<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oh get off your high horse <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ha, I was fixing to type the same thing in your defense Flash. I think a few people need to do this, people are getting way to involved in things they know nothing about. I did plenty more than that as a junior, but of course none of that goes on now. Every now and then I'll hop on a school horse just to hack them or something if they hadn't been ridden in a while, but I receive no type of compensation whatsoever in return besides something else to hop on. I'll help coach this one kid for free, but that is because she is riding/showing my pony that I broke and know better than my trainers. I taught the mare everything she knows so naturally I'm the best person to tell her how to ride it---kinda like telling her where her buttons are.
You bring up an interesting scenario: the girl riding your pony. I am assuming that it is still yours? And you are not riding it because? Perhaps you have outgrown it and are trying to get it sold?
The girl who mucks stalls for me is a very novice rider (and is, of course, int he eyes of the AHSA, a professional). I have one good old guy that she hacks to keep him legged up. She gets paid for the time she spends riding him. His specialty is as a beginner rider horse. He is dead cute and a real winner up to 2'6", but once the jumps go to 3', he cannot make the distances.
So, I want to get this horse sold. I take him to a show with my employee riding him at 2' in the beginner rider division. I set jumps for her and am telling her how to ride the course: "Go in and turn left, then go outside the brown jump over there and then turn to the right. Pick up your canter before you get to the white jump then circle back by the ingate before you head to the first jump" kind of coaching. (This is her VERY FIRST show in her life and she is frozen with fear.)
Am I a professional? Have I stepped over the line?
Yes I am trying to sell her, the whole reason I bought her was to train her and then sell her. My trainers have her now 'cause they are helping me sell her--basically just having someone ride her so she gets worked (I'm in college now so I can only come home on the weekends). The girl is riding her and showing her 'cause she is a junior and can show her in the divisions we are targeting the mare for. I am still riding her when I come home and I will continue to ride and show her (in eligable divisions) until she is sold. She is still my pony. I'm the sole owner (I just have to pay my mom back for her when she's sold, but she's mine). I only help the girl when I'm there and it is usually during her lesson with our trainers. I never help her by myself, but I would anyway 'cause it is my pony and I'll do what I want with it. Like I said, I know the pony, I trained it. If that makes me a professional, then anyone who buys a green horse for themself or is the sole owner and trains it and sells it is one as well.
PamM: I don't think that makes you a professional, especially if you are not getting paid for it. I see it more as helping her out, since she is nervous and all and it is your horse. When I help that girl out, it's just when I see her doing something that my mare wouldnt' understand or realize what she is asking. For example: When the girl first learned to canter, she learned to ask for it while posting. I wasnt' taught that, I was taught to ask for it through the sitting trot so that is how my mare learned it. If you post the transition upward, you cant' collect her and get her round and bent to pick up the correct lead. I help her with hints like that.
[This message was edited by luvmywonderpony on Feb. 04, 2001 at 04:06 PM.]
According to the Chronicle article of Jan 26, you are a professional for accepting payment for selling horses or ponies ONLY if you don't own it.
If you own all or part of the horse yourself, and sell it, you are still an amateur. Of course, even this can be abused. I can see people paying $1 for a tiny part ownership, then selling for a big profit, and still be considered an amateur because of the part ownership. (uh oh, hope I didn't give anyone ideas!)
The AHSA rules regarding amateurs really revolve around PAYMENT for activities, not the actual activities themselves. So technically, according to the AHSA, you can teach everyone and his brother, and ride every horse under the sun AS LONG AS you recieve nothing for it. (No free board, no breaks on costs of services, etc.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Personally, I would prefer to see the divisions defined by ability (based on competition history, for instance) rather than by source of income. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with Janet on this. It is a subject that comes upoften in Arab show cirlces as well, particularly in the scenario of nationally prominent trainers/judges whose spouses ride AOTR, but also on the local level where you see Jane Doe show up with students in tow and later on she's in an AOTR class.
I think that doing something along the lines of a restructured maiden. novice, limit, open horse and/or rider is really the only equitable approach, especially as AHSA seems to have no desire whatsoever to enforce the rules, judging by the cases I am familiar with.
(And yes, I know of one where more than one person complained and went through the formal process and the person in question got off scot free, esentially because, as someone else said here--You need to have 'for riding lessons' written on the check to convince them.)
"It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay
"c) Accepts remuneration for employment in other capacity (e.g., secretary, bookkeeper, veterinarian, groom, farrier) and gives instruction, rides, drives, shows in halter/in hand, 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. "
I was under the impression that this rule was interpreted thusly - that if you worked at the barn as a stall mucker or feeder and did not school or train horses or teach lessons, you were still an amateur. Many professionals have working students who ride as amateurs and unless they are paid to ride specifically, I thought they were still amateurs.
For instance - If a stall cleaner does the barn feeding for extra riding time and rides one of the school horses in a practice or a lesson, he is not paid to ride or train
Note to Miss S - Great post and even though you probably wouldn't win in an AHSA protest of these shamateurs, they are now forewarned that everyone out there is watching them and they should be too
scared (or hopefully honorable) to keep doing this because it will just give MM a worse name.
(Is MM a person or the barn?)
I'm also confused, Stephanie.
For many years, I also did that for my coaching fees, etc. or I would go and groom for my trainer's horses in order to offset the cost of stall, trailering, coaching, entries, etc. I was still an amateur since I didn't get paid to ride, train, teach or anything, just work like hell and RAKE RAKE RAKE! Man, if raking the shed row at the horse shows makes someone a professional, I am one of the tops! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
No high horse here..step on a nerve did I?? Oh so sorry...Do whatever you want..It's not me who will sit on you..it will be the real amateurs out there who are tired of the crap and the rule bending and the like..I say do whatever your conscience lets you do. Don't put me on a "high horse" for pointing out the obvious.
The thing about smart people, is they look like crazy people, to dumb people.
One specific case out here that got protested was (I am not going to use names, but Pam would know them: for the first example, think doyenne of Orange County property???). Anyway, she employed a number of hotshot young amateurs just out of the juniors who rode all of her horses in the amateur divisions. Some A/A, some suddenly "owned" the horse. It was well-known that these riders were spending their waking hours riding and schooling these horses. But they circumvented the rules by being paid as "barn manager", "secretary", "personal assistant", etc. Like how stupid are we? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
Hence, the rule became you cannot be paid as a groom, manager, etc. AND ALSO ride/school/teach, even if the ride/school/teach is for FREE. (Article 808, c.)
You can groom, muck and rake until the cows come home, and be paid and still be an amateur, but in the strictest interpretation of the rule, you cannot be paid for mucking AND ALSO ride/school/teach, even if it's for FREE.
Hey, it ain't my rule. I have to live by it, too. I have been protested several times, but it was only threats, and I totally took glee in setting these people straight. I am soooo conscientious about my amateur status; it's kind of a local joke. Does it bother me? Isn't it interesting that I get comments only when I'm winning? Oh well, such is life...
The other rule change was due to the inordinate number of wives riding AO when their husbands were the professional trainer in the barn. So, right, you mean the wife never derives any income from the training & lessons? And she doesn't have an unfair advantage (loads of free training). To stay true to the Am. rule, these wives could not coach or school the clients. It was nearly impossible to enforce. So... the rule became that you are not an amateur if a member of your immediate family is a professional (Article 808.f.).
I would think that makes it tough for some older young adults whose parents are professionals. ? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]
(Gee, PamM, was that a long enough reply?) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
"c) Accepts remuneration for employment in other capacity (e.g., secretary, bookkeeper, veterinarian, groom, farrier) and gives instruction, rides, drives, shows in halter/in hand, trains or schools horses, other than horses actually owned or leased by him/her
OK, now I get it: the important word in the above is the "and". You are not an amateur if you accept renumeration for...sec, bkeper,vet, GROOM, farrier AND give instruction/show/train etc.
So a groom is not a professional UNLESS you both groom and train/show etc. I can see why this rule was enacted---to keep out people who were getting paid to groom, and then training horses for "free". So, as I now read this, you can groom, bookeep etc and still be an amateur as long as you stay away from the training/showing/riding etc. --In other words, beign a real groom is ok.. You just cannot be a trainer in grooms clothes...
WA. The Evergreen State Where The Horses Are Forever Green
you cannot show Amateur?
Is that what happened to the Amateur whose mother owns and trains a show stable?
Or is it okay?
Twinkie Nissen's husband is a Vet and sometimes is the show Vet, can she still show Amateur?
Wasn't last years AHSA A/O Champion from CO the wife of a trainer?
Wow, I am really confused now [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif[/img]
Frankly, though, I agree that it's nearly impossible to protest anyone and prove it. What are they going to do? Subpoena bank statements?
The only fairly recent protest that was upheld that I'm familiar with was a gal who worked solely for a family-run farm, getting to show their horses in exchange for working/running their place. *She did all the training of the horses*. The owners paid all expenses, but apparently the gal received no outright salary. It was decided that the rumuneration of paying entry fees and show expenses alone, plus an assumed free lease of the horses, far exceeded the "$300. token of appreciation" and her amateur status was not only revoked, but she had to return the championships she had recently won.
Bumpkin, the Twinkie thing has been a topic of discussion for many, many years... But if her husband is just a vet, technically, it's okay.
As for the wife of a trainer being AO champ... I haven't a clue. Except that MAYBE she's someone with a documented professional life, with indeed a separate bank account and witnesses that she does not train or support her husband's endeavors? (I am so ambivalent half the time; it's probably a good thing I have a permanent excuse from jury duty!) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
I think this rule is STREEEEEEEEEtched just a tad. Prominent(?) sales barn/ jumper rider/ Trainer in western part of a NE state-
anyway- his wife USED to be a vet & has always been a great ammy rider, but I have SEEN her in the schooling area, telling a client to jump jumps, giving pointers on how to fix a problem & then approach the in gate with the rider, while the groom wipes boots, etc.
THIS activity is EXACTLY (minus the groom part) what my ammy status was yanked for. HOW & WHY can this continue? Is it an innate fear for their lives if they protest?
It\'s a pity life ain\'t got no warranty for times like now...
Okay, so I am really bored at work and reading this loooonnnnggg thread. I'm not even going to get into this argument. Can I just suggest that if anyone is truely concerned about their amatuer status, they CALL the AHSA? I ran into a situation this summer like that - didn't know if I could help some kids out at a show, and still be an amateur. The person I spoke to at the AHSA (can't remember his name) was very polite and helpful...far more so than many of the people on this thread are being.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." ~Mal, Firefly
Hey guys, look at the phrase "OTHER THAN HORSES owned/leased by him/her"
That's the phrase which keeps Sandy Dennehy and others in the show ring.
This thread is focusing on the Amateur part (which is important since it affects botht eh A/O and the A/A divisions. But, often the "owner" portion of the A/O is more commonly violated. Sale horses come into a trainer's barn and they are "sold" to trainer's wife ($1 up front, balance due upon resale of the horse) so she can ride them A/O.
Actually, it doesn't even have to be a trainer's wife: who is to say how many horses are out there listed as owned by someone who does not have to pay for them until they are "re-sold"? Hard to police this one... Terms of sale are usually private.