreography sessions with their clients. So I don't think that should affect your AA status if you are a pro freestyle designer.

[Janet]

I'm not actually teaching lessons. I simply told them the freestyles and helped them remember a couple times so I could videotape them to make the music. The actual work that could be construed as that of a professional I guess, is the chreographing of the freestyles and making of music for them since it could be considered a service. I really do hate to think it would change my status, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Helping with the freestyles isn't an issue. That is clearly a non-amateur-status-affecting activity, even if paid.

What is QUESTIONABLE is whether or not RIDING horses owned or controlled by the person for whom you are "receiving renumeration in another capacity" affects your amateur status.

This is quite different from what other people are discussing, actually TEACHING for the benefit of a charity.

[carovet]

Didn't it used to be, that only Amateurs were allowed to start in the Olympics...?

daisyfields:
How about insted of getting free lessons for your work, just pay 1$. That way it's not compensation for your work, but simply a great deal on a lesson package.;)

such a really really good idea!

but i'd write a check, not pay cash :D

BUT i'd guess the dollar amount of the discount would be considered renumeration :(

[ESG]

SLC2 - i wish you were right.

I was asked by my GMO to donate a "lesson" to their silent auction as a fund raisier. I am an AA who doesn't teach or train,etc but gets a lot of requests for lessons since i do well at the FEI levels. I would love to teach ocaisionally, but because of my work committments, i just don't have the time to do it often enough to make it worth giving up my amateur status. My GMO thought it would be cool to offer something that's not normally available. I checked with USEF and was told, in a rather snippy fashion that USEF would yank my amateur status if i taught even for charity, because if i was good enough to attract students, I should be a professional. When I reminded USEF that the rules stated that AA status depended on remuneration and not quality or demand, I was informed essentially that the good will I would receive for such a benevolent act was considered remuneration and that if i wanted to change that I had to submit a formal rules change...... which i am planning to do btw.

So the bottom line is that you cannot give a lesson even if the money goes directly to a worthy 501C(3) and the instructor does not see a dime of money, barter or even token of appreciation. Pretty sad.

"Good will" does not have a proveable monetary value. Whoever told you that was dead assed wrong. You can teach for free as much as you like, "free" being the operative word.

[fatorangehorse]

I can donate lessons but not lesson fees to charity. Is that right? I know I need to check with the USEF etc. but I am I understanding correctly?

[Dressage Art]

Helping with the freestyles isn't an issue. That is clearly a non-amateur-status-affecting activity, even if paid.

What is QUESTIONABLE is whether or not RIDING horses owned or controlled by the person for whom you are "receiving renumeration in another capacity" affects your amateur status.May be in this case, there is 2 separate issues at stake? First one is helping with freestyles. Second one getting a free lesson on a horse that you do not own? We established that helping with freestyles doesn't affect the AA status.

Now, what about getting a free (or discounted) lesson on the horse that you do not own?

PS: Janet, did you get your TD accreditation already?

[Dressage Art]

I can donate lessons but not lesson fees to charity. Is that right? I know I need to check with the USEF etc. but I am I understanding correctly?That's an easy one: any remuneration $ that is paid for you to give a lesson or to ride a horse = you are a pro = you loose your AA status. It doesn't matter what you do with this $ afterwards: give to the charity or put it in your own pocket.

You CAN teach for free and ride for free and still be an AA.

[Janet]

PS: Janet, did you get your TD accreditation already?

USEF LOC meets sometime in August.

[papony]

Dressage Art - GREAT IDEA!!!

ESG - I agree with you. I am just relaying what I was told. Fighting with USEF is just not a highest and best use of my time, so I just dropped it for now.

[Dressage Art]

USEF LOC meets sometime in August.Good luck!

[ESG]

Dressage Art - GREAT IDEA!!!

ESG - I agree with you. I am just relaying what I was told. Fighting with USEF is just not a highest and best use of my time, so I just dropped it for now.

I don't blame you in the least. I don't enjoy beating my head against a brick wall, either. :winkgrin:

[daisyfields]

May be in this case, there is 2 separate issues at stake? First one is helping with freestyles. Second one getting a free lesson on a horse that you do not own? We established that helping with freestyles doesn't affect the AA status.

Now, what about getting a free (or discounted) lesson on the horse that you do not own?

PS: Janet, did you get your TD accreditation already?

The free lesson however, is renumeration for the freestyle help, not a seperate act, so since the freestyle stuff is okay no matter what, wouldn't that mean the free lesson is too? I take lessons on this horse regularly, paying lessons, but got a few free lessons this month as a thank you for the help.

[Janet]

The free lesson however, is renumeration for the freestyle help, not a seperate act, so since the freestyle stuff is okay no matter what, wouldn't that mean the free lesson is too? I take lessons on this horse regularly, paying lessons, but got a few free lessons this month as a thank you for the help.
By the letter of the rule, once the barn/trainer gives you remunerations for ANYTHING (even completely non horse related), you can't ride ANY horses owned/controlled by the barn/trainer, even if you are paying for the lesson.

So the point is, that if you don't get a free lesson (or ANYTHING) for your help with the freestyles, then you are OK, and can continue to pay for your lessons.

But if you get ANY kind of remuneration for the freestyle help, you can no longer rider their horses, even if you are paying for the lesson.

