The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 161
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2006
    Posts
    281

    Default Amateur Status Rule Proposal

    OK I have a proposal for a new and simple amateur rule. The one and only rule to being considered a professional would be that you are a pro if you show other peoples horses. You may show leased horses and there may have to be a number set as to the number of horses one may lease since there are always those that will try to abuse rules anyway. But this just seems like a very easy way to handle it.
    Why should the up-down teachers who give a few lessons to supplement thier income be penalized when the want to show thier own horses...
    why should the exercise riders at the track with limited experience on h/j's be penalized when the try to retrain a OTTB for another job...
    why should judges, who evaluate all of us and tell us if our training is good enough or not still be considered as amateurs...
    who really cares, since we can not police it anyway, what horses someone rides at home when the main responsibility of thier job is grooming, etc....

    This sounds too simple, what am I missing her?



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb. 22, 2000
    Location
    Keswick, VA
    Posts
    7,868

    Default

    By your definition, a trainer with a huge teaching business who doesn't usually show could show in the amateurs.
    Missy Clark, Bill Cooney, Frank Madden...they're all amateurs by your definition.



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2006
    Posts
    281

    Default

    OK - but why don't they show now? Surely not because they can't compete in the AAs.



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep. 6, 2003
    Location
    WA, Land of the damp Thongpend
    Posts
    2,451

    Default

    Are exercise riders considered pros for the purpose of horse showing? I don't think so.



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2006
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Yes - exercise riders are considered pros - they are paid to ride.

    and to add - how do you think it would go over with the clients of BNTs when those same trainers who are charging them big bucks for lessons, etc. say " You just wait here while I show in your division and I'll be back to get you ready" I don't think that they would have a huge following for very long.

    Again - it just seems to simple but on the other hand the current rule seems to hurt the "little people" more than it excludes those that really take advantage. JMHO!



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2001
    Location
    12th floor of the Acme building in a city that knows how to keep it's secrets.
    Posts
    4,871

    Default

    The rules didn't just get dreamed up out of thin air. The rules were made them modified as situations arose that made it obvious people were cheating.
    *****
    You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.



  7. #7
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2003
    Location
    Celina, TX
    Posts
    2,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spotted Pony View Post
    OK I have a proposal for a new and simple amateur rule. The one and only rule to being considered a professional would be that you are a pro if you show other peoples horses. You may show leased horses and there may have to be a number set as to the number of horses one may lease since there are always those that will try to abuse rules anyway. But this just seems like a very easy way to handle it.
    Why should the up-down teachers who give a few lessons to supplement thier income be penalized when the want to show thier own horses...
    why should the exercise riders at the track with limited experience on h/j's be penalized when the try to retrain a OTTB for another job...
    why should judges, who evaluate all of us and tell us if our training is good enough or not still be considered as amateurs...
    who really cares, since we can not police it anyway, what horses someone rides at home when the main responsibility of thier job is grooming, etc....

    This sounds too simple, what am I missing her?
    Because you are missing folks like me who work a regular 9 to 5 job but ride other people's horses (and pay to show a few of them) because I can't (for financial and DH reasons) have my own horse right now. I would be really ticked if I had to show as a pro for that kind of rule. I might as well go back to teaching lessons if that kind of rule was implemented.

    If you really wanted to be friendly towards the people who are technically pros but might not ride like pros is to let "pros" show with the ammies until they win a certain number of classes. That would cover the up down teacher with her own horse who teaches to cover some board. Or the exercise rider who shows a hunter for fun. Maybe have an "apprentice" status that lets those kind of people right in a division they might be more competitive in and enjoy more. Just an idea....



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2002
    Location
    Harford County, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    4,553

    Default

    by that reasoning, I'm a pro since I show my friend's horse in the hack...and she's a pro since she's shown mine when I couldn't. And we're totally legal adult amateurs. Not gonna work...



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep. 29, 2004
    Posts
    4,141

    Default

    and those trainers who largely rider their own horses to get ready to sell could compete them in the amateur classes until they get sold. Think about how many of Scott Stewart's horses Scott owns.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug. 8, 2005
    Posts
    114

    Default

    I don't think that showing other people's horses should decide weather you are pro or not but I see your point of view.
    I was offered a job with a dressage trainer around here to teach some "up down lessons" (I don't even do dressage but this would be the most basic riding there is, so it didn't really matter) but I would lose my amature status. I could REALLY, REALLY use the extra money but there is no way me or my green horse would stack up against the pros. So I decided that I would rather keep my status than make a couple bucks off the 3 lessons a week I'd be teaching. I wish there was some way USEF could distiguish between making a couple hundered bucks a month and making a living.



  11. #11
    Join Date
    May. 9, 2001
    Location
    Lake County, IL
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    I didn't think judges were considered professionals because they were not taking money for riding or training. They do just evaluate. Nothing more.



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug. 29, 2006
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    But wouldn't a judge HAVE to be a professional...obviously they do something with horses for a living, and have been doing it long and well enough to be esteemed in their disicipline.



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul. 1, 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HyperCat View Post
    I wish there was some way USEF could distiguish between making a couple hundered bucks a month and making a living.

    im with you on that one!! theres gotta be a way to change the rule for the 18 year olds who are trying to make some money by riding other peoples horses for them when they are out of town, or working for your trainer, etc...its so much different then making a living off of it
    "If you are nervous you arent focused-if you are focused, there is no room for nerves!"




  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 1999
    Location
    Averill Park NY and Citra Fl
    Posts
    5,576

    Default

    If you are a member of the AQHA you cannot be an amateur and judge. By virtue of the fact you are an "amateur" you are not competant to judge others. Not so with the USEF.
    The amateur rules are hard enough to interpret and enforce. Lets not try to re-invent the wheel...again and again and again...
    The thing about smart people, is they look like crazy people, to dumb people.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Wilsonville, Or
    Posts
    159

    Default Amateur status/judging

    According to the USEF rule book- GRR 808- a judge, steward, writer, course designer etc can still be amateurs- I do think the rules are hazy on the so called "working student" issue, but one cannot have so many exceptions that it would be impossible to monitor. Giving lessons and riding horses for money have been no-no's for a long time- I am sure all of us would love to have some extra income to help with horse expenses, but that is the way it is- All should read and re-read the rule book!!!! We all know of cases where this rule has been ignored- from not owning the horse in an a/o class to so called working students who ride 10 horses a day, and then ride in an a/a class-- all requires documentation!



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    A little cabin in the woods, Tahoe City, CA
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Spotted Pony: I would hate this rule. I am too poor to own or lease a horse, but I ride well enough to get some catch rides now and then in amateur classes. This rule would mean that I don't get to show.



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan. 23, 2000
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,864

    Default

    No ma'am.

    I ride for someone else. I do a lot of the grunt work - whatever she asks me to do - but I work 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and this is the only way I can feasibly ride and show right now, and I'm damn lucky to have it. I may get some benefits out of it - but benefits to me are the chance to ride and show, and get hauled all over creation because I want to do something fun on whatever given weekend. Sanity of riding - Not cash.

    It would be silly at this point in my life to claim myself as a professional rider. I've already got another professional career and my entry fees are my entertainment dollars. Riding does not contribute to paying my room and board in any way shape or form. Therefore, I am not a pro.



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2006
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    32

    Default

    In my opinion, the best way to keep the amateur/pro status fair and separate would be to require pros to become certified by USEF. Not only would it raise the standard of training in this country (from grass roots all the way up to the highest levels) but it would also allow amatuers to make extra cash by exercising horses and the like.
    Just my two cents



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Posts
    2,607

    Default

    I find the amateur rule to be unfair at times, but I really don't have any great ideas to 'fix' it -- However, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that the rule discourages people from teaching a few beginner lessons to make a few bucks -- I think it's already too easy for people to hang up a shingle, call themselves a pro, and teach riding lessons --



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb. 12, 2005
    Location
    Charlestown, RI
    Posts
    57

    Default

    No matter how you rewrite the rule, there are always going to be a small percentage of people who try to dance around it. Some of those people try to skirt around it with good intent, and some just want to win. The rule works for 98% of the people, and no matter what you do, it'll never be 100%.



Similar Threads

  1. No more B/C shows? Rule change proposal
    By MyGiantPony in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: Dec. 3, 2009, 12:18 AM
  2. Ammy Rule proposal for convention..
    By JRG in forum Off Course
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Nov. 14, 2008, 02:02 AM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: Sep. 13, 2008, 10:41 AM
  4. USEA Rule (proposal) changes:
    By JRey in forum Eventing
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: May. 11, 2008, 12:09 PM
  5. new proposal to rule 275-07
    By piaffegirl in forum Dressage
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: Jan. 9, 2008, 06:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •