PDA

View Full Version : Has anyone ever had to defend their amateur status?



alteringwego
Oct. 10, 2009, 01:59 PM
Recently a trainer accused me of being a professional. My trainer and I laughed at the allegation because despite the fact that I was having a very good day that day, the previous day I couldn't find a spot to save my life.
The story: 2 years ago I purchased a 3 yo. This year I had hoped to start my now 5 yo in the pre-greens but he decided instead to try to kill himself and rehab took the entire year. I have nothing else to ride so have been at the mercy of friends to loan me critters (some great, some not so much) to show. Now we're not talking show 30 shows this year, I'm talking 2! I've shown 2 shows this year. So at the last show, the trainer who accused me of being a pro said something to the steward (didn't formally protest) who in turn said something to me. To avoid confrontation I showed unjudged. After all, I had stepped down from the adults to pre-adults (legal in our association if on a different horse). I was doing quite well (fabulous horse) and my trainer suggested that it might be from angst that I was really an adult rider in the pre-adults.
My trainer suggested that I write a letter to my local association to clear up any rumors that might be circulating about my amateur status and if need be, have the people whose horses I borrowed also write a statement to the effect that I had not received renumeration for riding their horses.
Has anyone else ever had to deal with this? I felt blindsided and honestly kind of hurt that someone would protest me. I've worked very hard to get where I am and frankly without very much money. Thoughts?

TSWJB
Oct. 10, 2009, 02:30 PM
i would probably write a letter to the USEF telling them of your experiences. if you are an amateur, you should not have showed unjudged. you should have shown as an amateur. but anyway to avoid future confict with the show steward i would contact the USEF and ask them for advice.
if you are not being paid, you can show as many horses as you want for other customers of your trainer. if you have nothing to hide, hold your head up high and ignore the comments (that is after you contact the USEf for advice)
i tend to think its the guilty amateurs that get bent out of shape when their status is questioned. they seem to go nuts! and next time, DO NOT show unjudged. that makes you look guilty.

CBoylen
Oct. 10, 2009, 02:56 PM
I once had a steward come up to me and "kindly advise" me with some information that made it clear he hadn't read the rulebook recently, if ever. I thanked him for his concern and advice, and walked away. If you are not in the wrong you do not need to explain or defend yourself.

enjoytheride
Oct. 10, 2009, 03:02 PM
I agree with cboylen. Have you ever been a pro or done things that would make you a pro? If not ignore it, show judged, make sure you are in the correct divisions, and enjoy your day.

BridalBridle
Oct. 10, 2009, 03:37 PM
Nope....they see me ride and wouldn't question it for one minute:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol ::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

PNWjumper
Oct. 10, 2009, 04:43 PM
I left the barn I grew up at and (as it can) it turned ugly. I heard that one of the ladies from that barn was going to "destroy me at any cost." Really? What, are we 10 year olds??? Between my [former] trainer's wife and this woman I figured they would do whatever they could to discredit me to anyone who would listen. They actually approached a bunch of my competitors and told them if they were tired of losing to me they should turn me in. Just about every person they approached found me to warn me about it (and we all got a good laugh about it!).

Anyhow, the woman went to the steward at a show and told her that I was a trainer. The steward came to me to warn me that it seemed like a person had a personal vendetta against me as it had even been obvious to her. She told me not to worry about it and that the woman would have to file a formal protest and provide proof that I had accepted money from people for training purposes....which I had not and therefore had nothing to worry about.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. So if you're not involved in any activity that would make you a professional then you have nothing to worry about. I don't think you should have shown unjudged....there's absolutely no reason for it. CBoylen and enjoytheride are correct, next time ignore it all and just enjoy the show in whatever divisions you're qualified to ride in.

Janet
Oct. 10, 2009, 05:33 PM
To the OP- are you talking about USEF shows, or non-USEF shows? It probably makes a difference.

The important point that isn't QUITE clear in the original-

have the people whose horses I borrowed also write a statement to the effect that I had not received renumeration for riding their horses.

Have you received any remuneration form them (or from your trainer) for ANYTHING? baby sitting? grooming? braiding? book keeping?

alteringwego
Oct. 10, 2009, 06:52 PM
non-usef shows. The owners of the first borrowed horse paid me a lease fee for another horse. From the second borrowed horse's owner, nothing.
Guess in hind sight it did make me look guilty to ride unjudged; hadn't looked at it that way. I'm non confrontational to a fault and that seemed like the way to get to ride without rustling too many feathers. And as rarely as I get to show it seemed like the way to go.

Trixie
Oct. 10, 2009, 07:14 PM
The burden of proof is on the accuser. So if you're not involved in any activity that would make you a professional then you have nothing to worry about. I don't think you should have shown unjudged....there's absolutely no reason for it. CBoylen and enjoytheride are correct, next time ignore it all and just enjoy the show in whatever divisions you're qualified to ride in.

Agree. I would not go writing letters. If you aren't doing anything wrong, that's it, end of story. If they have an actual gripe, they will file a formal protest.

Jumphigh83
Oct. 10, 2009, 08:29 PM
:rolleyes:

meupatdoes
Oct. 12, 2009, 05:23 AM
non-usef shows. The owners of the first borrowed horse paid me a lease fee for another horse. From the second borrowed horse's owner, nothing.
Guess in hind sight it did make me look guilty to ride unjudged; hadn't looked at it that way. I'm non confrontational to a fault and that seemed like the way to get to ride without rustling too many feathers. And as rarely as I get to show it seemed like the way to go.

If the owners of the first horse paid you a lease fee, I believe that makes you a pro, the same way that if the owners of the first horse paid you to babysit or do their taxes and you rode their horse, you would also be considered a pro. I do not believe there is an exception to the payment rule for leasing, because otherwise trainers could "lease" horses to people and then give 'free' lessons or training rides. I mean, I could "lease" my horse to somebody for $75 for one day, and then give them a 'free' lesson; or lease him for $1,500 for one month and give a couple 'free' lessons and ride him 'for free' in the schooling hunters before they did him in the pre adults.
If I wanted to set up a whole business I could buy an old retired rescue, park him in the paddock, and have all of my customers part lease him for $1,500 per share per month. And then train them and their horses for free, of course.

If your lease was recorded with USEF the other people will have proof.

Also if those horses are in your trainer's program, and you get any breaks on board or any money from your trainer for braiding your trainer's horses, doing stalls, etc, you are a pro if you ride horses in his program. Even if your board deal is (just as an example) that you live in the apt above the barn and do all the stalls in exchange for board, if you ride any of the horses in your trainer's program you are considered a pro.

So, sorry to tell you, but I think the other trainer was right. You count as a pro because you got paid for something (ANYTHING) by the owners of a horse you rode. It's a sucky rule, but the good news is there are tons of 2'6" and 3' classes in the open divisions.

Janet
Oct. 12, 2009, 06:38 AM
If the owners of the first horse paid you a lease fee, I believe that makes you a pro, the same way that if the owners of the first horse paid you to babysit or do their taxes and you rode their horse, you would also be considered a pro.


I am not sure about that.

GR 1306 (which covers indierect payment) refers to "employer". If they pay you to babysit, or keep the books, they are your employer. But I don't think paying a lease fee makes them your "employer".

Best bet is to call and ask.

AnotherRound
Oct. 12, 2009, 09:01 AM
It absolutely does. If you are renumerated, you are pro. The person who compensated you (paid your fee, whatever) employed you. This isn't a grey area. You have to be very careful about ammy status, if you want to show in it, and if you are receiving goods, deals, fees, discounts, housing, board, items, trailering rides, a computer, free pool time on hot days, compensation of any kind in return for your services or horses or efforts, you are renumerated, and you are pro.

AnotherRound
Oct. 12, 2009, 09:06 AM
But I don't think paying a lease fee makes them your "employer".