That is how it is literally written (and becomes a really stupid "Catch-22"), but clearly isn't what the rule was intended to deal with.

That is why you need to CALL USEF and ask them. Neither my opinion, nor any non-official opinion counts in this case. You need to know how the USEF interprets it.

[meupatdoes]

SLC2 - i wish you were right.

I was asked by my GMO to donate a "lesson" to their silent auction as a fund raisier. I am an AA who doesn't teach or train,etc but gets a lot of requests for lessons since i do well at the FEI levels. I would love to teach ocaisionally, but because of my work committments, i just don't have the time to do it often enough to make it worth giving up my amateur status. My GMO thought it would be cool to offer something that's not normally available. I checked with USEF and was told, in a rather snippy fashion that USEF would yank my amateur status if i taught even for charity, because if i was good enough to attract students, I should be a professional. When I reminded USEF that the rules stated that AA status depended on renumeration and not quality or demand, I was informed essentially, that the good will I would receive for such a benevolent act was considered renumeration and that if i wanted to change that I had to submit a formal rules change...... which i am planning to do btw.

So the bottom line is that you cannot give a lesson even if the money goes directly to a worthy 501C(3) and the instructor does not see a dime of money, barter or even token of appreciation. Pretty sad.

The good will counts as remuneration???!
Are they SERIOUS?!

I am an amateur who is happy to teach the occasional **free** lesson or volunteer to do the occasional **free** training ride at a standardbred rescue (which happens to be a 501(c)(3) -is this supposed to count as 'riding for charity'?).
And now this is supposed to make me a pro because of "good will"??!


I think the person you talked to on the phone was a dolt.

If the USEF wants to consider "good will" an ammy status disqualifier, they should put it in the rules.
Unless I am missing something, it ain't there, so as far as I'm concerned that lady on the phone can open up the rule book and do a little refresher.

[twnkltoz]

I think it's ridiculous for USEF employees to be passing judgement on what they *think* you should do, not going by the book. You should be able to teach all the free lessons you want! As for the OP...definitely call USEF, but my understanding goes with what Janet said...so I think you're out of luck. :(

[Dressage Art]

That is how it is literally written (and becomes a really stupid "Catch-22"), but clearly isn't what the rule was intended to deal with.So let me make it clear: say that if Joe the Handyman fixed the fence at the barn and the barn owner gave him his very first lesson on her pony for free as a “thank you” = Joe the Handyman is considered to be a professional by USEF? Even if he never rode on a horse before?

This is stupid.

[daisyfields]

So let me make it clear: say that if Joe the Handyman fixed the fence at the barn and the barn owner gave him his very first lesson on her pony for free as a “thank you” = Joe the Handyman is considered to be a professional by USEF? Even if he never rode on a horse before?

This is stupid.

Nope, but if Joe the Handyman enjoyed the lesson and decided to continue learning by paying for them then he would be a professional:no: as I understand by Janet's explanation.

[Janet]

So let me make it clear: say that if Joe the Handyman fixed the fence at the barn and the barn owner gave him his very first lesson on her pony for free as a “thank you” = Joe the Handyman is considered to be a professional by USEF? Even if he never rode on a horse before?
As the rule is written, literally, yes. he would no longer be an amateur

This is stupid. Yes Very stupid.

But the rule itself is needed to prevent the "paid as a book keeper but rides 5 horses a day" loophole.

If I could think of a way to eliminate the stupid unintended consequences, while still closing the loophole that had been abused in the past, I would propose it as a rule change. But I can't think of a way.

[Dressage Art]

But the rule itself is needed to prevent the "paid as a book keeper but rides 5 horses a day" loophole.
If I could think of a way to eliminete the stupid unintended consequences, while still closing the loophole that had been abused in the past, I would propose it as a rule change. But I can't think of a way.you are talking about a rider who is riding 5 horses per day for the Barn Owner and gets paid $ for riding them, but it's covertly called the "bookkeeping services" thus the rider still claims as AA?

But the OP doesn't get paid for riding 1-5 horses per day. The free lesson is her PAYMENT.

I think its 2 different issues. So may be that rule doesn’t apply? I would love for you to ask about that situation at the TD clinic if you have one coming up.

[Janet]

you are talking about a rider who is riding 5 horses per day for the Barn Owner and gets paid $ for riding them, but it's covertly called the "bookkeeping services" thus the rider still claims as AA? yes, The is what led to this rule in the first place

But the OP doesn't get paid for riding 1-5 horses per day. The free lesson is her PAYMENT.

I think its 2 different issues.
OK- I agree these are two different issues. But there is a big grey area in the middle, where the distinction between "paying to ride" and "being paid to ride" can get blurred. _I_ can't figure out a rule to clearly separate the two extremes, without offering a whole lot of loopholes in that middle gray area.

So may be that rule doesn’t apply? I would love for you to ask about that situation at the TD clinic if you have one coming up. More likely to be relevant at a Steward's clinic than a TD's clinic.

[twnkltoz]

In the case of Joe the Handyman...say the BO is giving him "lessons" as payment. Say he starts getting five "lessons" per day on her clients' horses. I can see where that could be a problem, because he could be training those horses and she's just saying she's giving him lessons as payment. It's unfortunate that it has to be this way, but I guess I can see why the rule is the way it is.