The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 101
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2010
    Posts
    28

    Default New Amateur Rules 12/1/2012 -Huh?

    So the amateur rules have been "clarified" effective Dec 1, 2012. Too bad the USEF still cannot write in the English language. As written, everyone with a paying job that also rides is a professional. Impossible? Overly dramatic? I give you GR 1306.4(a) a person is a professional if he/she "a. Accepts remuneration AND rides, exercises, drives, shows . . ." There is no causal connection required between the source of the remuneration and the riding: it no longer says remuneration FOR riding. The definition of remuneration does not save this bizarre reading. Remuneration is now expressly defined and says, in part, that remuneration is "compensation or payment in any form such as cash, goods . . ." The definition does not limit what the compensation is for. As newly written, a person that receives a paycheck for being a waitress ("Accepts remuneration) and rides her horse ("AND rides") meets the definition of a professional under new GR1306.4.a. I hope this is not what the USEF meant. In fact section (c) is redundant and superfluous to section (a). What to do? Should we just ignore the rules as the USEF can't seem to say what they actually meant? Should we all take our own interpretation of what they must have meant? On the other hand, because they changed "for riding" to "and riding" doesn't this mean that the USEF intended the broader definition of a professional? Why only the unemployed can be amateurs seems a strange rule, but the USEF gets to make them.



  2. #2

    Default

    Link to the 2013 GR rules

    Would there have been a rule change proposal for this with justification for the wording change somewhere? I'm not familiar enough with the USEF site to find it.



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2010
    Posts
    28

    Default

    I don't know. (I probably should) My recollection from years past is no comments/explanation are given, just proposed and/or final rules.



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct. 28, 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    633

    Default

    The USEF is a private club. They can make any rule they want. And they need ambiguous rules so they can be used against whomever politically needs to get taken out. Kind of like the Chinese Communist Party rules. What don't you guys understand? If you are looking for Fair and Balanced watch Fox News--oh wait, that is the Republican news channel--couldn't therefore be Fair and Balanced. Must be the tag word their spin doctors came up with.

    Suggestion--the USEF needs to hire spin doctors.
    Discipline is the Bridge between Dreams and Accomplishments


    4 members found this post helpful.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep. 28, 2001
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halt Near X View Post
    Link to the 2013 GR rules

    Would there have been a rule change proposal for this with justification for the wording change somewhere? I'm not familiar enough with the USEF site to find it.
    It would have gone here: http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/RuleBoo.../PRCIndex.aspx
    until it was approved. USEF would still have this information. USEF probably put it out there and no one objected so it went through.

    Rather than post here, maybe you could email amateurinquiry@usef.org and get the reasons the wording was changed. It is a tad confusing!



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BestLegUp View Post
    So the amateur rules have been "clarified" effective Dec 1, 2012. Too bad the USEF still cannot write in the English language. As written, everyone with a paying job that also rides is a professional. Impossible? Overly dramatic? I give you GR 1306.4(a) a person is a professional if he/she "a. Accepts remuneration AND rides, exercises, drives, shows . . ." There is no causal connection required between the source of the remuneration and the riding: it no longer says remuneration FOR riding. The definition of remuneration does not save this bizarre reading. Remuneration is now expressly defined and says, in part, that remuneration is "compensation or payment in any form such as cash, goods . . ." The definition does not limit what the compensation is for. As newly written, a person that receives a paycheck for being a waitress ("Accepts remuneration) and rides her horse ("AND rides") meets the definition of a professional under new GR1306.4.a. I hope this is not what the USEF meant. In fact section (c) is redundant and superfluous to section (a). What to do? Should we just ignore the rules as the USEF can't seem to say what they actually meant? Should we all take our own interpretation of what they must have meant? On the other hand, because they changed "for riding" to "and riding" doesn't this mean that the USEF intended the broader definition of a professional? Why only the unemployed can be amateurs seems a strange rule, but the USEF gets to make them.
    Overdramatic much ?

    Here's the complete definition of remuneration which you neglected to include in your post.
    "2. Remuneration. Remuneration is defined as compensation or payment in any form such as cash, goods, sponsorships, discounts or services; reimbursement of any expenses; trade or in-kind exchange of goods or services such as board or training."

    Taken in context I think it's pretty clear what remuneration involves.

    And especially if you consider this new section of the rule:

    "b. Act as a camp counselor when not hired in the exclusive capacity as a riding
    instructor; assist in setting schooling fences without remuneration; give instruction or training to handicapped riders for therapeutic purposes" bolding is mine.

    There has been some discussion here and on other boards about the situation where a person may be acting in a capacity which implies Pro status IF they were receiving compensation for said activity. Often an Amateur may be helping a friend get jumps set. No compensation involved. It's just an attempt to clarify that you need to get paid or compensated AND be doing the Pro activity.