Selling horses for profit doesn't make the purchasers your employers, either, but it sure does make you pro. So does leasing out a horse, selling your rides in return for anything. Its not fun, but its important not to re-word things so they sound innocent. Its important to be clear with yourself and recognize what you are doing and how that defines you in the horse showing world.

Trixie
Oct. 12, 2009, 09:32 AM
Selling horses for profit doesn't make the purchasers your employers, either, but it sure does make you pro.

That's incorrect. You can sell your own horses all day long for profit. You just can't commission off someone else's. Leasing out a horse itself doesn't, either. However, leasing out a horse and riding horses for the lessor may be a gray area.

I'd call the USEF and check, that way you'll have a clear understanding of what the rules are.



free pool time on hot days,

Seriously? How do you even use $300 worth of "pool time"?

Sing Mia Song
Oct. 12, 2009, 09:35 AM
Selling horses for profit doesn't make the purchasers your employers, either, but it sure does make you pro.

Selling horses for profit does not make you a pro. Taking commission on horses you sell for other people makes you a pro. Very different.

I'm going to take the position that paying the lease fee does not make the OP a pro, under GR 1306, section 2c

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

Bonus points if the lease fee was less than $300, although here you get into a bit of a gray area—it the lease fee a “token of appreciation” or is it “partial support?”

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.

Of course, this is all a lovely exercise in interpretation, but it means nothing in terms of legality. I'd say call USEF and ask their opinion, or prepare to be protested.

fancyfooted
Oct. 12, 2009, 10:46 AM
AR, if leasing out your horse made you a pro, then the majority of all owners would be pros. Really. Look at all the ponies and Eq horses that are leased out over and over again. Some are still owned by their original "kid" who is now an ammie. So, leasing doesn't make you a pro ;)

Janet
Oct. 12, 2009, 11:04 AM
Selling horses for profit doesn't make the purchasers your employers, either, but it sure does make you pro.

Can you please tell me where in the rules is says that
-selling horses (that you own) for a profit
or
-leasing a horse to someone elses (with or without a lease fee)
is an "activity which makes one a professional"?

superpony123
Oct. 12, 2009, 11:15 AM
It absolutely does. If you are renumerated, you are pro. The person who compensated you (paid your fee, whatever) employed you. This isn't a grey area. You have to be very careful about ammy status, if you want to show in it, and if you are receiving goods, deals, fees, discounts, housing, board, items, trailering rides, a computer, free pool time on hot days, compensation of any kind in return for your services or horses or efforts, you are renumerated, and you are pro.

Maybe I'm wrong, (coming from a junior) but if I recall correctly, small gifts/tokens of appreciation that do not exceed X amount of money are not considered renumeration, for example if i ask Sally to show my horse while i am injured and horsey does so well, i can take sally out to dinner, nothing extremely fancy or expensive, just for the thank you and celebration--sally would not be considered a pro in this case. So, yes, the field of 'compensation' is pretty broad and some things are right and some are wrong, but I am pretty sure the USEF says small gifts (like if I buy sally a bottle of wine--granted it's not some rare 10K bottle hahah) are perfectly okay and do not violate; or i buy her a picture of her showing or something, or anything small like that (the reason i state all of this is because your list spans each side of the spectrum; if I have a pool and sally showed my horse for me, it would be pretty hard to claim inviting sally over for a few swims and making lunch makes sally a pro. buying sally some small item, ie a picture or wine or something, also does not make her a pro)

Vindicated
Oct. 12, 2009, 01:55 PM
We all know that this would not be so confusing if people were HONEST to start with.

I mean really...does anyone even remember what the amateur rule looked like in the beginning?

There should not be a grey area in my opinion. Either you are a pro or you are'nt. If you are making a living or supplementing your income in the (same discipline that you are showing) horse industry-you are a pro.

alteringwego
Oct. 12, 2009, 02:03 PM
spoke to the super-steward in the area this morning. Leasing my horse to lady does not make me a pro. She said that yes, I am an amateur. And yes, she said that people who are ammies lease horses all the time, if they were all pros then we'd have a LOT of pros on our hands. It's not renumeration.
I tried calling USEF this morning but they're observing the Columbus Day holiday. Call tomorrow but to confirm.

AnotherRound
Oct. 12, 2009, 03:05 PM
Can you please tell me where in the rules is says that
-selling horses (that you own) for a profit
or
-leasing a horse to someone elses (with or without a lease fee)
is an "activity which makes one a professional"?

I think I'm wrong, and I apologize. :winkgrin:

alteringwego
Oct. 12, 2009, 03:31 PM
AnotherRound- I take offense at the implication that I'm sneaking around trying to beat the ammie rules. I leased my horse to a person 2 years ago. I was bumming around the horse show hoping to find some catch rides when she offered me her daughter's horse for the adult ammies and local medal. She wasn't charged for it, and if anything I suppose I should have paid her something for the day lease.

alteringwego
Oct. 12, 2009, 03:32 PM
Selling horses for profit doesn't make the purchasers your employers, either, but it sure does make you pro. So does leasing out a horse, selling your rides in return for anything. Its not fun, but its important not to re-word things so they sound innocent. Its important to be clear with yourself and recognize what you are doing and how that defines you in the horse showing world.

AnotherRound- I take offense at the implication that I'm sneaking around trying to beat the ammie rules. I leased my horse to a person 2 years ago. I was bumming around the horse show hoping to find some catch rides when she offered me her daughter's horse for the adult ammies and local medal. She wasn't charged for it, and if anything I suppose I should have paid her something for the day lease.

Sing Mia Song
Oct. 12, 2009, 03:35 PM
spoke to the super-steward in the area this morning. Leasing my horse to lady does not make me a pro.

Ah, this was confusing to me. When you said that one of the people had paid your lease fee, I thought you meant that they leased a horse specifically for you to ride. With the clarification, no, of course it doesn't make you a pro to lease out your horse.

alteringwego
Oct. 12, 2009, 03:39 PM
sorry; re-read that and yes, it did sound confusing. Situation is I own 2 horses; 1 was broken and 1 was leased out to owner A. Saw Owner A at a horse show and she offered to let me ride her daughter's horse in the ammies and local medal since I had nothing. I paid entries (although I think looking at the rule, she could have paid those).

Seal Harbor
Oct. 12, 2009, 04:09 PM
AnotherRound- I take offense at the implication that I'm sneaking around trying to beat the ammie rules. I leased my horse to a person 2 years ago. I was bumming around the horse show hoping to find some catch rides when she offered me her daughter's horse for the adult ammies and local medal. She wasn't charged for it, and if anything I suppose I should have paid her something for the day lease.

Don't worry about it - Another Round is incorrect in her interpretation of the amateur rule in regards to selling or leasing ones own horses.

Coreene
Oct. 12, 2009, 04:41 PM
Moving forward, just a reminder that it is reMUNeration. ;)

Kaelurus
Oct. 12, 2009, 04:56 PM
Moving forward, just a reminder that it is reMUNeration. ;)

:lol::lol::lol: Thank you ;)

meupatdoes
Oct. 12, 2009, 05:41 PM
AR, if leasing out your horse made you a pro, then the majority of all owners would be pros. Really. Look at all the ponies and Eq horses that are leased out over and over again. Some are still owned by their original "kid" who is now an ammie. So, leasing doesn't make you a pro ;)

It is not a question of leasing out the horse, end stop.

It is a question of leasing out a horse, and riding horses owned by the person who wrote you the lease check.

I am of the opinion that if someone writes me a check either for a horse I leased them or sold them, that does not make me a pro, BUT I would ALSO have to wait a year after that check to ride anything they owned to retain amature status. During the year 'sit out' I would feel comfortable riding anyone ELSE's horse for free, but not one of theirs.

