PDA

View Full Version : Letter of vs. Intent of the rules...



grandprixjump
Mar. 7, 2012, 11:01 PM
I know the governing body tries to make rules that work for everyone, but how many of you wish they would simplify the rules and get more along the lines of Intent of the rule instead of letter of the rule.

Here's an example of the piss poor ammy rules.

1. Person works at a barn mucking stalls, feeding, tacking up, etc. Hoping to learn all they can. They are asked by a boarder that is going on vacation if they will HACK their horse for the week they are gone. Not training, not even jumping. But by the letter of the law, if they do, they are a professional.

2. Person is independently wealthy, imports 10 or more very nice horses from Europe each year. Sells all at generous profit, out of their own facility, without a trainer in house. THIS is an AMMY...



Like others have mentioned in the "Duct Tape Thread" if you cover the name of your farm and trainer on your rig and stall setup. Your assistant can take YOUR clients to shows, business as usual. Absolutely NO loss of business to suspended person. So why bother even suspending someone with no "REAL" teeth in the punishment.

Rel6
Mar. 7, 2012, 11:14 PM
Isn't person 1 already a pro from working at the barn? Unless you mean they're not getting paid in which case riding a boarder's horse would not make them an ammy either (again, unless they are receiving some sort of compensation.)

Kestrel
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:10 AM
As long as person #1 doesn't swing a leg over any horse that doesn't belong to them, they are not a professional. You can still be an amateur and clean stalls, tack up, etc for money. They cannot teach lessons or ride a barn client's horse.

copper1
Mar. 8, 2012, 06:31 AM
I am a trainer, daughter is an avid horsewoman that as a junior, rode everything she could. Once she aged out, she was limited to riding only her horse or one of my own to preserve her amateur status. She is now married and living out of town,doesn't work in the horse business at all. Comes once a week to rider her own horse and if that horse is out for some reason, she can't ride anything and that seems unfair to someone who is a true ammy that has the mis/fortune to be a trainer's kid and so much loves to ride.
I understand the need for strong ammy rules but sometimes they seem a bit excessive!

RockinHorse
Mar. 8, 2012, 06:36 AM
I am a trainer, daughter is an avid horsewoman that as a junior, rode everything she could. Once she aged out, she was limited to riding only her horse or one of my own to preserve her amateur status. She is now married and living out of town,doesn't work in the horse business at all. Comes once a week to rider her own horse and if that horse is out for some reason, she can't ride anything and that seems unfair to someone who is a true ammy that has the mis/fortune to be a trainer's kid and so much loves to ride.
I understand the need for strong ammy rules but sometimes they seem a bit excessive!


If she lives out of town and is only riding once I week, I would guess she is not showing. If this is the case, why would she even worry about ammy status at this point?

kmwines01
Mar. 8, 2012, 07:17 AM
Forgive me if I'm not getting it, but I've always thought that you could ride other horses as long as you aren't paid or compensated for it? You couldnt take money, gifts, etc for teaching or riding.


And as bad as it sounds, unless you are very actively teaching lessons at a large barn, schooling clients at shows, and broadcasting how much money you get paid for these activities most people won't know what you do at home. USEF isn't coming by to pro checks and analyzing your bank statements and visiting your barn. Just saying... There are a lot of people who get around it. Bad for ammy's who are riding against ppl who should be technically pros and not so bad for ammy's who may get extra rides but aren't really pro worthy.

Lucassb
Mar. 8, 2012, 07:53 AM
Forgive me if I'm not getting it, but I've always thought that you could ride other horses as long as you aren't paid or compensated for it? You couldnt take money, gifts, etc for teaching or riding. (snip)

Yes, you can ride other owners' horses and retain your amateur status as long as you are not getting paid in any capacity by the barn that receives money for boarding/training that horse. The fact that the individual in the first example is employed as a groom (mucking, feeding, tacking up etc) is the reason she cannot ride a boarder's horse without technically losing her amateur status.

Unfortunately, the rule was crafted this way because there were enough people who claimed that they were being paid as bookkeepers, grooms etc to retain their amateur status, but who actually spent their days riding and teaching. Thus, the rule states you cannot be paid for ANY such activity *and* ride horses that do not belong to you that your employer is paid to board/train.

That said, a person who grooms, or keeps the books etc CAN ride any horses they like at any other barn without harming their status.

S A McKee
Mar. 8, 2012, 07:57 AM
"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"

The groom would be a pro if she/he rides the clients horse.
This topic,and ths rule in particular have been covered in a number of recent threads.
Perhaps some of you might want to read the rule? GR1306

Riding ability is not a definition of Amateur or Pro.
The person who manges her barn without a trainer is simply a good rider/manager or very lucky.No rule violation there.