    No conspiracy, no attempt to do as Feather River suggests. Reading and/or quoting ALL the relevant rule sections is helpful.

    And if you still don't like it then simply send a rule change proposal to USEF asking them to clarify the language. Oh yeah, that would be too simple, instead let's pretend it's a conspiracy. Much more fun.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb. 5, 2007
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,251

    Default

    I just don't get why the amateur rule is so complicated. I you are paid to ride, teach, train or coach your are a professional. If you don't get paid, you are not.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun. 22, 2001
    Location
    Coatesville, Pa.
    Posts
    5,473

    Default

    I'm glad it looks like they have finally closed the huge loophole afforded to racetrack exercise riders. (which when I was employed one, I declared pro status because I knew it was an advantage)

    I read the rules and found them actually much clearer and likely more fair.

    Now we just have to see if people will actually abide by them.

    ~Emily
    "Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all." ~2001 The Princess Diaries


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,167

    Default

    It was passed at the 9/17/12 board meeting.

    They have posted the changes to the 2012 rules from that meeting, but not the changes to the 2013 rules. Maybe because they posted the advance version of the 2013 rules.

    It seems it was the only change to the General Rules at that meeting.

    I agree they need to clarify "remuneration" to "remuneration FOR"
    Janet

    chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2004
    Location
    City of delusion in the state of total denial
    Posts
    8,553

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post
    And especially if you consider this new section of the rule:

    "b. Act as a camp counselor when not hired in the exclusive capacity as a riding
    instructor; assist in setting schooling fences without remuneration; give instruction or training to handicapped riders for therapeutic purposes" bolding is mine.
    Awesome, now I have something to point to the next time someone tries to protest me for setting fences for my kid sister at a local show while she's riding my horse and our trainers are out of town. Other than "Are you kidding, let me introduce you to my sister, who will now show you the nonexistent check for the money she is paying me for my assistance. Although if she wins today, she's buying me ice cream."

    Agreed with Janet that clarification in wording would be helpful, but again- we all know what the intent of the rule is. Those of us who intend to abide by it are, unfortunately, the only ones asking questions to make sure we comply...
    "I'm not always sarcastic. Sometimes I'm asleep."
    - Harry Dresden

    Horse Isle 2: Legend of the Esrohs LifeCycle Breeding and competition MMORPG



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2010
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post
    Overdramatic much ?

    Here's the complete definition of remuneration which you neglected to include in your post.
    "2. Remuneration. Remuneration is defined as compensation or payment in any form such as cash, goods, sponsorships, discounts or services; reimbursement of any expenses; trade or in-kind exchange of goods or services such as board or training."

    Taken in context I think it's pretty clear what remuneration involves.

    And especially if you consider this new section of the rule:

    "b. Act as a camp counselor when not hired in the exclusive capacity as a riding
    instructor; assist in setting schooling fences without remuneration; give instruction or training to handicapped riders for therapeutic purposes" bolding is mine.

    There has been some discussion here and on other boards about the situation where a person may be acting in a capacity which implies Pro status IF they were receiving compensation for said activity. Often an Amateur may be helping a friend get jumps set. No compensation involved. It's just an attempt to clarify that you need to get paid or compensated AND be doing the Pro activity.

    No conspiracy, no attempt to do as Feather River suggests. Reading and/or quoting ALL the relevant rule sections is helpful.

    And if you still don't like it then simply send a rule change proposal to USEF asking them to clarify the language. Oh yeah, that would be too simple, instead let's pretend it's a conspiracy. Much more fun.
    Conspiracy?? No. Incompetence in the use of the English language -- that is my charge.
    Your lack of reading comprehension is perhaps symptomatic: you know what you want the rules to say and so you "see" it there. You are not dealing with the literal language of the rule. Where in the definition of remuneration that you quote does it exclude getting paid for your job at Wal-Mart? It doesn't. The definition merely elaborates that remuneration is a broad term that means any compensation. The definition of remuneration does not solve the problem in Section 1306.4.a.
    Nonetheless, you think it "pretty clear what remuneration involves" and then turn to other sections to infer a narrower meaning. You don't deal with the language of 1306.4.a or the lack of connection between the remuneration and the riding. You also don't address why, if the USEF meant to keep it the same, they changed from "remuneration FOR riding ..." to "remuneration AND riding ..." The old rule tied the compensation to the horse-related activity. The new one does not. That is the problem/question. (Except to you of course, because you "know" what they meant by looking at other sections of the rule that don't deal with remuneration or riding.)
    As the national governing body that sets the rules, the USEF should be able to provide rules that are clear and correct. This rule seems incorrect, which makes it unclear. This reflects poorly on the professionalism and competence of the USEF.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr. 6, 2006
    Location
    Plainview, MN
    Posts
    3,552

    Default

    BestLegUp you are just being purposefully obtuse.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryledee View Post
    It would have gone here: http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/RuleBoo.../PRCIndex.aspx
    until it was approved. USEF would still have this information. USEF probably put it out there and no one objected so it went through.

    Rather than post here, maybe you could email amateurinquiry@usef.org and get the reasons the wording was changed. It is a tad confusing!
    I've contacted USEF about amateur status questions in the past and have no problem doing that. But I thought I remembered intent being part of rule change proposals, and I was really hoping some of that information was already out there. Too bad they pulled the proposal down already. It would have been interesting.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep. 23, 2006
    Posts
    887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post

    "b. Act as a camp counselor when not hired in the exclusive capacity as a riding
    instructor; assist in setting schooling fences without remuneration; give instruction or training to handicapped riders for therapeutic purposes" bolding is mine.

    There has been some discussion here and on other boards about the situation where a person may be acting in a capacity which implies Pro status IF they were receiving compensation for said activity. Often an Amateur may be helping a friend get jumps set. No compensation involved. It's just an attempt to clarify that you need to get paid or compensated AND be doing the Pro activity.
    Forgive my ignorance, but why would setting fences for remuneration be grounds for being a pro? Is this saying that the jump crew could be considered pro's because they are getting paid to set the fences? I don't understand this one!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug. 20, 2004
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    NEVERTOOLATE Being paid to set fences in the schooling area at the direction of or benefit for someone training/schooling over them is different than being part of a ring crew setting a course at the direction of the course designer.
    friend of bar*ka



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2009
    Posts
    1,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyPenny View Post
    I just don't get why the amateur rule is so complicated. I you are paid to ride, teach, train or coach your are a professional. If you don't get paid, you are not.
    That certainly WOULD be a simple rule. However, since that ISN'T the rule, it actually IS complicated. There are a lot of things that don't include getting "paid" that make someone a pro.

    Your simple rule would be great -- except people tried that and there were enough people cheating that it had to be rewritten (and rewritten and rewritten) a number of times to address the creative people managed to get paid to ride, teach, and train without being directly "paid to ride, teach, or train."



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb. 5, 2007
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmmyByNature View Post
    That certainly WOULD be a simple rule. However, since that ISN'T the rule, it actually IS complicated. There are a lot of things that don't include getting "paid" that make someone a pro.

    Your simple rule would be great -- except people tried that and there were enough people cheating that it had to be rewritten (and rewritten and rewritten) a number of times to address the creative people managed to get paid to ride, teach, and train without being directly "paid to ride, teach, or train."
    But all these rules have done nothing to solve the cheating problem. How do you document people who get secret compensation? You can't and that is the problem. People who want to cheat will cheat. Making something more complicated, such as amateur rules, has just created a big complicated mess where people continue to ask for clarification on COTH.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb. 5, 2007
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Addison View Post
    NEVERTOOLATE Being paid to set fences in the schooling area at the direction of or benefit for someone training/schooling over them is different than being part of a ring crew setting a course at the direction of the course designer.
    And how do you document that someone is being paid to set fences in the the schooling area?



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2009
    Posts
    1,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyPenny View Post
    But all these rules have done nothing to solve the cheating problem. How do you document people who get secret compensation? You can't and that is the problem. People who want to cheat will cheat. Making something more complicated, such as amateur rules, has just created a big complicated mess where people continue to ask for clarification on COTH.
    I'm not arguing that the rule is clear or good -- just that it's not simple.



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug. 2, 2010
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Addison View Post
    NEVERTOOLATE Being paid to set fences in the schooling area at the direction of or benefit for someone training/schooling over them is different than being part of a ring crew setting a course at the direction of the course designer.
    Grooms often set jumps for trainer/clients and get paid; as long as they don't ride trainer/client horses, they shouldn't be considered professionals.


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Canadian Amateur Status Rules
    By Roxy SM in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Mar. 9, 2012, 10:04 AM
  2. Rules: How long will it take to get amateur status back?
    By fordtraktor in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Jul. 23, 2009, 01:15 PM
  3. Obeying USEF Amateur rules
    By that-one-girl in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 323
    Last Post: Apr. 11, 2009, 08:49 AM
  4. Proposed changes to amateur rules
    By Janet in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 176
    Last Post: Sep. 23, 2008, 12:17 PM
  5. Replies: 157
    Last Post: Jan. 19, 2008, 01:51 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
  •