The rule is poorly written, for sure.

PineTreeFarm
Oct. 12, 2009, 07:22 PM
It is not a question of leasing out the horse, end stop.

It is a question of leasing out a horse, and riding horses owned by the person who wrote you the lease check.

I am of the opinion that if someone writes me a check either for a horse I leased them or sold them, that does not make me a pro, BUT I would ALSO have to wait a year after that check to ride anything they owned to retain amature status. During the year 'sit out' I would feel comfortable riding anyone ELSE's horse for free, but not one of theirs.

The rule is poorly written, for sure.

Can you point to a section in the rules that supports your position?
If the person leasing the horse is not your employer why would riding a horse that belongs to that person make you a pro?

meupatdoes
Oct. 13, 2009, 02:41 AM
Can you point to a section in the rules that supports your position?
If the person leasing the horse is not your employer why would riding a horse that belongs to that person make you a pro?

It is the part of the rules where accepting any remuneration makes you a pro.
They have paid you money; whatever money they pay you USEF deems as fungible. If you get paid money to braid, it also 'counts' as getting paid to ride if you ride their horses. It should be the same for "leasing". What separates a bona fide lease from a sham set up to pay somebody while they maintain ammy status? It is the same deal as hiring a pro as a 'bookkeeper' and then having them 'ammy ride' 10 horses a day.


Otherwise, nothing would stop me from "day leasing" my horse to people for $75 per day and teaching them a "free" lesson.
Or, I could live at their barn in exchange for training all of their horses and teaching them lessons and they could "lease" my horse for $65k a year. That starts to look like a salary to me.

Btw, I have a horse who would be lovely for exactly this job.
I could make a tidy sum.


If I was riding all of the show hunters at a fancy private barn in the adult amatures and showing up at shows teaching the owner and schooling their whole herd of horses, would you really call my $65k a year a "lease" and still think of me as an amature? I mean, they're not my employer, I teach them 'for free'. They just so happen to lease my horse for $65k a year. The perfect way to turn a "salary" into a "lease" would be to lease them my horse who I will never sell anyway. He can just be my convenient "salary substitute" leasing horse.

meupatdoes
Oct. 13, 2009, 07:52 AM
When you said that one of the people had paid your lease fee, I thought you meant that they leased a horse specifically for you to ride.

Why would that make the OP a pro?

Amatures are allowed to ride horses that somebody else owns or leases, as long as they are not paid by the person who owns or leases the horse.

PineTreeFarm
Oct. 13, 2009, 08:15 AM
It is the part of the rules where accepting any remuneration makes you a pro.
They have paid you money; whatever money they pay you USEF deems as fungible. If you get paid money to braid, it also 'counts' as getting paid to ride if you ride their horses. It should be the same for "leasing". What separates a bona fide lease from a sham set up to pay somebody while they maintain ammy status? It is the same deal as hiring a pro as a 'bookkeeper' and then having them 'ammy ride' 10 horses a day.

Otherwise, nothing would stop me from "day leasing" my horse to people for $75 per day and teaching them a "free" lesson.
Or, I could live at their barn in exchange for training all of their horses and teaching them lessons and they could "lease" my horse for $65k a year. That starts to look like a salary to me.

Btw, I have a horse who would be lovely for exactly this job.
I could make a tidy sum.

If I was riding all of the show hunters at a fancy private barn in the adult amatures and showing up at shows teaching the owner and schooling their whole herd of horses, would you really call my $65k a year a "lease" and still think of me as an amature? I mean, they're not my employer, I teach them 'for free'. They just so happen to lease my horse for $65k a year. The perfect way to turn a "salary" into a "lease" would be to lease them my horse who I will never sell anyway. He can just be my convenient "salary substitute" leasing horse.

The rules are very specific as to what activities count as remuneration. Some situations are specifically listed as permitted, some as not permitted.
So a blanket statement that accepting remuneration makes you a pro is not correct.
In your example the individual has not been paid for:
riding, driving, showing, training, schooling or conducting clinics or seminars.
giving riding or driving lessons, lessons in showmanship, instructions in equitation or horse training.
the individual is not an employee of the person leasing the horse.
As far as we know no family member of the individual is connected with the person leasing the horse as a trainer, rider etc.

The rules do mention leases but in a very tight reference.
"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"

Leasing is mentioned as an OK activity for your own horses.
"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."

The example you mentioned "living at the barn in exchange for training all of their horses and teaching them lessons'" could create pro status but has nothing to do with leasing a horse.
Same is true for "riding all the show hunters at a fancy private barn in the adult amateurs and showing up at shows teaching the owner and schooling their whole herd of horses". That activity could create Pro status in itself, nothing to do with a lease.
Ir is NOT 'the same deal as hiring a pro as a bookeeper and then having them 'ammy ride' 10 horses a day' because in your example the individual is not riding any horses fir remuneration for the person leasing the horse.

Of course you can lease your horse and make a 'tidy sum'. You can also sell your horse and make a nice profit. There are some amateurs who do exactly that.

Because I couldn't find any thing in the rules specific to this situation that looked like it was a violation I called USEF. The answer is no, it isn't an amateur violation. Of course, each situation varies and there can be underlying facts not provided in a discussion ( one side of the story is missing). Each case has to be addressed on an individual basis.

PineTreeFarm
Oct. 13, 2009, 08:25 AM
Why would that make the OP a pro?

Amatures are allowed to ride horses that somebody else owns or leases, as long as they are not paid by the person who owns or leases the horse.

Because it might violate this section:

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.

If board payments are not considered a 'token of appreciation' then lease payments may not be acceptable either. Agsin, you'd have to call USEF and give full details including relationships between the parties involved.

meupatdoes
Oct. 13, 2009, 09:17 AM
Same is true for "riding all the show hunters at a fancy private barn in the adult amateurs and showing up at shows teaching the owner and schooling their whole herd of horses". That activity could create Pro status in itself, nothing to do with a lease.

That does NOT create pro status in itself if you are not paid by the owner of the horses.

If Betty Oare wants to build a barn for all of her nice horses and let me come ride them for her, that is no problemo. I can ride 10 of her horses a day and teach her free lessons on the 11th and show every last one of them in the adult amatures with her paying the 'horse related' expenses (including entries) as long as no check ever gets made out from Betty Oare to me for any reason. End stop.

I can show up at any trainer's barn and go down the aisle riding every single horse for them from 7am to 8pm as long as no check ever gets made out from that trainer or the horse's owner to me for any reason. I have ridden countless horses that belonged to other people and lived in a trainer's program. I have demo ridden them for the trainer's sale customers. I have showed them. It did not make me a pro because never once did I get a discount on board or any kind of payment whatsoever for that activity, or any other activity such as braiding or what have you, from the trainers or the owners of the horses I rode.


If leasing is not counted as remuneration, then I just found a way around the amateur rule.

"Hey there, trainer, I will do all of your sale horses in the adult amateurs for you if you just leasykins my horse here for $x per year."

Any time anybody pays me any money, I will just call it a 'short term lease' of my horse. Oh, you want to write me a $50 check for taking your horse around the adult amatures for you? Just "lease" my ottb for $50 for the day. He's at home in the paddock but won't mind being temporarily leased out.
You want to write me a $80 check for watching you ride your horse and giving constructive criticism? Lovely but since I want to preserve my amature status write "leasing that nice grey horse for a day" in the memo line.

Why is leasing a "case by case basis" but getting paid one time for braiding one horse (for example) isn't?
Why can't the USEF assess on a case by case basis that if my trainer who lets me ride a couple horses in his program throws me $40 to braid one horse, I am not getting paid to ride, but conversely when I am getting paid $50k a year to "handle all the braiding" while riding every horse in the barn then USEF can assess me case-by-case as a pro. Everyone has to stay away from the little money-making opportunities such as braiding ENTIRELY if they want to keep their status, because USEF does not evaluate the one time $40 braid job vs the shammy salary situation on a case by case basis. You braid one horse for your trainer for $40 and ride something else in his program? Well, those $40 made you a pro. No case-by-case for you.

