USEF rule query

[quiet5]

Can a trainer expect to be paid for a lesson given by an amateur (in which no money was exchanged between the student and the amateur)? I'm no USEF rule expert but I am a lawyer and, in this state, unless there was notice that the ammie was acting as the trainer's agent, that trainer has no business demanding to be paid. I suspect that if such notice was given, that amateur-agent could possibly be in jeopardy of losing her status.

Any thoughts?

[ponies123]

I'm a little confused by the situation from your post, but what I believe it to be is:

Trainer A is perhaps trainer of Ammy B and Ammy C. Ammy B gives Ammy C a "lesson" with no compensation, and now Trainer A wants some money from Ammy C for said "lesson"?

Very weird to me and I don't know that trainer could demand the payment from Ammy C unless prior agreement was made, BUT if that is how situation is then Ammy B would NOT be in jeopardy of losing status unless she received something in exchange from trainer. Say if Ammy C gave Trainer A $80 for the lesson and Trainer A gave Ammy B a discount on board, a free lesson from Trainer A, or free coaching at a show THEN I think that Ammy B would be in danger of losing status... Similar to Trainer having an Ammy hack horses that were in training and in exchange gave Ammy a discount on board, not right.

[Janet]

Can a trainer expect to be paid for a lesson given by an amateur (in which no money was exchanged between the student and the amateur)?
AFAIK that is not covered by USEF rules.

BUT there are a couple of circumstances in which Trainer Tommy being paid for a lesson given by Ammy Amy would make Amy lose her amateur status.

First, if Amy and Tommy are family members, then Tommy being paid for a lesson given by Amy makes Amy no longer an amateur.

Second, if Tommy pays Amy for ANYTHING (braiding, mucking, book keeping, help with the web site) and Sally Student is a client of Tommy, then Amy would lose her amateur status, whether or not Tommy got paid for the lesson.

[Lucassb]

Can a trainer expect to be paid for a lesson given by an amateur (in which no money was exchanged between the student and the amateur)? I'm no USEF rule expert but I am a lawyer and, in this state, unless there was notice that the ammie was acting as the trainer's agent, that trainer has no business demanding to be paid. I suspect that if such notice was given, that amateur-agent could possibly be in jeopardy of losing her status.

Any thoughts?

If I am following your post correctly, the ammy "stood in" for the trainer and gave a lesson to one of the trainer's customers. Trainer is now charging for the lesson as though she had provided the instruction herself.

This happens frequently in barns where there is a shamateur type who acts as the trainer's locum/assistant and still rides and shows as an ammy (often on sale horses in the ammy divisions.)

If the trainer is paid for the lesson, the person teaching the lesson no longer qualifies as an amateur. The fact that that the customer paid the head trainer for the lesson does not create a loophole from a legal perspective, although from a practical point of view, it can be harder to prove.

[ynl063w]

If the trainer is paid for the lesson, the person teaching the lesson no longer qualifies as an amateur.

I think someone else already mentioned this, but this is only true if the person teaching the lesson is paid by the trainer for any other activity. If no money is moving, for any reason, from the trainer to the person teaching the lesson, amateur status is not jeopardized.

[Spotted Pony]

If I am following your post correctly, the ammy "stood in" for the trainer and gave a lesson to one of the trainer's customers. Trainer is now charging for the lesson as though she had provided the instruction herself.

This happens frequently in barns where there is a shamateur type who acts as the trainer's locum/assistant and still rides and shows as an ammy (often on sale horses in the ammy divisions.)

If the trainer is paid for the lesson, the person teaching the lesson no longer qualifies as an amateur. The fact that that the customer paid the head trainer for the lesson does not create a loophole from a legal perspective, although from a practical point of view, it can be harder to prove.

Could it not be argued that the shammy was giving lessons in exchange for being allowed to ride the horses ala "being compensated" for the teaching?

[quiet5]

If I am following your post correctly, the ammy "stood in" for the trainer and gave a lesson to one of the trainer's customers. Trainer is now charging for the lesson as though she had provided the instruction herself.