USEF can ask for bank statements and financial records for Pros that are suspended to ensure that the suspended trainer is not receiving the benefit of income from showing clients while suspended.

If your Amateur status is questioned USEF can ask for financial records to prove your claim that you are an Amateur. Also, if you are protested for Amateur status involving an 'owner' situation they can ask for proof of ownership of the horse.

"After an investigation has been initiated, and upon request by the Federation and to the satisfaction of the Federation, an Amateur shall submit verifiable proof of Amateur status, including proof of ownership for any horse(s) the Amateur is competing in classes restricted to Amateur Owners.
If the Federation deems such proof insufficient, then the Federation may initiate proceedings in accordance with Chapter 6, Violations."

Lucassb
Mar. 8, 2012, 08:00 AM
I know the governing body tries to make rules that work for everyone, but how many of you wish they would simplify the rules and get more along the lines of Intent of the rule instead of letter of the rule.

Here's an example of the piss poor ammy rules.

(snip)

2. Person is independently wealthy, imports 10 or more very nice horses from Europe each year. Sells all at generous profit, out of their own facility, without a trainer in house. THIS is an AMMY...

I dunno... this scenario doesn't bother me. Why shouldn't this person be an ammy? Because they are good enough to make up/show/sell horses at a profit?

I am far from wealthy (understatement) but I have been fortunate to have sold a couple of nice investment horses along the way, and the profits have supported my own (modest) personal showing expenses. I know quite a few other amateurs who likewise support or at least somewhat offset their expenses by bringing along horses to sell. Most, like me, have non-horsey full time jobs, and ride, however seriously, for fun. Not pros in any sense of the word.

trubandloki
Mar. 8, 2012, 08:09 AM
And as bad as it sounds, unless you are very actively teaching lessons at a large barn, schooling clients at shows, and broadcasting how much money you get paid for these activities most people won't know what you do at home. USEF isn't coming by to pro checks and analyzing your bank statements and visiting your barn.
And the feeling that some people have that they can pick and choose what parts of rules apply to us/them and ignore the rest is why the ammy rule is so difficult now.

kmwines01
Mar. 8, 2012, 11:43 AM
Thanks for the clarifications lucassb and McKee. I was on my phone so couldn't easily look up the rules. And only ever shown locally as junior and just now getting back into showing as an adult so have never had to worry about my status so never read the rule fully.

McKee: are there any stats on or do you know of people who's amateur status has been investigated? That seems like an intense process for USEF to undertake so I'd be interested in how often it's done.

I've never shown rated shows so have never had to deal with USEF.

Also, is it cross disciplinary? If you're paid to exercise racehorses does that take away your amateur status under USEF? I would assume if it in another discipline that follows USEF then it would make you a pro but for activities outside of those disciplines.

meupatdoes
Mar. 8, 2012, 11:59 AM
Also, is it cross disciplinary? If you're paid to exercise racehorses does that take away your amateur status under USEF? I would assume if it in another discipline that follows USEF then it would make you a pro but for activities outside of those disciplines.

Yes.
I think Julie Krone ran into this trying to show in the jumpers as an ammy.

USEF was like, "Nope."

mvp
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:13 PM
Unfortunately, the rule was crafted this way because there were enough people who claimed that they were being paid as bookkeepers, grooms etc to retain their amateur status, but who actually spent their days riding and teaching. Thus, the rule states you cannot be paid for ANY such activity *and* ride horses that do not belong to you that your employer is paid to board/train.

But the intention of the ammy rules and D&M rules IS clear!

Amateurs:

To keep those who have the opportunity to learn to ride circles around others-- by virtue of their profession-- out of that competition.

The rules aren't meant to related to how well you ride, but how much opportunity you had to become great. If your "job" was to ride all day every day, and you did that on your parents' nickel as a junior or on the income from your SO or trust fund, no problem.

I think English World might want to look at some of the models that Western World has tried in terms of sorting horses and riders by the points or kinds of awards they have won. It still encourages people to pour a lot of time and money in showing (one of the desired effects of the ammy rule), but it also keeps "like with like" in terms of sporting contests.

D&M rules:

1) Don't mask pain so that the semi-crippled animal is completely crippled by showing.

2) Don't use drugs to mask a training problem or a scared horse in a sport that involves teaching horses to calmly do a job.

The horse desired in the hunter ring is different than the "just make him more or less controllable" horse needed in the jumper ring. But the intention is the same.

What is unclear?

Madaketmomma
Mar. 8, 2012, 01:14 PM
I am a paid groom for my trainer and I only ride my horse. It is frustrating when my horse is laid up that I cannot ride any other horse that is in his program, but that is the way it is. When we are at shows with a lot of horses and they need to stretch their legs-guess who is the only one on the ground hand walking the horse while the kids are up on any of the other horses enjoying a relaxing ride.

I would love to "catch ride" for other trainers for free, but, sometimes I can't ride my way out of a paper bag so why would they want me to ride, and I am so busy working that I probably couldn't do it anyway.

I wish it was different, but I respect the rules and would really be out of place riding against the pro's!!!!! Sometimes I wish they had an out gate at the far end of the arena at shows so that I wouldn't have to face my trainer coming out of the ring.

S A McKee
Mar. 8, 2012, 03:15 PM
McKee: are there any stats on or do you know of people who's amateur status has been investigated? That seems like an intense process for USEF to undertake so I'd be interested in how often it's done.

Also, is it cross disciplinary? If you're paid to exercise racehorses does that take away your amateur status under USEF? I would assume if it in another discipline that follows USEF then it would make you a pro but for activities outside of those disciplines.

Read the monthly report of the hearing committee
Almost every month there is a report of a fake 'Amateur'.
USEF is doing a much better job on enforcement.
The usual penalty seems to be a year as a non Amateur before the violator can apply for Ammie Status.

Also, the trainers who condone Amateur rule violations ( employ'Amateurs' to teach or show for the trainer's benefit)) are also being fined or even serving a short vacation.

Yes, it is cross disciplines.

Janet
Mar. 8, 2012, 04:10 PM
2. Person is independently wealthy, imports 10 or more very nice horses from Europe each year. Sells all at generous profit, out of their own facility, without a trainer in house. THIS is an AMMY....
I hate to disappoint you, but that is EXACTLY who the amateur rules were originally written for.

When the amateur division started, there were VERY FEW amateurs who worked outside the home.

Janet
Mar. 8, 2012, 04:14 PM
The rules aren't meant to related to how well you ride, but how much opportunity you had to become great. If your "job" was to ride all day every day, and you did that on your parents' nickel as a junior or on the income from your SO or trust fund, no problem

Nope, they are not meant to address that (how much time you have to ride) either.

They are meant to address whether or not you are getting PAID (directly or indirectly) for riding or teaching.

supershorty628
Mar. 8, 2012, 04:19 PM
But the intention of the ammy rules and D&M rules IS clear!

The rules aren't meant to related to how well you ride, but how much opportunity you had to become great. If your "job" was to ride all day every day, and you did that on your parents' nickel as a junior or on the income from your SO or trust fund, no problem.


The amount of time you have to ride has nothing to do with whether you're an amateur. It's whether you're paid or not - which is not necessarily "opportunity to become great."

I "work" at a barn exercising horses and ponies. I get paid nothing, given nothing, etc. Actually, I spend a decent amount of money on gas just to get there! But I am not a pro just because I can get out there 5 or 6 days a week and ride 5 or 6 horses.

S A McKee
Mar. 8, 2012, 04:36 PM
But the intention of the ammy rules and D&M rules IS clear!

Amateurs:

To keep those who have the opportunity to learn to ride circles around others-- by virtue of their profession-- out of that competition.

The rules aren't meant to related to how well you ride, but how much opportunity you had to become great. If your "job" was to ride all day every day, and you did that on your parents' nickel as a junior or on the income from your SO or trust fund, no problem.



Why do you make that statement?
Where in the rules do you find anything about 'opportunity'?
Please re-read the section and explain your position.

justathought
Mar. 8, 2012, 05:41 PM
A bit off track - can anyone one definitely state the purpose of the amateur rules ....

Clearly not intended to create a "level" playing field in a true sense.

For example, the rules clearly allow an amateur to buy and sell horses - even to make their entire living doing so - and remain an amateur. In most cases, someone who made their entire living from a particular sport would be a professional, but not here.

If one works for a barn, one cannot ride any horse except one's own, but one can ride horses from another barn -- ie barns can "swap" grooms for riding and entirely avoid violation of the letter of the law (and entirely violate its spirit)

Juniors are not subject to the rules at all - permitting some juniors to ride multiple horses for the trainer they work for, be paid for catch rides until they age out where miraculously in an instant the same activities make them a pro

Isolating the reason for the amateur rules might help to understand how they are crafted ....

mvp
Mar. 8, 2012, 06:53 PM
Nope, they are not meant to address that (how much time you have to ride) either.

They are meant to address whether or not you are getting PAID (directly or indirectly) for riding or teaching.

I know the ammy rules are not written to speak to opportunity to ride or your ability in the saddle.

IMO, however, it comes down to this underneath it all. There are many folks out there who would like to learn to ride better and cannot afford to. Look at all the people hoping to trade work for saddle time or even show opportunities.