But if someone wants to write me a lease check, then all of a sudden USEF wants to do "case-by-case basis" and "every situation is individual"?

Oh, well those people just paid Suzy Q a $50,000 lease on her Big Eq Finals top-finisher after she aged out. If "those people" are Mom and Pop Jones leasing that Finals horse for their daughter, then Suzy Q can ride one of the other Jones horses in the adult amatures because USEF will make the case by case determination that really, Mom and Pop Jones are bona fide leasing that horse for their daughter and it isn't remuneration for Suzy Q doing their other horse once in the adult amatures. They can't pay Suzy Q $40 to BRAID that other horse and let her take it on a trail ride once, because there is no 'case by case' analysis for that, but the $50k lease is a-ok since now we are in "case-by-case basis" land.

BUT if Suzy Q leases that same exact Big Eq Finals top-finishing horse to a wealthy horse enthusiast for the same $50k, and then the wealthy horse enthusiast "lets" Suzy ride all of WHE's other horses and bring them along from unstarted to Capital Challenge, and "lets" Suzy ride all of those horses in the adult amatures, then USEF will assess "case by case" that Suzy Q's lease fee is actually covering up the fact that Suzy Q is getting paid $50k per year to train up and campaign WHE's string.

If we can case-by-case leasing, then we should be able to case-by-case braiding. There are a lot of bona fide, LEGITIMATE amatures who would love to braid the occasional horse or work off some trainer's fees by doing the stalls at a horse show if USEF would cut them some slack and case-by-case it.

If USEF is seriously saying they will "case-by-case" leasing then that opens up a world of arbitary rule enforcement and gray area depending on who picks up the phone at USEF that day.

PineTreeFarm
Oct. 13, 2009, 09:39 AM
It isn't just a 'check' that proves Pro status. Although that's one way to prove payment for a NON PERMITTED activity.
If you own the horse you can act as trainer for that horse. You can sign the entry blank as trainer.

In your first example you would be teaching someone on a horse that you do not own.

Braiding for money is not the activity that makes you a pro. It's the relationship between the braider and the owner, trainer or barn manager that causes the issue. Braiding for a trainer and working off lessons is not case by case. That's a violation.

You need all the facts to make a determination. That's why USEF has hearings.

Their answer did not imply that leasing was a case by case situation.
Leasing like braiding is not an activity that creates Pro status. It's that simple.
The case by case factor comes in because in your examples you've tied a non permitted activity to a lease situation. It's the non permitted activity that causes the problem, not the lease.
In order to make a determination ALL information needs to be evaluated.
If you believe leasing in itself creates pro status then by extension selling a horse would make you a pro. Then 95% of amateurs would be pros. LOL

If you believe leasing creates a Pro situation then submit a rule change proposal to USEF.

alteringwego
Oct. 13, 2009, 09:49 AM
i called USEF too and explained the situation. I figured that if I needed to be a pro then I needed to be a pro and if not, then not. As little as I'm riding at this point, what difference does it make?
So, the answer is no, I am not a pro. I told the rep the whole situation and talked about money or lack thereof and it was confirmed that I'm an ammy. And can continue doing as many catch rides as I can find! So... anyone have some horses?

Janet
Oct. 13, 2009, 09:54 AM
It is the part of the rules where accepting any remuneration makes you a pro.
They have paid you money; whatever money they pay you USEF deems as fungible. If you get paid money to braid, it also 'counts' as getting paid to ride if you ride their horses. It should be the same for "leasing". What separates a bona fide lease from a sham set up to pay somebody while they maintain ammy status? It is the same deal as hiring a pro as a 'bookkeeper' and then having them 'ammy ride' 10 horses a day.


Maybe it "should be", but that would require a rule change.

"Accepting remuneration" doesn't automatically make you a pro.

GR1306.1 lists things for which remuneration DOES make you a pro.

GR1306.2 lists things for which remuneration DOES NOT you a pro.

"Receiving a lease fee" is not listed in either GR1306.1 NOR GR1306.2, but it seems to me that the presumption would be that "receiving a lease fee" would not affect amateur status. But it would definitely be something to check with USEF.

As for the entirely hypothetical situation now being discussed - Person A owns horse H. Person B leases Horse H form person A, and pays a lease fee. Person A then rides and shows horse H.

First, it isn't clear why anyone would do such a thing. It makes no sense from person B's perspective. They pay money, and get nothing in return.

Second, GR1306 c doesn't apply for several reasons.

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.

A-First of all, a lease fee clearly is not "employment".
B-Secondly, "horses actually owned ... by him/her" are exempt from this rule.
C-Thirdly, the rule only applies to horses that the "employer
... controls, owns, boards or trains." which doesn't apply to this horse. (You could argue that "leases" falls under "controls", but it is by no means clear cut.)


The other hypothetical situation presented poses more of a problem, and may be a potential loophole - Person A leases Horse H to Person B for money. Person A then gives (free) lessons to person B on Horse H.

While I agree that it is contrary to the spirit of the rules, I don't think it is contrary to the rules as written, and would require a rule change.

Again-
A-"Lease" is not employment
B-Horses owned by the amateur are exempt.
C-Only horses controled, owned, boarded or trained by the employer are relevant. (does "leased" = "controled"? But even if it does, see B)

But check with USEF.

And, like so many things, such a rule change would have many unintended side effects.

When I leased out Spy, I spent a couple of sessions explaining his quirks and how to most effectively address them. When the girl that was leasing him was having problems with him wanting to jump "long", and her trainer wasn't able to fix it, I went over and showed her some exercises with placing poles to help him jump better. It was a free lease (I got nothing, except getting Spy off the feed bill), and I certainly don't think there would be much support for a rule change that made THAT a "non-amateur" activity.

Jumphigh83
Oct. 13, 2009, 10:51 AM
Wow. Two whole pages of ways around the amateur rule. I bet this is infinitely helpful. The rule is broken when there is so much discussion about ways to dodge the bullets. Again I repeat...:rolleyes:

trubandloki
Oct. 13, 2009, 10:54 AM
Wow. Two whole pages of ways around the amateur rule. I bet this is infinitely helpful. The rule is broken when there is so much discussion about ways to dodge the bullets. Again I repeat...:rolleyes:

:confused:

I must be reading a different thread than you are.

I do not see two pages of getting around the rules. I see two pages of trying to understand the rules.

Jumphigh83
Oct. 13, 2009, 10:59 AM
Yeah..that's it.

Madeline
Oct. 13, 2009, 11:24 AM
Amatures are allowed to ride horses that somebody else owns or leases, as long as they are not paid by the person who owns or leases the horse.

Amateurs, amateurs, amateurs...

( Sorry, pet peeve along with "confirmation" referring to how a horse is put together.)

alteringwego
Oct. 13, 2009, 01:10 PM
we could turn this thread into a discussion on how we should do away with the amateur listing and only have classes based on experience and fence height?

This thread was not intended to be a way to get around amateur rules. I certainly wasn't intentionally trying to get around them. I wanted to see if others have dealt with the same problem that I am currently facing. Similar to those asking for help with scratches, or a dangling front end. I appreciate the advice and I feel that those looking for ways around the rules have likely already found them.

meupatdoes
Oct. 13, 2009, 01:28 PM
It isn't just a 'check' that proves Pro status. Although that's one way to prove payment for a NON PERMITTED activity.
If you own the horse you can act as trainer for that horse. You can sign the entry blank as trainer.

In your first example you would be teaching someone on a horse that you do not own.]

I can do all of these things and still not be a pro.
My trainer can say, "Will you ride this horse every day for a month and see if you can teach it lead changes?"
No problem.

I can do that, for free.
I can not ACCEPT REMUNERATION for doing it.

I can teach lessons on my horse every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.
An entire herd of children can go for pony rides.
Somebody who wants to learn how to do a lead change can come ride my horse, and I can stand in the middle of the ring and tell them what buttons to push.
I can stand in the middle of somebody else's ring and teach them how to get lead changes out of their horse. I can hop on their horse, school it up for 20 minutes, get everything set up, climb down, give them a leg up, and then stand in the middle of the ring and help them get the lead change themselves.
If somebody just got a horse off the track and wants me to put a couple schools on it before they get on, I can hop on and ride ride ride.

I can do all of this, for free.
I can not ACCEPT REMUNERATION for doing it.

Please, I beg you, take the time to understand the basic amateur rule before arguing the finer points.



If you believe leasing in itself creates pro status then by extension selling a horse would make you a pro. Then 95% of amateurs would be pros. LOL


While conversations are infinitely more fun when I can just retype everything I have already written, perhaps to save time I will just refer you to post #30 on this thread, which clearly you have read already since you responded to it in post #31.

Perhaps another read-over is in order. Please note that fancyfooted made the exact same point you just re-made: "If leasing out a horse made you a pro, many amateurs would be pros." Please pay particular attention to the part that I bolded in my response to that exact same point you re-asked about. I did bold it for a reason but apparently not bold enough:


It is not a question of leasing out the horse, end stop.

It is a question of leasing out a horse, and riding horses owned by the person who wrote you the lease check.



This could be an interesting discussion about the finer points of the amateur rule but if people don't understand the basics of the rule (YES, YOU CAN RIDE A MILLION HORSES AND TRAIN THEM AND TEACH LESSONS AND SHOW AND BRAID AND DO CARTWHEELS **FOR FREE**) and won't read posts in the thread for comprehension before responding and then ask the poster to repeat the exact same post from higher up on the same page by repeating the exact same question the poster has already responded to four inches worth of scrolling ago what on earth is the point.



Janet, your response, on the other hand, was interesting.
Personally, I believe the use of the word "employment" by USEF in 1306c is just bad drafting. (I think a LOT of the USEF rules have bad drafting.) What they are trying to prevent with 1306c is people getting paid, and calling it getting paid to do one thing or the other instead of calling it getting paid to ride. Via sloppy drafting, they called this "employment" even though there are other ways to get paid without being an employee.
And thus, here we are having this exchange. But at least this discussion is interesting and not just a rehash of the same basic concepts of the amateur rule and repeats of posts.

As for the spirit of the rule, I think there are plenty of amateurs who would love to braid maybe 10 horses a year to help defray show expenses for one or two shows they might attend who would be well within the spirit of the rule, but unfortunately not the letter. The problem with leaving issues caused by poor drafting up to the 'spirit of the rule' is that it leaves things up to arbitrary enforcement, again based on who picks up the phone at USEF that day. Ideally, USEF will fix the "employment" language or somehow clarify the potential lease loophole before it comes to a kerfluffle. How they might best do that in the best interests of all competitors would be another interesting discussion.
You can ride horses belonging to someone who paid you a lease fee if you only ride x number of their other horses? What number should x be?
The lease has to be recorded with USEF and for a specific duration to avoid the potential 'day leasing' loophole?
The easiest way to do it, which I believe would be consistent with the USEF's treatment of other paid activities, would be to say if someone pays you a lease fee, that doesn't make you a pro, BUT you have to wait a year before you ride any of their horses from then on. (Another thing that USEF is unclear on is the time limit on payment/riding. If somebody paid me to braid their horse in 1986, and it is now 2009, can I ride a horse of theirs again? If I rode a horse on Wednesday for free, and somebody wants to pay me to braid it next Saturday, can I braid the horse as long as I don't ride it again for a year? Or do I have to wait a year before I can braid it for cash? I don't feel this is clearly delineated in the rules.)
All interesting thoughts.


I think I will email USEF about this and see what they have to say.
I would like to get something in writing.


Oh, and btw, OP, I think you are absolutely acting in good faith and I am glad USEF agrees that you are an ammy in your situation. My quibble is with the poor drafting of the rule and the potential for loopholes it provides.

Janet
Oct. 13, 2009, 01:58 PM
I
Janet, your response, on the other hand, was interesting.
Personally, I believe the use of the word "employment" by USEF in 1306c is just bad drafting. (I think a LOT of the USEF rules have bad drafting.) What they are trying to prevent with 1306c is people getting paid, and calling it getting paid to do one thing or the other instead of calling it getting paid to ride. Via sloppy drafting, they called this "employment" even though there are other ways to get paid without being an employee.
And thus, here we are having this exchange. But at least this discussion is interesting and not just a rehash of the same basic concepts of the amateur rule and repeats of posts.
The thing is, to do what I think you want to do (prevent Person A leasing (for a fee) Horse H to Person B, and then Person A gives lessons (no separate fee) to person B on Horse H all year) you would have to change more than "employment", you would also have to change

"other than horses actually owned or leased by him/her."

THAT would have WAY too many unintended consequences (If Ammy Amy gets paid for baby sitting Barn Owner Betty's kids, then Ammy Amy can't ride HER OWN horse!). I don't think that would pass.


I think I will email USEF about this and see what they have to say.
I would like to get something in writing.

Me too!

touchstone-
Oct. 13, 2009, 02:01 PM
I can do all of these things and still not be a pro.
My trainer can say, "Will you ride this horse every day for a month and see if you can teach it lead changes?"
No problem.

I can do that, for free.
I can not ACCEPT REMUNERATION for doing it.

I can teach lessons on my horse every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.
An entire herd of children can go for pony rides.
Somebody who wants to learn how to do a lead change can come ride my horse, and I can stand in the middle of the ring and tell them what buttons to push.
I can stand in the middle of somebody else's ring and teach them how to get lead changes out of their horse. I can hop on their horse, school it up for 20 minutes, get everything set up, climb down, give them a leg up, and then stand in the middle of the ring and help them get the lead change themselves.
If somebody just got a horse off the track and wants me to put a couple schools on it before they get on, I can hop on and ride ride ride.

I can do all of this, for free.
I can not ACCEPT REMUNERATION for doing it.

Or list your services on a website. Just a heads up. You can volunteer to ride or teach for free, but under a recent rule change, you can't make your intention to do so public.

meupatdoes
Oct. 13, 2009, 02:09 PM
The thing is, to do what I think you want to do (prevent Person A leasing (for a fee) Horse H to Person B, and then Person A gives lessons (no separate fee) to person B on Horse H all year) you would have to change more than "employment", you would also have to change

"other than horses actually owned or leased by him/her."

THAT would have WAY too many unintended consequences (If Ammy Amy gets paid for baby sitting Barn Owner Betty's kids, then Ammy Amy can't ride HER OWN horse!). I don't think that would pass.



Me too!

I am not talking just about horse H owned by Person A.
I am also talking about Person A riding other horses (not H) owned by Person B.

I think it is more within the spirit of the rules if Person A sticks to teaching/riding H. But when A starts to ride other horses owned by B, I think it starts to have a lot more potential to go past the spirit.

Janet
Oct. 13, 2009, 03:12 PM
I am not talking just about horse H owned by Person A.
I am also talking about Person A riding other horses (not H) owned by Person B.

I think it is more within the spirit of the rules if Person A sticks to teaching/riding H. But when A starts to ride other horses owned by B, I think it starts to have a lot more potential to go past the spirit.
Then you would be banning the situation of the OP, which really is pretty clear cut that she is not "cheating".