This happens frequently in barns where there is a shamateur type who acts as the trainer's locum/assistant and still rides and shows as an ammy (often on sale horses in the ammy divisions.)

If the trainer is paid for the lesson, the person teaching the lesson no longer qualifies as an amateur. The fact that that the customer paid the head trainer for the lesson does not create a loophole from a legal perspective, although from a practical point of view, it can be harder to prove.



Thanks, this was my understanding. Frankly in this state, no one can legally DEMAND payment for another's service unless there's been previous notice of agency given -- this was not the case. In other words, if my client needs me to write something for his company, and I provide someone else's writing as my own without foreclosing that I engaged an assistant to act in my behalf, then the fraud is almost as actionable as much as the plagiarism would be.

Now, I know, the horse world is different in many respects, but I will say this: I believe Trainer A is putting in jeopardy Ammie/"sub" lesson-giver's status as an amateur.

I told my friend not to pay her trainer for that lesson and offered to write a letter on her behalf.

Of course, now she's being thrown out of the barn.

Actually, this trainer regularly exchanges "training" for hacks of her client's horses with "shamateurs." Indeed, the trainer made this an issue at the meeting: that my friend expected to have her horse schooled by said trainer and this is costly and thus deserving of more money instead of having her ammies school the horse -- none of this is covered by the Boarding/Training Agreement whatsoever (of course it wouldn't be: it would put into jeopardy the status of all those amateurs who school horses for this trainer).

Oy!

[ynl063w]

(of course it wouldn't be: it would put into jeopardy the status of all those amateurs who school horses for this trainer).

Again, if the trainer (or the owners, or the barn owner who is receiving board for the horses) is not paying the amateurs for anything, they can ride as many horses as anyone wants them to ride without jeopardizing their amateur status.

Amateur status can only be called into question when money is flowing in the direction of the rider in question. Without that flow of money, there is nothing to question. You have not indicated that any of these potential riders are getting paid for anything, so I'm not sure of the problem.

[quiet5]

Again, if the trainer (or the owners, or the barn owner who is receiving board for the horses) is not paying the amateurs for anything, they can ride as many horses as anyone wants them to ride without jeopardizing their amateur status.

Amateur status can only be called into question when money is flowing in the direction of the rider in question. Without that flow of money, there is nothing to question. You have not indicated that any of these potential riders are getting paid for anything, so I'm not sure of the problem.

Nope: the trainer is taking money or, in this case, unsuccessfully demanding money for the ammy's ride. that's a big no-no UNLESS said trainer disclosed that expectation beforehand -- legally speaking. USEF rules are a whole different ball of wax.

There have been SO MANY threads discussing the whys and wherefores of amateurs who school horses in exchange for "free training" from the trainer, that I refer you those. :)

[ynl063w]

Nope: the trainer is taking money or, in this case, unsuccessfully demanding money for the ammy's ride. that's a big no-no UNLESS said trainer disclosed that expectation beforehand -- legally speaking. USEF rules are a whole different ball of wax.

There have been SO MANY threads discussing the whys and wherefores of amateurs who school horses in exchange for "free training" from the trainer, that I refer you those. :)

The first paragraph quoted above, the way it is written, does not in and of itself jeopardize anyone's amateur status. The second one does. It's not clear to me from your original post whether the second one applies in the situation you describe.

[Janet]

There have been SO MANY threads discussing the whys and wherefores of amateurs who school horses in exchange for "free training" from the trainer, that I refer you those. :)
Is Amy Amateur (the one teaching) getting "free training" from the Trainer?

Is Suzy Student a client of the Trainer"

If both are true, Amy is in violation of her amateur status by teaching Suzy, whether or not the trainer gets paid for it.

Or are you saying that Suzy Student is getting "free training"?

[quiet5]

Is Amy Amateur (the one teaching) getting "free training" from the Trainer?

Is Suzy Student a client of the Trainer"

If both are true, Amy is in violation of her amateur status by teaching Suzy, whether or not the trainer gets paid for it.

Or are you saying that Suzy Student is getting "free training"?

Let me be a clear as possible:

YES to your first question.

YES to your second question.

No. Suzy Student is getting fleeced by trainer. She gets very little for her money.


Furthermore, the trainer demanded payment for Amy Amateur's lesson to Suzy Student.

:)

[Janet]

Let me be a clear as possible:

YES to your first question.

YES to your second question.

No. Suzy Student is getting fleeced by trainer. She gets very little for her money.


Furthermore, the trainer demanded payment for Amy Amateur's lesson to Suzy Student.

:)
In that case Amy is not an amateur- whether or not Suzy pays the trainer..

But the USEF rules don't cover trainers fleecing clients.

[quiet5]

In that case Amy is not an amateur- whether or not Suzy pays the trainer..

But the USEF rules don't cover trainers fleecing clients.

Yes, but state law does!

One can be a patsy or stand up for one's rights. This trainer's hardly the only game in town.

I just wish there was some way USEF would penalize the trainer, too.

I know, that's another thread!

Thank you, Janet! I knew I could get the ups from you.

:)

[Jumperprincess]

one word-shamateur

[Addison]

JANET...what if the ammy/teacher is not getting any free training from the trainer or free anything for that matter but the trainer is being paid for the lesson? The ammy/teacher is simply helping out with a walk trot type lesson.

[twobays]

JANET...what if the ammy/teacher is not getting any free training from the trainer or free anything for that matter but the trainer is being paid for the lesson? The ammy/teacher is simply helping out with a walk trot type lesson.

If by "helping out" you mean: doing it for free, there's no problem. As long as no money/services are going to Amy Amateur for free/a discount, she's fine.

[bascher]

I have a kind of weird question. I was looking at the ammy rule last night and it seemed to say that you couldn't be a bookkeeper, groom, or veterinarian? I was surprised about the veterinarian thing in particular and I'm just wondering if I read it wrong. Thanks! :)

[mvp]

quiet5, Lucassb's perceptive post and Janet's answer speak to the larger fly in the amateur rule ointment: The trainers who benefit from the ongoing shamateur phenomenon.

Penalizing the trainers, I agree, might be a step forward for the USEF. Things changes fastest when peoples' finances are affected.

The OP reports that the student (who correctly didn't want to pay a pro for a lesson delivered by his designated ammy) was asked to leave the barn. That's legal, or rather barely touches the USEF amateur rule, but its really wrong IMO. So long as the offending trainer's barn keeps ticking along, where's the incentive to change?

Punishing the shammy, who probably likes the arrangement seems too indirect to me.

[ponies123]

I have a kind of weird question. I was looking at the ammy rule last night and it seemed to say that you couldn't be a bookkeeper, groom, or veterinarian? I was surprised about the veterinarian thing in particular and I'm just wondering if I read it wrong. Thanks! :)

You may have read it wrong, there is a separate point to the rule and I believe it says that you CAN be a bookkeeper, groom, or vet and still be an amateur as long as you are not also riding the horses you are cared to keep records for/groom/provide vet care for. Simply being a vet does not make you a pro (our vet is a very successful amateur rider, his father is also a vet, but is a pro because he provides training and coaching services.)

[Giddy-up]

JANET...what if the ammy/teacher is not getting any free training from the trainer or free anything for that matter but the trainer is being paid for the lesson? The ammy/teacher is simply helping out with a walk trot type lesson.

omg--you mean volunteering? :eek: Who does that anymore these days? :winkgrin:

[ponies123]

Now the question at hand has become really confusing. Your friend is kicked out of the barn because you told her to stick up for herself and not pay for the "lesson"? What exactly DID your friend agree upon? If she scheduled a lesson and received a lesson from the other Ammy I would say that yes she does need to pay up to whoever Ammy #1 says she should pay.. does your friend think she should get free lessons or what? If it was a situation where it was just two Ammys riding together and Ammy #1 gave your friend some pointers and now trainer is calling this a lesson and wants payment, well that is unethical on trainer's part and obviously friend should not pay..

[Janet]

I just wish there was some way USEF would penalize the trainer, too.
Well, they DO penalize the trainer for signing an entry when they know the rider isn't really an ammy.
GR1307.7. The trainer may be subject to disciplinary action if an exhibitor who shows as an
amateur is protested, and that protest is sustained by the Hearing Committee, and it is
determined that the trainer had knowledge of their professional activities.

[Janet]

I have a kind of weird question. I was looking at the ammy rule last night and it seemed to say that you couldn't be a bookkeeper, groom, or veterinarian? I was surprised about the veterinarian thing in particular and I'm just wondering if I read it wrong. Thanks! :)
You can be a bookkeeper, vet, groom, etc. AS LONG AS your employment has no connection with your riding/training/teaching.

But you can't ride/train/teach on horses connected with your employer.

This came about because of a case where a good rider was paid by the barn as the bookkeeper, but in fact was riding and training the barn's horses all week, and competing as an amateur.

But the result is that , if you are paid - for ANYTHING- by the barn, trainer or horse owner, you can't ride /train/teach on "their" horses, including boarders.

[Janet]

JANET...what if the ammy/teacher is not getting any free training from the trainer or free anything for that matter but the trainer is being paid for the lesson? The ammy/teacher is simply helping out with a walk trot type lesson.

If Suzy Student (amateur) gives a lesson to Betty Beginner, with no money changing hands, Suzy is still an amateur.

But if Suzy Student takes over the Saturday morning up-down class, with the barn or trainer being paid, it may not violate the letter of the rules, but it certainly give the IMPRESSION of impropriety. Especially if she does it EVERY Satruday.

[findeight]

Of course, now she's being thrown out of the barn.

Actually, this trainer regularly exchanges "training" for hacks of her client's horses with "shamateurs."...
Oy!

And being thrown out of this snakepit is bad because????

[quiet5]

Actually, I encouraged my friend to leave before the inevitable axe came down.

The thing that is illegal (not speaking in USEF terms, but UCC--Uniform Commercial Codes) is to demand payment after services are rendered based on the assumption that the trainer is acting as the agent of Amy Amateur --which had she done (provided the notice) would put into jeopardy Amy Amateur's card.

No one wants to penalize Amy Amateur because her understanding was she was doing it as favor to Sally Student.

That's what bothers me about the rule, as I understand the many replies in this thread: because Amy Amateur did this gratis and without expectation of compensation, but because she wanted to help Sally Student and offered to do so, she gets in more trouble from USEF than does the trainer.

It's not worth the money to prosecute in the courts. Perhaps a better thing would be to publish a story about it -- but then the few very good Amateurs who ride for this trainer and show the horses in training would again be penalized...what happens to the professional here? Seriously? :confused:

Has anyone ever heard of any penalty grievous enough to thwart this kind of behavior from trainers who cannot or are unable to pay for professionals to school their horses and to give lessons in the trainer's absence?

It's a bit of a sticky-wicket, I'm afraid. Not one that can easily be remedied otherwise I doubt we would have so many threads complaining about this very topic: shamateurs and trainers who use them.

But, truly, thanks to all for your time and feedback.

[Giddy-up]

It's not worth the money to prosecute in the courts. Perhaps a better thing would be to publish a story about it -- but then the few very good Amateurs who ride for this trainer and show the horses in training would again be penalized...what happens to the professional here? Seriously?

In my opinion--the "amateurs" who put themselves in these situations know that they are violating the rules & that there are consequences if they are caught. They choose to take the risk. I think if more were caught & penalized, less would be willing to take that chance.

I also agree that the trainers should be penalized equally as well for the role they play. Obviously if it's only taking place at home USEF has a harder time getting that enforced, but if the "amateur" is showing & the trainer is signing their entry blank, USEF has more to stand on one would think.

[findeight]

That's what bothers me about the rule, as I understand the many replies in this thread: because Amy Amateur did this gratis and without expectation of compensation, but because she wanted to help Sally Student and offered to do so, she gets in more trouble from USEF than does the trainer.

...this kind of behavior from trainers who cannot or are unable to pay for professionals to school their horses and to give lessons in the trainer's absence?


Ok, all USEF/USHJA cares about or makes any attempt to regulate is the difference between Pro and Ammie. They are not a legislative body with law enforcement capability empowered to regulate business practices.

Trainer may be a sleaze and too cheap (or cannot afford) to hire an assistant or part time teacher but he is not claiming to be anything except a Pro...and he may not appreciate Amy Ammie teaching on his property in his absence without permission whether she is being paid or not-that may be part of why he wants to be paid.

I drive by or visit the barn as a casual observer, see Amy Ammie teaching and she shows up in my A/O class the next weekend? What do you suppose I am going to do, especially if she beats me;)?

The Pro appears to be a Pro and represents himself as a Pro. Amy is representing herself as an Ammie but appears to be engaging in Pro activities. That is the question being raised.

Now, not defending the trainer here at all but...Amy Ammie may have been asked to leave partly because she was teaching without the trainer's knowledge or permission and he may expect clients to take lessons only from him. Also probably heard about it from several other clients who wanted Amy (or somebody) to teach them as well when he was gone-barn drama.

It's not as simple here as it sounds and we really don't have any first hand info about who said what to whom. Plus there is a second issue-no teacher at home when trainer is on the road-that has nothing to do with the appearance of pro activities by Amy Ammie.

Like I said, trainer may be a deadbeat but he is not claiming anything but Pro status and I fear dear Amy Ammie stirred up trouble when she taught in his place-paid or not-and that is why she is out of that barn.

[Janet]

Now, not defending the trainer here at all but...Amy Ammie may have been asked to leave partly because she was teaching without the trainer's knowledge or permission and he may expect clients to take lessons only from him. .

I may be mistaken, but I got the impression that it was Suzy Student (the one being taught) who was asked to leave.

[quiet5]

no Sally the Student was going to be kicked out for balking at the trainer's demand to be be paid for a volunteered lesson provided by Amy Amateur....

Ok, all USEF/USHJA cares about or makes any attempt to regulate is the difference between Pro and Ammie. They are not a legislative body with law enforcement capability empowered to regulate business practices.

Trainer may be a sleaze and too cheap (or cannot afford) to hire an assistant or part time teacher but he is not claiming to be anything except a Pro...and he may not appreciate Amy Ammie teaching on his property in his absence without permission whether she is being paid or not-that may be part of why he wants to be paid.

I drive by or visit the barn as a casual observer, see Amy Ammie teaching and she shows up in my A/O class the next weekend? What do you suppose I am going to do, especially if she beats me;)?

The Pro appears to be a Pro and represents himself as a Pro. Amy is representing herself as an Ammie but appears to be engaging in Pro activities. That is the question being raised.

Now, not defending the trainer here at all but...Amy Ammie may have been asked to leave partly because she was teaching without the trainer's knowledge or permission and he may expect clients to take lessons only from him. Also probably heard about it from several other clients who wanted Amy (or somebody) to teach them as well when he was gone-barn drama.

It's not as simple here as it sounds and we really don't have any first hand info about who said what to whom. Plus there is a second issue-no teacher at home when trainer is on the road-that has nothing to do with the appearance of pro activities by Amy Ammie.

Like I said, trainer may be a deadbeat but he is not claiming anything but Pro status and I fear dear Amy Ammie stirred up trouble when she taught in his place-paid or not-and that is why she is out of that barn.

[Giddy-up]

no Sally the Student was going to be kicked out for balking at the trainer's demand to be be paid for a volunteered lesson provided by Amy Amateur....

Sally Student needs to pay Trainer for lesson taught by Amy Amateur with a check clearly stating "lesson from Amy Amateur" & then take copy of said check when it's cashed & give it to USEF. Let USEF step in. They seem to be more willing these days, especially when they are given things like cashed checks, websites, business cards...

Situations like these only continue cause nobody steps up. Sally Student is already getting the boot so she's got nothing to lose anyways.

[findeight]

Got it, my bad...

If trainer is demanding payment for Amy Ammie's lesson, Sally Student needs to write "lesson from Amy" on the check and provide a copy to USEF next time Amy enters as an Ammie.