If you can buy enough horses of your own that you can jump 150 fences a day, 6 days a week, you'll be just as fit and balls-on accurate as a pro with the same quotient of talent. If you can't, and few ammies can, then you are limited. Hanging out your shingle is a great way to get to practice.

S A McKee
Mar. 8, 2012, 08:07 PM
I know the ammy rules are not written to speak to opportunity to ride or your ability in the saddle.

IMO, however, it comes down to this underneath it all. There are many folks out there who would like to learn to ride better and cannot afford to. Look at all the people hoping to trade work for saddle time or even show opportunities.

If you can buy enough horses of your own that you can jump 150 fences a day, 6 days a week, you'll be just as fit and balls-on accurate as a pro with the same quotient of talent. If you can't, and few ammies can, then you are limited. Hanging out your shingle is a great way to get to practice.

So what.
Lots of people would like a better car, a better house, a better whatever. Life isn't fair. Neither is showing.

The point is (and you admit it ) is that most Ammies are not doing what you complain about. Most have some sort of a job and a horse or two. Most often the playing field is pretty level or maybe has a bump or two.

If you are 'hanging out a shingle' then you are advertising your services and that makes you a Pro so what was the point of that statement?

Tapperjockey
Mar. 8, 2012, 08:52 PM
A bit off track - can anyone one definitely state the purpose of the amateur rules ....

Clearly not intended to create a "level" playing field in a true sense.

For example, the rules clearly allow an amateur to buy and sell horses - even to make their entire living doing so - and remain an amateur. In most cases, someone who made their entire living from a particular sport would be a professional, but not here.

If one works for a barn, one cannot ride any horse except one's own, but one can ride horses from another barn -- ie barns can "swap" grooms for riding and entirely avoid violation of the letter of the law (and entirely violate its spirit)

Juniors are not subject to the rules at all - permitting some juniors to ride multiple horses for the trainer they work for, be paid for catch rides until they age out where miraculously in an instant the same activities make them a pro

Isolating the reason for the amateur rules might help to understand how they are crafted ....

That's right. Juniors are never considered professionals. (maybe it's harder to fine them haha).

Otherwise, I like how the rules are written. If you accept money for doing something, you are a professional. If don't, you aren't.

mvp
Mar. 8, 2012, 09:02 PM
So what.
Lots of people would like a better car, a better house, a better whatever. Life isn't fair. Neither is showing.

The point is (and you admit it ) is that most Ammies are not doing what you complain about. Most have some sort of a job and a horse or two. Most often the playing field is pretty level or maybe has a bump or two.

If you are 'hanging out a shingle' then you are advertising your services and that makes you a Pro so what was the point of that statement?

'K, the "We won't bother to make the show ring fair because Life Isn't Fair" is an argument that's lame and self-defeating.

The truth about the reality of life hasn't stopped many, many societies and jurisdictions from making their little corner of it more fair.

So why would anyone pay to hang out in a corner of the world that no one bothered to make at all fair?

If you felt you were the one who would get the short end of the stick, why would you endorse this point of view? That makes no rational sense to me. Therefore, I can only conclude that the "winners" like it and make the argument. And defending the interests of those who benefit from the current system is fine. But it doesn't do much to invite new people in. IMO, horse showing needs to expand and making the sport seem like a sport where the rules of competition at least give everyone a shot is a great idea.

The point of the "hanging out your shingle" statement was not that it would make you a pro. Of course it does. The question was about how your Average Joe could get access to the practice time over fences that pros and folks with very large strings of horses can get.

Janet
Mar. 8, 2012, 11:02 PM
A bit off track - can anyone one definitely state the purpose of the amateur rules ....
At the time the amateur rules were first introduced, the intent was to provide a separate division for two groups of people.

A - young people who had just aged out of the junior division, but were still supported by their parents (mostly college students)

B - Riders, mostly women, who did not work outside teh home, but were supported by a spouse, or a trust fund...

When the amateur rules were developed, they were NOT aimed at people who mucked stalls to fund their riding habit.

Janet
Mar. 8, 2012, 11:05 PM
The question was about how your Average Joe could get access to the practice time over fences that pros and folks with very large strings of horses can get.
Cynical response:
Marry "well".
Inherit "well".
Be supported by your parents.

No. It is not "fair". But that IS who the rules wee originally developed for.

ynl063w
Mar. 9, 2012, 12:14 AM
I know the ammy rules are not written to speak to opportunity to ride or your ability in the saddle.

IMO, however, it comes down to this underneath it all. There are many folks out there who would like to learn to ride better and cannot afford to. Look at all the people hoping to trade work for saddle time or even show opportunities.

If you can buy enough horses of your own that you can jump 150 fences a day, 6 days a week, you'll be just as fit and balls-on accurate as a pro with the same quotient of talent. If you can't, and few ammies can, then you are limited. Hanging out your shingle is a great way to get to practice.

I totally agree with S A McKee. Why should life in the horse show world be any different than the real world? It's just not equal for everyone. Some have advantages over others. Oh boo hoo.

There are so many threads here full of posts from people who complain about the 2'6 and below divisions, and how they are dumbing down "our" sport, then some of the same people (hello mvp) at the same time come on here wishing for rule changes that will benefit their own situations in a way that they can feel important in the sport.

The biggest favor all you complainers can do for yourselves is set goals based on the reality of your own personal situations and stop being jealous about what others have and you don't (and most likely never will). Until then you won't ever get anywhere in your riding.

S A McKee
Mar. 9, 2012, 06:28 AM
'K, the "We won't bother to make the show ring fair because Life Isn't Fair" is an argument that's lame and self-defeating.

The truth about the reality of life hasn't stopped many, many societies and jurisdictions from making their little corner of it more fair.

So why would anyone pay to hang out in a corner of the world that no one bothered to make at all fair?

If you felt you were the one who would get the short end of the stick, why would you endorse this point of view? That makes no rational sense to me. Therefore, I can only conclude that the "winners" like it and make the argument. And defending the interests of those who benefit from the current system is fine. But it doesn't do much to invite new people in. IMO, horse showing needs to expand and making the sport seem like a sport where the rules of competition at least give everyone a shot is a great idea.

The point of the "hanging out your shingle" statement was not that it would make you a pro. Of course it does. The question was about how your Average Joe could get access to the practice time over fences that pros and folks with very large strings of horses can get.

How would you propose to makes things 'more fair' ? Eliminate anybody who doesn't work?

Look around, while entries have declined in some places due to the economy, all the show circuits are happily running so if you think it's fair or not isn't relevant. The fact that people continue to support showing reflects the attitude by most that it is as fair as possible. If it was such an issue no Amateurs at all would be showing.

I can't afford a pile of horses. I can afford one nice one.
I got over being upset about not have my own stable a long time ago. It's called growing up.
The only people upset are clearly jealous of the more fortunate. Get over it.

copper1
Mar. 9, 2012, 06:46 AM
Despite only beinga ble to ride once a week, my daughter does show successfully-I keep her horse in shape.
As far as intent of the rule for trainer's kids, it is ASSUMED that the kid is benefitting from the parent's earnings. Yes, a lot of people skip under the rule on this but if that person beats the wrong person in a class, the one that lost is going to come after your status!
Some rules are stupid but we do need to follow them.

RockinHorse
Mar. 9, 2012, 08:24 AM
I know the ammy rules are not written to speak to opportunity to ride or your ability in the saddle.

IMO, however, it comes down to this underneath it all. There are many folks out there who would like to learn to ride better and cannot afford to. Look at all the people hoping to trade work for saddle time or even show opportunities.

If you can buy enough horses of your own that you can jump 150 fences a day, 6 days a week, you'll be just as fit and balls-on accurate as a pro with the same quotient of talent. If you can't, and few ammies can, then you are limited. Hanging out your shingle is a great way to get to practice.

But then there are also always going to be the ammys who can afford to buy a VERY nice horse and put it with a BNT. They are going to have an advantage over people that can only afford a nice horse and a MNT. And of course they will both have an advantage over ammys that can only buy an average horse.

I don't see how you are really going to expect to make a truly level playing field where everything is "fair" unless you add scads of new divisions and make the eligibility rules bigger than a dictionary.

I say this as someone who no longer rides at the AA level because of financial and time constraints.

Janet
Mar. 9, 2012, 09:37 AM
I don't see how you are really going to expect to make a truly level playing field where everything is "fair" unless you add scads of new divisions and make the eligibility rules bigger than a dictionary.

When Eventing was investigating having its own, discipline specific, amateur rules, they did a BUNCH of surveys on what people thought the rules should be.

They go responses from all levels (Beginner Novice to Advanced, full time office workers to full time riders supported by family or spouse).

Almost inevitably, people thought that the rules shold be two "steps" above where they were now.

I think this probably applies across disciplines. You are NEVER going to make everybody happy.

Rosie
Mar. 9, 2012, 11:35 AM
Changing rules to make it more "fair" for the majority of people that it impacts, is fine with me - however in all of the approximately trillion times this subject has come up, I haven't seen a comprehensive, well thought- out alternative to the current ammy rules. Most are suggestions by people unhappy 'cause the rules don't fit THEIR situation (Generally people who wish they could make money either teaching or riding horses in order to fund their showing/horses) and they argue that they don't ride well enough to go against the pros.
Do I empathize with those that struggle financially in order to afford this sport? Certainly.
Do I wish that we could find ways to make it more affordable for everyone? Absolutely.
I don't think changing the ammy rules, at least to any of the suggestions I've seen so far, would achieve either of those two things.

While I realize that not allowing people to "teach a few up/down lessons" or "hack a few horses for the trainer" and be compensated for it - doesn't ALWAYS lead to a completely level playing field - frankly, I STILL think that if one is receiving $$ for those things, you should not be able to compete as an ammy. If you need $$ to fund your "sport" - find other ways to do it! There are still a lot of horse related jobs that aren't against the rules.

MVP, I don't think I fit into a category labeled "winners" - though I have occasionally done very well at shows. Most of the time I am a "middle of the pack" kinda competitor - and get my thrills from spending time with my horse and measuring our progress against the last time we showed.
I am "older", have been showing (at many different levels/disciplines) for years and have in the last few years FINALLY have been able to afford a nice jumper, an excellent training program and a fairly regular show schedule. While showing at the "A+" level will ALWAYS be limited to those with (at least) above average means - I think there are opportunities for people to enjoy this "sport" without being able to afford "the A/AA h/j circuit."

Ravencrest_Camp
Mar. 9, 2012, 11:53 AM
I agree with a number of posters, no matter what the rule is, there are going to be some who do not like it. There is no way to make everyone happy.

But there is one thing I do not understand. There appears to be a huge loop hole and I am not sure why it isn't closed. Maybe this doesn't happen enough times to be of consequence.

Why is it that selling horses, and making money from the sale of horses does not jeopardize your amateur status?

Why is it that I can breed or buy my own horses, spend all of my time training and showing those horses, sell those horses for a profit, thereby getting paid for the training and showing, and still remain an amateur.

How is that different from someone who trains and shows horses for others? Or am I missing something?

Janet
Mar. 9, 2012, 12:26 PM
Why is it that selling horses, and making money from the sale of horses does not jeopardize your amateur status?

Why is it that I can breed or buy my own horses, spend all of my time training and showing those horses, sell those horses for a profit, thereby getting paid for the training and showing, and still remain an amateur.

How is that different from someone who trains and shows horses for others? Or am I missing something?

Because MANY people buy a starter horse, then they want to move up, so they sell that horse and buy a new one, then do the same thing again.

In reality, they are probably not making a profit, but they may be selling a horse for more than they paid for it, especialy if they put a lot of horse show miles on it. Or if they bought it green broke, and got it showing successfully.

I wouldn't want to try to write a rule that distinguishes between A an amateur who happens to get lucky and sells a horse at a profit, and B a pro who is making money buying and selling horses.

The gist of it is that (real, true, undisputed) amateurs DO sell horses from time to time, and they might actually make a profit.

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl
Mar. 9, 2012, 01:37 PM
Janet - can you pop your historian hat back on and talk about the shift (?) from Novice, Limit, Open-world to Pro and Ammy- world? Does/did it correspond in some way to the changing of Olympic athlete eligibility?

Linny
Mar. 13, 2012, 11:35 PM
It is odd that if someone's primary source of income is buying and selling, breeding and raising or training and showing horses even if they do so only for themselves that they are ammy yet if I get paid a nominal sum to muck as soon as I throw a leg over the horse I lesson on (who is boarded at my barn) I am a pro.
I know why the rules are this way, but if you tell that scenario to anyone outside of the equestrian environment they look at you like you are nuts.

I have no issue with ammys selling horses for more than they paid but if it's how they earn a living they are not really "ammy." If I buy a house and while living in it I fix it up and then sell it for more than I paid it doesn't make me a real estate professional. OTOH, if I buy 5-8 houses a year and fix and flip them as my sole source of income that does make me a real estate professional.

As for fairness, the ammy division was born when the "ladies who lunch" decided it was not fair for them to always have to compete against the same people they hired to train their horses and they lobbied for a separate division.

The ammy rule came into being in a different era in shows. Back then shows were dominated by big money, old money country gentry and the wives of doctors and lawyers and bankers etc. They had time to ride because they didn't work and typically had "help" with home and children. Todays ammy is a different person. More typically she is the doctor or the lawyer and is a mom and doesn't have "help" and doesn't send the kids to boarding school. She might be the divorced mom who would love to teach lessons one or two nights a week to offset costs or the single girl who struck a deal with a boarder to be able to use their horse in lessons and has to give up her job as a P/T mucker 2x a week because riding that horse makes her a pro.

Janet
Mar. 14, 2012, 12:43 AM
Janet - can you pop your historian hat back on and talk about the shift (?) from Novice, Limit, Open-world to Pro and Ammy- world? Does/did it correspond in some way to the changing of Olympic athlete eligibility?
I don't think there is a connection. In my experience "Maiden, Novice, Limit" applied to JUNIORS, and only for equitation classes. The Pro vs Amateur was for GROWNUPS, and for classes judged on the horse.

I do not think it had much to do with the change in Olympic rules about Amateurs, which were MUCH stricter thatn the AHSA rules.

Equilibrium
Mar. 14, 2012, 02:30 AM
This is just as an outsider looking in, but why the Ammy division? Is there not something else for people who don't make the cut? Say a plain ole adult division at various heights? Maybe there already is that kind of division, don't know. Wouldn't that be a good alternative? Personally I don't see an issue with the rules as written. I really hate to agree but I don't think the Ammy division was ever started for people looking for a foot in the door for a professional career. If you're a groom getting on horses for your employer surely the ultimate goal is having your own stable one day, not just dreams of being the top Ammy. So you need to show in whatever you can and deal with it. The benefits are riding a bunch of different horses, showing in more open company, and if you want it and are given fabulous opportunities to shine you will. Stop looking at what you can't have and focus on what you can. An Ammy really doesn't want a professional career in horses. Probably can't because in order to be a top Ammy they are working hard away from horses to be able to compete.

I do think it's not the norm to be the Ammie owner with unlimited cash to have a stable of 10 imports always for sale. Maybe not I don't know.

What are the rules for Ammy's showing in other divisions?

Terri

Janet
Mar. 14, 2012, 07:51 AM
What are the rules for Ammy's showing in other divisions?
The amateur rules apply to all the disciplines except. IIRC, reining which uses a different system.

The difference is that, in other disciplines such as Eventing and Dressage, amateur status doesn't affect the level at which you compete.

For many decades, in hunters, if you were an amateur you had "rated" classes at 3'6". But if you didn't qualify as an amateur, and your horse was not green, the only rated calsses were 4'. There were LOTS of people who wanted to jump 3'6" but not 4'.

findeight
Mar. 14, 2012, 11:22 AM
Reining does money won so if you are really good and win up to the limit? You either go Open or sit out the rest of the season working on next's years master plan. Winning big is sort of a good news/bad news point unless you want to go against the top 20+ Open trainers in a huge class.

I don't know that that would make anybody any happier over here in H/J land.

Honestly, and I realize this may not be popular, this is about the most expensive of many horse disciplines and if funds are limited? There are other choices. That is exactly why I showed Western for so many years, it is less expensive.

The the intent of the current ammy rule is to keep that barn bookeeper or groom from serving as an assistant trainer and that is why the letter of the current rule reads as it does. Maybe a little heavy handed...but so is a speeding tkt for 5mph over, you still broke the letter and intent of the law.

Unfair? I really don't think the fact I cannot afford a Mercedes is any more unfair then the fact at times in my life I could not afford to show rated Hunters. There is no inherent fairness in income, you make what you make.

NoobieDoo
Mar. 14, 2012, 11:35 AM
I had a question regarding the Ammy rules - I have a daughter that just aged out, she no longer has her own horse but is helping a friend bring a green one along, she's not getting paid, I am paying most of the bills when she's riding but the owner is paying a share as well. She's fine to ride in any division, except for A/O's, correct??

As a general comment on the rules, I agree that they are not perfect but no rule is! What I hate, and with the recently aged out daughter see alot with some of her friends, is the 18 year old working student riding in the Amateur sections with the blessing of the trainer :( .

findeight
Mar. 14, 2012, 12:03 PM
...the 18 year old working student riding in the Amateur sections with the blessing of the trainer :( .

Well the trainer can bless her all s/he wants but the USEF is going the other way with that one. That is a violation. Unless the WS is still show age 17, they can't receive free rides/training/lessons in return for labor.

That needs to be protested via the normal channels at the show or you can just contact the USEF directly and see how to proceed. You might also want to check with the USEF about your DD, I think she is OK here based on what you shared, riding a horse for a friend, with no labor agreement.

Janet
Mar. 14, 2012, 12:17 PM
I had a question regarding the Ammy rules - I have a daughter that just aged out, she no longer has her own horse but is helping a friend bring a green one along, she's not getting paid, I am paying most of the bills when she's riding but the owner is paying a share as well. She's fine to ride in any division, except for A/O's, correct??

It depends on exactly what expenses the owner is paying.

For instance, the owner cannot pay for "travel, hotel, room and board or equipment"

NoobieDoo
Mar. 14, 2012, 12:21 PM
It depends on exactly what expenses the owner is paying.

For instance, the owner cannot pay for "travel, hotel, room and board or equipment"

The owner helps with the horses board bill, vet, shoes and might pay a division at a horseshow, nothing related to my daughter's personal expenses at all.