PineTreeFarm
Oct. 13, 2009, 03:28 PM
Please, I beg you, take the time to understand the basic amateur rule before arguing the finer points.


LMAO

From what you have posted on this thread Id say you need to understand the rules a bit better and be able to make a distinction between what the rules ARE and what you'd LIKE THEM TO BE.

Spotted Pony
Oct. 13, 2009, 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meupatdoes http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=4435361#post4435361)
I am not talking just about horse H owned by Person A.
I am also talking about Person A riding other horses (not H) owned by Person B.

I think it is more within the spirit of the rules if Person A sticks to teaching/riding H. But when A starts to ride other horses owned by B, I think it starts to have a lot more potential to go past the spirit.

Then you would be banning the situation of the OP, which really is pretty clear cut that she is not "cheating".


You are right - it would make the OP a pro if the rule were changed. The issue that has been brought to light here though is a big, giant loophole that until changed could suddenly open the door for all those that will take advantage. Every additional restriction to the amateur rule causes it own unintended collateral damage. But for every person that tries to follow the letter/spirit of the rules there is another out there that will find away around them, it's not that hard.

Tex Mex
Oct. 13, 2009, 04:17 PM
I agree with what Meuptadoes is saying, and basically what it comes down to is this- Ammy can do whatever she wants, but if someone feels like protesting and can argue a good enough case, she will be SOL. That includes the OP in my opinion.

If someone had all the details of your life, and could argue to the USEF that there is a scheme to pay you (for riding their horses) indirectly through a "lease fee" of the horse you own, then you could definitely lose your right to compete as an amateur. However, they will need notarized letters, witnesses, etc. to argue their point, not to mention it is a LONG lengthy process that is not fun for anyone involved. So someone will have to be really pissed off at you, and really confident that you are cheating, to carry it through. Also, OP you should know that just because the USEF ok'd a situation (and only got the details that you shared briefly over the phone) does not mean someone still can't protest you and win.

Having said all that, if the OP is being honest then she has nothing to worry about, shouldn't have to write statements, show unjudged, etc, just as everyone else said.

Tex Mex
Oct. 13, 2009, 04:21 PM
I'd also like to add that while some people are probably sick of seeing these threads, I find these discussions to be really helpful. All the "what if" scenarios, etc really help me understand the rules and I appreciate those who have honest, intelligent comments.

meupatdoes
Oct. 13, 2009, 04:27 PM
Then you would be banning the situation of the OP, which really is pretty clear cut that she is not "cheating".

This brings me back to my original question.

If the OP is allowed to lease somebody (B) a horse for a fee, and then ride another horse that B owns, what prevents me from doing the following:

A wealthy horse enthusiast (the "WHE") offers me the chance to
-ride and train all of her horses,
-campaign the whole herd of them in the amateur divisions,
-demo ride the horses for potential buyers
-teach the WHE occasional lessons and
-coach the WHE around the Beginner Adult Equitation at shows.

Before PineTree starts yammering again, I think we all agree these are all things I am allowed to do and remain amateur eligible IF I DO NOT ACCEPT REMUNERATION.
Yes I can teach her a lesson, if I don't accept remuneration.
Yes I can coach her at a show, if I don't accept remuneration.
Yes I can ride and train all of her horses, if I don't accept remuneration.
Please, if you don't believe me, just accept it. Thems the rules.
Everyone please get clear on this before reading on.
PineTree, get clear on it two or three times.


Anyhoo.
Now, I'd just love to ride and train horses all day long and keep my ammy status to boot, but since I am not in possession of a large trust fund, running the WHE's whole program without accepting remuneration is going to make getting the student loans paid off and keeping a roof over my head a little dicey.
Meanwhile, the WHE has money to burn and wouldn't mind paying me, but thinks it would be just extra swell if I could put an amateur record on her horses for her.

Then, I have a grand idea.
I happen to own a horse. Doesn't matter what kind, I just own this random horse.
Why not have the WHE "lease" this horse from me for $65k a year? This way, the WHE can write me a nice big check for the year without messing up my ammy status.

The WHE is super thrilled because I can take her small herd in the 3' Adult Amateurs and give them all nice little Amateur resumes.

I am happy because I am getting a year's salary to run the program for the WHE's small herd of fancy hunters, and through the convenient sleight of calling that salary "leasing my horse" the USEF will apparently be a-ok with this whole situation. Because, as the OP did, if you lease someone your horse that doesn't make you a pro, AND you can ADDITIONALLY ride their other horses too and yippy skippy you're still an ammy.

Now, if I BRAID one of the WHE's horses and she throws me $40, well, now I'm a professional and the COTH citizenry is in an uproar over my shammyness, because I ride her horses and just took money to braid one.

But wait! Lease loop hole to the rescue, we can just tack the $40 onto the lease fee and make it $65,040. Problem solved!

What on earth is the difference in skin off my back between "oh let's just call me the 'bookkeeper'" and getting paid to ride or "let's just call my salary a 'lease fee'" and getting paid to ride? The check is $65k either way whether I put "book keeping services" on an invoice or draw up a little 'lease contract' and call it a "lease fee".

Really, nobody on COTH here will complain if they run into me at Old Salem riding 15 horses a day for Holly, doing all of her clients' horses in the adult amaters and teaching her winter-at-home customers over the winter while she's in Fla? If someone starts a COTH thread and everyone is brandishing the shamateur! torches and cheater! pitchforks but then I say, "No no guys, I am not accepting remuneration from Holly, she's just leasing my horse," everyone will be like "Oooooh, ok, well in that case carry on!"
Y'all would be ok with this?


I personally think that leaving such a HUGE loophole in the ammy rule is pretty ridiculous, but it seems that USEF really is a-ok with people getting lease fees and then riding however many other horses for the lessee because a lease is somehow exempt from being "remuneration".

Okey dokey.

And if y'all see me at Old Salem I don't want to hear any b*tchin'.

Tex Mex
Oct. 13, 2009, 04:37 PM
Not to further complicate things, but local organizations like Pacific Coast HSA say you can't act as a trainer/instructor at a horse show whether you get paid or not. So it's not always just the USEF that is going to oversee these issues.

Moli
Oct. 13, 2009, 04:50 PM
Meupatdoes:

You have not idea how many I know do this. That is NOT far - fetched, and you don't have to have $$$ to do it. All you need is a BNT who can intimidate their boarders/trainees and some one who has that kind of talent and time. It happens every day. UGH:mad::no::confused:

Keep1Belle
Oct. 13, 2009, 05:00 PM
we could turn this thread into a discussion on how we should do away with the amateur listing and only have classes based on experience and fence height?
...

Agreed, though I am sure my opinion doesnt count with USEF. I think that would be the best thing ever! Well maybe not ever, but you get my point :)

meupatdoes
Oct. 13, 2009, 05:05 PM
If someone had all the details of your life, and could argue to the USEF that there is a scheme to pay you (for riding their horses) indirectly through a "lease fee" of the horse you own, then you could definitely lose your right to compete as an amateur.

If the lease is recorded with USEF, I don't think it would be that hard. All anyone would need to do is point out that said ammy is riding an owner's horse in that there ammy division, and then point out that the same ammy also has a lease recorded to that same owner.

poltroon
Oct. 13, 2009, 05:06 PM
Then, I have a grand idea.
I happen to own a horse. Doesn't matter what kind, I just own this random horse.
Why not have the WHE "lease" this horse from me for $65k a year? This way, the WHE can write me a nice big check for the year without messing up my ammy status.

The WHE is super thrilled because I can take her small herd in the 3' Adult Amateurs and give them all nice little Amateur resumes.

I am happy because I am getting a year's salary to run the program for the WHE's small herd of fancy hunters, and through the convenient sleight of calling that salary "leasing my horse" the USEF will apparently be a-ok with this whole situation. Because, as the OP did, if you lease someone your horse that doesn't make you a pro, AND you can ADDITIONALLY ride their other horses too and yippy skippy you're still an ammy.

Now, if I BRAID one of the WHE's horses and she throws me $40, well, now I'm a professional and the COTH citizenry is in an uproar over my shammyness, because I ride her horses and just took money to braid one.


I think at some point, trying to write every possibility into the rule just eats us alive. It keeps the real amateurs from ever doing anything nice for someone else or ever riding any horse other than their own, even if it's just for a hack when the owner has an emergency.

Truly, I think the people on the Hearing Committee are smart enough to determine the difference between a bona fide lease at $65,000 and a sham lease. If the horse doesn't get shown, and isn't an upper level horse, and it's a large sum of money, it's a sham, we all get that.

On the other hand, if the owner has given up control of the horse, and it's being shown by the lessee, it's likely legit.

One last point, which is that not every lease involves profit. The most common kind of lease may involve a check written to the owner, but covering (some percentage of) board and other expenses, and not a net financial gain at all.

Janet
Oct. 13, 2009, 05:28 PM
Agreed, though I am sure my opinion doesnt count with USEF. I think that would be the best thing ever! Well maybe not ever, but you get my point :)
Have you looked at the proposed rule changes for Hunters and Jumpers?

(for instance, getting rid of the "owner" part of A/O Jumpers, and adding new cateories for Hunters)

If you like the idea, send in your positive comments on the rule change comment form.

Spotted Pony
Oct. 13, 2009, 06:03 PM
Truly, I think the people on the Hearing Committee are smart enough to determine the difference between a bona fide lease at $65,000 and a sham lease. If the horse doesn't get shown, and isn't an upper level horse, and it's a large sum of money, it's a sham, we all get that.




Not necessarily. Personal situation, though it involved a junior it could just as easily have been an amateur, Horse is leased as WHE would like to have another horse to ride but be able to return it when she is finished. WHE pays for all expenses, takes lessons on horse, boards it at her trainer's barn. We go to a month long horse show with the same trainer and WHE, leased horse is there. WHE is intimidated and does not want to take horse into the "big" ring so has owner ride it for her. She is happy that horse wins, she keeps all prizes, buys jr. rider a cute gift from tack shop and thanks her for the good ride. Rider is happy for more ring time, and even on her own horse. Because it was a Jr. there were no questions asked or sideways glances made - but if owner had been six months older maybe a different situation. It was not a 'sham" lease, just the way things worked out.

SaddleFitterVA
Oct. 13, 2009, 06:59 PM
So, here is a scenario, barn owner leases out an old horse to a young person for something like $200/month + shoes. The young person cannot afford horse ownership. While that barn owner is riding, the barn owner might sometimes suggest something while they are both riding, that makes the barn owner a pro? What about when the barn owner and leasor both go to take lessons together from a pro, because the barn owner is not a trainer or instructor.

Barn owner lives on farm, it is the barn owner's home, and barn owner has a full-time office job with a commute.

So, is that barn owner a professional because he half leases out a horse?

What about the person who half leases their private horse to offset boarding costs? He/she still rides the horse (hence half lease), and he/she might want to make sure the leasor understands how to ride the horse, is that person who you want to be a professional?

CBoylen
Oct. 13, 2009, 07:08 PM
Because it was a Jr. there were no questions asked or sideways glances made - but if owner had been six months older maybe a different situation.
Wouldn't matter. She would still be riding her own horse.

Moli
Oct. 13, 2009, 07:09 PM
IF she gives lessons on HER horse (that she leases out)....even advice (esp if she lives in CA). You know, I think that everyone here "knows" right from wrong. Honestly, all of this is just silliness.....:eek:

alteringwego
Oct. 13, 2009, 07:21 PM
I agree with the silliness and all the more backing for re-working the rules to do away with amateurs and pros and instead go by height and experience! I'll be the most experienced 2'6"er in the world!!! ;-) a lofty goal anyway!

Spotted Pony
Oct. 13, 2009, 09:15 PM
Wouldn't matter. She would still be riding her own horse.

Ahh - yes that's true. I just gave the example to show that because someone leases the horse doesn't mean that they are going to be the one that shows it to argue the point that Poltroon was trying to make ie "If the horse doesn't get shown, and isn't an upper level horse, and it's a large sum of money, it's a sham, we all get that."

poltroon
Oct. 14, 2009, 02:55 AM
Ahh - yes that's true. I just gave the example to show that because someone leases the horse doesn't mean that they are going to be the one that shows it to argue the point that Poltroon was trying to make ie "If the horse doesn't get shown, and isn't an upper level horse, and it's a large sum of money, it's a sham, we all get that."

That's why there's testimony and depositions at hearings, to explore facts.

The scenario presented was a nondescript horse in someone's pasture "leased" for $65,000. Obviously, no one pays $65k to lease a horse with no show record standing around in a field. But, we also get that horses go lame, that things don't work out, whatever. One can present evidence of a bona fide lease.

The problem I have is that by trying to write every possible case iron-clad into the rules, we've been shooting ourselves in the foot. The last rule changes that came around, to keep an amateur from appearing in any advertisement, was well meant, but if interpreted literally, would mean that a realtor couldn't include a picture of herself on her horse in an ad for her real estate services, that trainers could not tout the success of their amateur clients, that you couldn't even put a sale ad for a horse in with an amateur rider up. We know the case they were going for, and that the vendor was trying to sell horse items because of this rider's reputation as a top class rider. At some point, it may make more sense to write the rule as a set of guidelines that will be used to decide with judgement applied rather than trying to write every case that may ever exist.

meupatdoes
Oct. 14, 2009, 03:27 AM
So, here is a scenario, barn owner leases out an old horse to a young person for something like $200/month + shoes. The young person cannot afford horse ownership. While that barn owner is riding, the barn owner might sometimes suggest something while they are both riding, that makes the barn owner a pro? What about when the barn owner and leasor both go to take lessons together from a pro, because the barn owner is not a trainer or instructor.

Barn owner lives on farm, it is the barn owner's home, and barn owner has a full-time office job with a commute.

So, is that barn owner a professional because he half leases out a horse?

What about the person who half leases their private horse to offset boarding costs? He/she still rides the horse (hence half lease), and he/she might want to make sure the leasor understands how to ride the horse, is that person who you want to be a professional?

I don't "want" people who braid one horse for their trainer to be counted as professionals, but in order to close the loophole that some people would (and did) take advantage of, a lot of honest amateurs have had to forego braiding a couple horses for their barn to help defray the costs of the two horseshows they might go to a year.

Sometimes when I am showing a horse for sale the prospective buyer asks me questions about the horse. Many a time I have ended up giving the prospective buyer basically a full lesson to help them figure out the horse. (LOTS of timid adults looking at this one; LOTS of me standing there going, "It's ok! You can let go!") If they end up buying or leasing the horse, was this pre-purchase or pre-lease help a non-amateur activity? I could see an argument both ways. If USEF would make it clear, and I really wanted to protect my amateur status, I could as easily have my trainer help the buyer.

However, since you were advocating in a previous shammy thread that you wouldn't mind in the least if amateurs who sell personal horses for a profit get set down for a year (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=166301&highlight=saddlefitterva+pro&page=7), I would think that you would come down on the side of USEF taking a hard line.

SaddleFitterVA
Oct. 14, 2009, 08:06 AM
sadly, my sarcasm does not always come through on the boards. I need to work on that. :lol:

But, thanks for pointing out that my sarcasm was missed. I think that the pro/ami rules are ridiculous and are maintained with the big money client in mind. Not with the average person participating in a sport that is so outlandishly expensive that they often try to offset some costs.

But, I feel pretty darn safe that the "sell at huge profit" loophole will never be closed, so my cute, just off the track, found via CANTER pony that I'll be retraining, can be sold and I won't have to worry about being accused of being a professional for that project.

Of course, being a horse, he might end up permanently lame before he ever gets to the point of reselling.

meupatdoes
Oct. 15, 2009, 03:51 PM
I sent the following email to USEF:

Hello

I have a question regarding leasing out a horse and retaining amateur status:

If Amateur Owner "A" leases out their horse "H" to Lessee "L" for a lease fee, does A remain amateur eligible if A rides other horses owned by L?

Thanks very much,
[name]

They responded thusly:
Your question was sent to our new email address for questions pertaining to amateur/professional status, amateurinquiry@usef.org. Thank you for your question.



Pursuant to Chapter 13, GR1306.1f, there are no specifications regarding remuneration for the lease of a horse:

“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).”



However, please be aware of the perception that the money received for the lease of the horse may be remuneration for riding or training the leasee’s horses. There are also many rules which address any other financial connections to the owner of a horse which an amateurs may or may not ride. The rules regarding amateur status are available online at http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2009/GeneralRules/Chapter%2013.pdf under GR1306. Please let me know if you have any further questions.



In closing, please be advised that this office only gives advisory opinions, not binding opinions, regarding the rules. Ultimately, when a protest or charge is brought to the Federation, it is the Federation Hearing Committee which applies facts and circumstances to the relevant rules and determines whether or not the facts constitute a violation of the rules. The Federation is often asked to provide guidance regarding the rules and we do try to be of assistance when the rules seem to have clear application to a described situation. It should be noted, however, that the opinion expressed by a Federation staff member, of any capacity, would not be binding on the Hearing Committee.

Uncut or edited.
This represents the entirety of the exchange.

Jumphigh83
Oct. 15, 2009, 11:26 PM
"In closing, please be advised that this office only gives advisory opinions, not binding opinions, regarding the rules. Ultimately, when a protest or charge is brought to the Federation, it is the Federation Hearing Committee which applies facts and circumstances to the relevant rules and determines whether or not the facts constitute a violation of the rules. The Federation is often asked to provide guidance regarding the rules and we do try to be of assistance when the rules seem to have clear application to a described situation. It should be noted, however, that the opinion expressed by a Federation staff member, of any capacity, would not be binding on the Hearing Committee."

And lilke I have posted here a zillion times, there is NO WAY the Federation will advise you or tell you if you are or ARE NOT in compliance. The only way to "test" the rule is through a hearing (protest). There you have it in black and white right from the source! No matter what that telephone or email says, the ONLY way to tests the rule is through a protest. ;)

Jumphigh83
Oct. 15, 2009, 11:27 PM
PS...that is a DEFINITE, MAYBE!!!!:eek:

poltroon
Oct. 16, 2009, 12:48 AM
"In closing, we suggest that you ask your question on the COTH BB, because they can probably give you a clearer answer than we can." :D

MHM
Oct. 16, 2009, 01:01 AM
"In closing, we suggest that you ask your question on the COTH BB, because they can probably give you a clearer answer than we can." :D

And apparently it will be just as helpful if there's a protest. :eek:

TSWJB
Oct. 16, 2009, 09:21 AM
[QUOTE=meupatdoes;4440062]
In closing, please be advised that this office only gives advisory opinions, not binding opinions, regarding the rules. Ultimately, when a protest or charge is brought to the Federation, it is the Federation Hearing Committee which applies facts and circumstances to the relevant rules and determines whether or not the facts constitute a violation of the rules. The Federation is often asked to provide guidance regarding the rules and we do try to be of assistance when the rules seem to have clear application to a described situation. It should be noted, however, that the opinion expressed by a Federation staff member, of any capacity, would not be binding on the Hearing Committee.[/i]
well who is the hearing committee then? it seems really silly that the federation cant guide people on whether they are in compliance with the rules or not!
sounds to me like the government! about a year ago i was robbed. my car window was smashed and my purse that was hidden under my seat was stolen. i had just been to canada and meant to take my passport out of my purse. and i have left my purse in the car in my safe town in my driveway for at least 10 years. well this time i was not so lucky.
anyway, my only proof of citizenship is my passport. and i couldnt get a new one without the drivers license which was also in the purse. but i couldnt get a drivers license without my passport because this was my proof of citizenship. i was not born in the usa.
so i asked them at the passport agency what i should do since they required a license. they said pay 300 and hope that the agency gives you a new one. i asked them what if they didnt accept what i provided. they said, "Hire a lawyer!" i thought that was so stupid that they wouldnt even know the right steps to get a passport back when they are the passport agency. and i even told them that i was going to vote that day for the president without any credentials, because at the voters booth they accepted me as a citizen!

Seal Harbor
Oct. 16, 2009, 09:36 AM
The Hearing Committee is made up of members of the USEF. The people who answer email and the phone are not members of the Hearing Committee, they are paid staff.

Make copies of passports and driver's licenses and keep them in a safe place. I've burned copies to CD/DVD that way you have proof.

Janet
Oct. 16, 2009, 09:41 AM
[quote]In closing, please be advised that this office only gives advisory opinions, not binding opinions, regarding the rules. Ultimately, when a protest or charge is brought to the Federation, it is the Federation Hearing Committee which applies facts and circumstances to the relevant rules and determines whether or not the facts constitute a violation of the rules. The Federation is often asked to provide guidance regarding the rules and we do try to be of assistance when the rules seem to have clear application to a described situation. It should be noted, however, that the opinion expressed by a Federation staff member, of any capacity, would not be binding on the Hearing Committee.
well who is the hearing committee then? it seems really silly that the federation cant guide people on whether they are in compliance with the rules or not!

For the hearing committee
http://www.usef.org/_
click on "about US"
click on "committee list"
click on "hearing committee".

This situation is no diferent from the legal system.
Until you GO TO COURT, no one can tell you definitively how the court will rule, whether a civil suit or a criminal case.

TSWJB
Oct. 16, 2009, 10:19 AM
Make copies of passports and driver's licenses and keep them in a safe place. I've burned copies to CD/DVD that way you have proof.
thanks for the advice! but i actually had copies of my passport and drivers license. when i was in spain, my friend made them for me just in case my passport was stolen. he said it was a real mess if that happened and having copies would help. i did send these copies in and i did the expedited passport search thing. but it took almost 3 weeks and i had no drivers license. the funny thing is once i got the passport motor vehicle just reprinted the old one. yet they would not do that until i had the credentials. and i thought the whole new drivers license thing was so no one else could take yours. i mean clearly it was me!
on another note, i dont leave the purse in the car anymore. and since my mishap, my friend had her purse stolen out of the car with smashed window, my boss had his laptop stolen out of his car with smashed window etc!
dont leave any valuables in the car!

Midge
Oct. 16, 2009, 02:47 PM
I don't "want" people who braid one horse for their trainer to be counted as professionals, but in order to close the loophole that some people would (and did) take advantage of, a lot of honest amateurs have had to forego braiding a couple horses for their barn to help defray the costs of the two horseshows they might go to a year.

The trainer already has a professional braider. Go to that braider, offer up your help and tell them you can't braid in this barn. A lot of honest amateurs could braid as many as they wanted if they

A) Braid well and
B) Know that braiders work in the cold and dark and early hours of the morning.

I had an ammy who used to ask me to give her work. She prefered to just do tails (duh!) but would do manes if that's all I had and she wanted to start after she got up in the morning. Of course, if it was bitterly cold and her horse went first, guess who's horse would be on my braiding list? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. :rolleyes:

MHM
Oct. 16, 2009, 03:50 PM
I had an ammy who used to ask me to give her work. She prefered to just do tails (duh!) but would do manes if that's all I had and she wanted to start after she got up in the morning.

Really? Did she expect you to bring her coffee, too? :lol: