[Roxy SM]

Reading the letter of v intent of thread verified my understanding of the amateur rules. Specifically that if you are paid by a farm as a groom, but you ride horses in training there you cannot show as an amateur. I looked on the Equine Canada site and in their hunter/jumper rulebook and the rules aren't as specific. Does anyone here know if it is the same as the US rules or if you can be employed as a groom, but ride the training horses regularly and still show as an amateur? Thanks!

[SSacky]

c) An EC amateur may not accept remuneration for training a horse or for
showing a horse at any EC-sanctioned competition. See Glossary for
definition of “Remuneration

So no. You cannot ride a horse in training because you are being paid.

[Roxy SM]

c) An EC amateur may not accept remuneration for training a horse or for
showing a horse at any EC-sanctioned competition. See Glossary for
definition of “Remuneration

So no. You cannot ride a horse in training because you are being paid.

Yes I read that part, but it is not very clear. I would like to know if the rule is the same as it is in the US. That is, if someone is employed as a groom and the horses that person grooms are horses that are in training with the the trainer at the farm, but the groom hacks them regularly, then the groom is a pro too. This is not my situation, but I know several people that do this and show as amateurs, which is why I am asking it is different here.

[MHM]

When I had Canadian neighbors at WEF a couple of years ago, it certainly looked as if their amateur rules must be applied a little differently than the USEF version. Or maybe those particular neighbors just didn't worry about it!

[Ibex]

I think they're just not as sticky up here - I know of several similar situations as well. We even have that additional status where you can declare as a beginner's instructor (leadline, w-t type stuff), but still show as an Ammy.

Most situations I've seen the Ammy ring was the right place... those grooming were not FT grooms, usually just working off a few lessons, and had no Pro aspirations, and either it's within the rules, or nobody cares. Heck, I've groomed for trainers, gotten a lesson on a horse other than my own as a thank-you, and on no planet would I be considered a Pro. I get why the US rules are so sticky, but am glad not to have to live under them.

[Ravencrest_Camp]

Reading the letter of v intent of thread verified my understanding of the amateur rules. Specifically that if you are paid by a farm as a groom, but you ride horses in training there you cannot show as an amateur. I looked on the Equine Canada site and in their hunter/jumper rulebook and the rules aren't as specific. Does anyone here know if it is the same as the US rules or if you can be employed as a groom, but ride the training horses regularly and still show as an amateur? Thanks!

From my understanding of the USEF rule, it differs from the Equine Canada rule.

The way the USEF rule has been explained to me, due to problems in the past, if you get paid in ANY capacity by a trainer or stable (ie bookeeping, grooming) you can not ride any horse but your own. Otherwise you are no longer an amateur.

The Equine Canada rule makes no such stipulation. In Canada if you are paid to teach, train or show horses then you are no longer eligible to show in amateur classes.

In Canada you can be employed by a stable or trainer and it does not effect you amateur status, as long as you are not paid to teach, train or show. So working for a trainer as a bookeeper, babysitter, gardener, groom, whatever, you can still show as an amateur.

I agree that the Equine Canada rule is open to abuse. The most common way I have seen it happen is with spouses of trainers. The amateur spouse will be ride, train and even show horses, but because the business is owned by the pro spouse and it is the business receiving the money everything is kosher.

[SSacky]

Yes I read that part, but it is not very clear. I would like to know if the rule is the same as it is in the US. That is, if someone is employed as a groom and the horses that person grooms are horses that are in training with the the trainer at the farm, but the groom hacks them regularly, then the groom is a pro too. This is not my situation, but I know several people that do this and show as amateurs, which is why I am asking it is different here.

Where it gets sticky is that the horses are in training. I think we differ to the US that is you groom for a barn and an owner asks you to hop on their horse while they are away without paying you, you are in the clear. If the manager/barn owner has you ride the horses as a part of your job, then you are breaching the ammy status.

I read the OP as meaning, there are horses in training and the coach would like the groom to hack them while on the job. Thus, the groom is getting payed to ride the horses = pro.

[Roxy SM]

I read the OP as meaning, there are horses in training and the coach would like the groom to hack them while on the job. Thus, the groom is getting payed to ride the horses = pro.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I know several grooms who hack in training horses daily and then show their own horses in the amateurs. I know in the US that is not allowed, so I want to know if this is the same in Canada as the rules I found on the EC site were not very specific.

[Ravencrest_Camp]

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I know several grooms who hack in training horses daily and then show their own horses in the amateurs. I know in the US that is not allowed, so I want to know if this is the same in Canada as the rules I found on the EC site were not very specific.

In Canada this is allowed.

Equine Canada is taking everyone at their word that the trainer is getting paid to train the horse and the groom is getting paid to groom the horse.

There is no rule that states as soon as the groom rides the training horse he becomes a pro. We stick to the illusion that he isn't getting paid to ride.

[Roxy SM]

In Canada this is allowed.

Equine Canada is taking everyone at their word that the trainer is getting paid to train the horse and the groom is getting paid to groom the horse.

There is no rule that states as soon as the groom rides the training horse he becomes a pro. We stick to the illusion that he isn't getting paid to ride.

Ok thanks for clearing this up for me! Interesting how they are so trusting, I guess they just don't care that this happens all the time.