Findeight, agreed that the WS riding as an amateur should be protested but hard to do when you are friends with all involved :(

mvp
Mar. 14, 2012, 03:01 PM
Findeight, agreed that the WS riding as an amateur should be protested but hard to do when you are friends with all involved :(

You made your own bed, then.

Look, if you will let "friends" cheat in ways that materially affect you, then you can't complain about the system-- even if you think the rules could be written better.

I read a similar statement made by one of those really elite A/O hunter ladies a while back in COTH. It turned me off to the sport at that level.

grandprixjump
Mar. 14, 2012, 03:14 PM
Also about suspended trainers giving the silver finger to ALL showing participants, by being at the show anyway..

Loose meaning of "for the benefit of"...

Punishments varying for same infraction, by "who you are"..


The list can go on and on..

findeight
Mar. 14, 2012, 03:20 PM
...
Findeight, agreed that the WS riding as an amateur should be protested but hard to do when you are friends with all involved :(

"Friends"? You sure about that? If you openly cheated would they refrain from running to the office in the name of friendship? Or be the first in line to turn you in?

You better think about that one seriously. You probablly won't like the answer to that question very much. especially if you win and beat them...nobody cares if you suck and lose.

Janet
Mar. 14, 2012, 05:07 PM
Findeight, agreed that the WS riding as an amateur should be protested but hard to do when you are friends with all involved :(

I discovered (at a dressage show, but same principle) that a friend I knew was a part time professional (I had PAID the person to show my horse in hand when I had a conflict) was showing as an amateur.

I made a joke out of it. "Ha, ha, ha, look at this, they have YOU listed as an amateur!"

Next time I checked s/he was listed as a professional.

gottagrey
Mar. 14, 2012, 11:28 PM
Janet, I thought owner's could pay a rider's expenses ONLY. For instance I know of a Adult Hunter rider who shows horses owned by Mrs. X - I'm pretty certain AH rider doesn't pay entry/showing fees for horse - Mrs. X does, and the AH just shows the horse but isn't paid to ride the horse. AH has a job outside the equestrian industry -is that now in violation of the rule?

RockinHorse
Mar. 15, 2012, 06:32 AM
Not Janet, but, I believe the owner can only pay the horses expenses.

Tapperjockey
Mar. 15, 2012, 07:50 AM
Janet, I thought owner's could pay a rider's expenses ONLY. For instance I know of a Adult Hunter rider who shows horses owned by Mrs. X - I'm pretty certain AH rider doesn't pay entry/showing fees for horse - Mrs. X does, and the AH just shows the horse but isn't paid to ride the horse. AH has a job outside the equestrian industry -is that now in violation of the rule?

Mrs X can pay the entry fees for the horse. She cannot pay anything to the rider, or for the rider. Rider needs 20 bucks to pay a cab to get to the show grounds.. Mrs X cannot pay it. travel, hotel, room/ board or equipment cannot be paid for.

I don't know how it would work if the horse is trailered and Mrs X pays that, but AH rides with the person hauling the horse though.. I imagine that is fine though, as that is more the horse's expense than the rider.

Janet
Mar. 15, 2012, 10:22 AM
Janet, I thought owner's could pay a rider's expenses ONLY. For instance I know of a Adult Hunter rider who shows horses owned by Mrs. X - I'm pretty certain AH rider doesn't pay entry/showing fees for horse - Mrs. X does, and the AH just shows the horse but isn't paid to ride the horse. AH has a job outside the equestrian industry -is that now in violation of the rule?
This is what the rules say

2. The following activities do not affect the amateur status of a person who is otherwise qualified:
...
c. Accepting reimbursement for any expenses directly related to the horse (i.e. farrier/vet bills,
entries) however, does not include travel, hotel, room and board or equipment.

The owner can pay the HORSE'S expenses (farrier, vet, entry, etc.).

The owner cannot pay the RIDER'S expenses (travel, hotel, room and board, equipment, etc.).

The owner paying the entry fees, etc. is OK.

Paddys Mom
Mar. 15, 2012, 02:19 PM
But the intention of the ammy rules and D&M rules IS clear!

D&M rules:

1) Don't mask pain so that the semi-crippled animal is completely crippled by showing.

2) Don't use drugs to mask a training problem or a scared horse in a sport that involves teaching horses to calmly do a job.
What is unclear?

My problem is with the D&M rules.
My horse has RAO/heaves/COPD.
He lives out 24/7 and eats hay outside and is fine.
If I keep him in a stall, like at a show, he starts coughing.
I can't give him any medication like Ventipulmin to help his cough because it is forbidden.

I would not be using Ventipulmin to mask pain or a training problem, but I still can't use it. :sigh: