The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 101
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr. 8, 2000
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbm View Post

    i think instead of ammie/pro status there should be grading based on ability. because lets face it - there are some pros that cant ride and some Ammies that are amazing.
    Yeah and this would be completely manageable and enforceable.

    I am an ammy. Sometimes I ride my little pants off. Sometimes I look like I belong in remedial crossrails. Sometimes I ride better than 99% of my competition (hello blue ribbon), sometimes I enjoy watching that jog from the in gate (damn those horses are pretty). ALL of the time I ride better than some pros (names need not be mentioned), ALL of the time I ride worse than some pros (let's start with PJP).

    Even if I was the next coming of Margie Goldstein, if I CHOSE to not make a living at riding, then I should be considered an ammy. Granted I'd be an idiot, but let's assume in this dream world I'm independently wealthy, own a 6 horse 4* trailer, a motor home worth more than most people's houses, and have Jorge and Juan to drive everything to the show whilst I fly in and meet fefe my grand prix horse at the gate. If I'm going to dream I'm going to dream big.

    As I've said before, the ammy rule is more like ammy guidelines, as the entire thing is self disciplined, self moderated, and self upheld. People who cheat are going to cheat regardless of how many words you add to the rule. Not only that, but every rule is up for interpretation, so you just have to go with your gut, do what you think is right, and protest if you think its wrong.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    16,484

    Default

    I think classifications by skill would have its own set of problems that seriously dwarf the problems of the current system.
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/



  3. #43
    Join Date
    May. 24, 2011
    Posts
    1,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post
    Think about it. That's what your TRAINER said. LOL
    1 - never heard of anybody getting sued for a protest.
    2 - wanting to buy a horse should have nothing to do with filing a protest. And if they lose the protest why would you want to buy a horse from them?
    3 - Understand the rules. You don't have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt. You don't even have to file a protest. Get the show steward to do it !!
    4 - Best laugh of all. Your 'trainer' must not read the USEF suspension reports. Every few months there are several people set down or fined ( including their trainer ) for amateur violations. But it's in your trainer's best interest for you to be in the dark on those suspensions and fines.
    I am used to you being one of the nastiest posters on this board, but I didn't think you were incapable of reading. I said A trainer, not MY trainer. Now, as previously pointed out, Amber Hill is suing. Stewards at Arabian shows have been threatened with lawsuits if they rule against a trainer. Seriously, for a professional, especially one getting started, a protest could be career suicide if they piss off the wrong people.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2010
    Posts
    30

    Default

    DMK – The definition of remuneration is not the problem. It could have held the solution, but it didn’t. The problem is in GR1306.4.a, which most people on this thread don’t seem to address. On its face it is too broad. It reads:

    1306.4.a. “Accepts remuneration AND rides, exercises, drives, shows, trains, assists in training, schools or conducts clinics or seminars.”

    Does it matter who the remuneration is from or what it is for? Not on the face of it. If you get paid to clean house by a horse owner that lets you ride for free, are you a professional under this section? You did accept remuneration and ride. How is the language of 1306.4.a. avoided so as not to be a professional under this hypothetical?

    Suppose a 19 year-old college boy has a level 6 jumper that he boards for a reduced amount in exchange for mowing the trainer’s lawn. Does this transaction make him a professional? He is compensated by the trainer and he rides. Isn’t that enough to meet the two requirements of 1306.4.a? Now suppose his horse goes lame and the trainer lets him borrow a horse to ride. Now is he a professional? He is still compensated and he is still riding, but does it matter whose horse it is (yours, a boarders, or his)? The rule doesn’t limit or specify which horse is ridden or what the compensation (err, remuneration) is for.

    In practice, new 1306.4.a uses really broad language. In comparison, the current rule (1306.1.a) says that one who “Accepts remuneration for riding, driving, showing, . . .” is a professional. That was clear – paid to ride makes you a pro. But the “remuneration for” is being replaced with “remuneration AND.” The change suggests that a broader meaning is intended; that the payment does not have to be for the riding.

    So, what is the answer, what does 1306.4.a. mean? We don’t really know. That is why I call it a poorly drafted rule.

    As for a possible typo in the definition of remuneration, I find DMK’s hypothesis to be implausible. The proposed correction does not fix anything. Board and training are merely examples of in-kind exchanges and are not limitations on the entire definition. Alternatively, if remuneration is limited to compensation for board and training only, then payments for riding would not be remuneration. That leads to absurd results. Being paid to ride a horse would not make one a professional, unless they also boarded or trained the horse, because the payment would not meet the definition of remuneration.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Mar. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MyssMyst View Post
    I am used to you being one of the nastiest posters on this board, but I didn't think you were incapable of reading. I said A trainer, not MY trainer. Now, as previously pointed out, Amber Hill is suing. Stewards at Arabian shows have been threatened with lawsuits if they rule against a trainer. Seriously, for a professional, especially one getting started, a protest could be career suicide if they piss off the wrong people.
    Amber Hill is suing but not the person who filed the protest.
    And just in case you are confused, this has nothing to do with Arabian shows.
    You do realize that there are different rules? But maybe not....

    And if you worry so much about pissing off the wrong people then I really hope you have no intention of becoming a pro. Really if you have no concern about doing the ethical thing and worry about what others will think then there are other issues.
    And if a protest is career suicide then I invite you (again) to read the USEF hearing page. Who do you think brought most of those charges?

    Get a clue !!



  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    16,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post
    Amber Hill is suing but not the person who filed the protest.
    I wouldn't want to try to come up with an exhaustive list of the people Amber Hill has sued/said she would sue... but she did very recently claim she would sue the person who initiated the Humble protest.
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/


    4 members found this post helpful.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,854

    Default

    A form of grading by ability is what we do in Eventing, where we have Rider divisions that say that the rider hasn't competed above a certain level in the last two years. It is clear and relatively easy to enforce.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun. 22, 2001
    Location
    Coatesville, Pa.
    Posts
    5,493

    Default

    Is anyone besides me (and I think yes as I thought others did say this) noticing that the folks most riled up about these rules or the ones most commonly complaining are in fact those whose status would change to the (dreaded and dark) pro status if we went by the letter of the rules?

    I am sorry but why shouldn't a working student who is paid and rides 5+ different horses a day be considered a pro with an advantage?

    Why wouldn't someone who sets fences, watches countless lessons and works in a barn 18 hours a day not be considered someone with an advantage?

    Let us think to the lowly actual amateurs who work 8-6 each day and find time in their busy lives to sneak in 1 45 minute ride in hopefully 5 days a week. Now.... you tell me how a full time barn person should be allowed to compete as an equal to Suzy Sitsatadesk and I will show you a lovely $200k mule.

    You do get an advantage by being in a barn and being paid of compensated to be there. Thus even without the titles Amateur or Pro you have an upper hand in a class intended for those who do not make a living out of their riding. Period.

    ~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


    4 members found this post helpful.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BestLegUp View Post
    DMK – The definition of remuneration is not the problem. It could have held the solution, but it didn’t. The problem is in GR1306.4.a, which most people on this thread don’t seem to address. On its face it is too broad. It reads:

    1306.4.a. “Accepts remuneration AND rides, exercises, drives, shows, trains, assists in training, schools or conducts clinics or seminars.”

    Does it matter who the remuneration is from or what it is for? Not on the face of it. If you get paid to clean house by a horse owner that lets you ride for free, are you a professional under this section? You did accept remuneration and ride. How is the language of 1306.4.a. avoided so as not to be a professional under this hypothetical?
    Under the current rule, and indeed as it has existed for decades, that does indeed make you a professional.

    Whether or not anyone would actually turn you in is a different story, and if it got to the hearing stage, one might imagine it would matter if the person cleaned other people's houses for the same money where no horse was involved.

    Same deal with the puppy. If it's $300 or less, you're in the clear. If it's $500 and you sold other puppies for $500, you are potentially in violation but probably would have a good case with the hearing committee. If you're paid $10,000 for a puppy when all the other puppies went to the pound, you are certainly a pro.

    But, yes, the rule, in its attempt to catch the scummy "bookkeeper" loophole means that I have been very careful to avoid even the simplest things, like braiding a horse for money that I sometimes hack when the owner goes on vacation. (When I was braiding, there wasn't the $300 clause.)

    I don't think there's any way to write the rule to be clear, airtight, and fair and true to its intent.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr. 13, 2000
    Location
    The OC
    Posts
    4,837

    Default

    What the heck do these sections mean?

    3. Permitted activities by Amateur. An Amateur is permitted to do the following:
    k. Entries for non-under saddle classes in amateur sections at hunter, jumper or hunter/jumper competitions, must be paid either (i) directly to the competition by the Amateur or by the Amateur’s family or (ii) by someone whom the Amateur or the Amateur’s family reimburses within 90 days of the last day of the competition for which entries were paid.


    5. Professional based on one’s own activity along with another’s. A person is also deemed a professional after his 18th birthday, he accepts remuneration for his spouse, family member, or cohabitant engaged in any activity enumerated in 4 a-l above. For the purposes of this rule, the term cohabitant is defined as any individuals living together in a relationship, as would a married couple, but not legally married.



  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2000
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chef Jade View Post
    What the heck do these sections mean?

    3. Permitted activities by Amateur. An Amateur is permitted to do the following:
    k. Entries for non-under saddle classes in amateur sections at hunter, jumper or hunter/jumper competitions, must be paid either (i) directly to the competition by the Amateur or by the Amateur’s family or (ii) by someone whom the Amateur or the Amateur’s family reimburses within 90 days of the last day of the competition for which entries were paid.


    5. Professional based on one’s own activity along with another’s. A person is also deemed a professional after his 18th birthday, he accepts remuneration for his spouse, family member, or cohabitant engaged in any activity enumerated in 4 a-l above. For the purposes of this rule, the term cohabitant is defined as any individuals living together in a relationship, as would a married couple, but not legally married.

    I found #3 very interesting. Not that I have been in the position that I rode we'll enough to be asked to show someone else's horse over fences, but the fact that if I was asked that I would be responsible for the entry fee. No thanks. I'll ride my own horse. I can see why it would be suggested but I think it's inappropriate.

    As for #5... In can see why it is there also.


    They are both overkill.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Mar. 11, 2009
    Posts
    532

    Default

    xctrygirl- has the spirit of the rule exactly correct. The Ammy division is meant to protect those who do not have the time to be in the saddle a majority of the day. The just out of the juniors kid who does not go to college, but doesn't want to turn pro and lose ammy status, so thinks it's ok to "work off" her horses by helping barn and continuing to show in the ammy divisions.

    I don't have the entire rule before me to know whether the #3 language has changed, but I believe this only refers to the Amateur Owner Hunters/jumpers and not the A/A hunters, jumpers, eq (??? but this was the old rule so not sure if they have broadened it to the AA divisions) and yes it has a reason. It's meant to keep Suzzy Notreallyammy from buying a horse for a $1 (which people did in the olden days) and then showing said horse on real owner's dime. It also keeps Suzzy Notreallyammy from hacking horses in the morning for "fun" and then putting her entry fees on the barn account.

    Sadly, most of these rules did emerge in response to a Notreallyammy taking advantage of the system in the way the new rule is meant to address. Even if the wording is horrible oftentimes.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chef Jade View Post
    3. Permitted activities by Amateur. An Amateur is permitted to do the following:
    k. Entries for non-under saddle classes in amateur sections at hunter, jumper or hunter/jumper competitions, must be paid either (i) directly to the competition by the Amateur or by the Amateur’s family or (ii) by someone whom the Amateur or the Amateur’s family reimburses within 90 days of the last day of the competition for which entries were paid.
    Is this supposed to close the loophole for an amateur to have a rich sugar daddy? Or sugar mama? Because that arrangement has quite a bit of tradition behind it.

    5. Professional based on one’s own activity along with another’s. A person is also deemed a professional after his 18th birthday, he accepts remuneration for his spouse, family member, or cohabitant engaged in any activity enumerated in 4 a-l above. For the purposes of this rule, the term cohabitant is defined as any individuals living together in a relationship, as would a married couple, but not legally married.
    And how does this one affect an amateur with a spouse or SO who is a professional? "Sorry, you can't hand your board check to me anymore. Now you have to leave it on the desk."



  14. #54
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2006
    Location
    Newtown, CT
    Posts
    1,130

    Default

    So if you work as a non riding/lunging groom for the summer and set jumps for your boss your considered a professional???



  15. #55

    Default

    I got USEF's response today.

    In addition to asking about the puppy scenario, I asked what would happen if Person A sold a horse to Person B and then rode the horse after the sale.

    USEF's response (emphasis mine):

    Remuneration (GR1306.2) 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. There is no distinction between disciplines, skill level, or the amount of the remuneration in regards to the professional/amateur rules. In both of your scenarios, the perception would be that the rider is benefiting in some way and it is possible that someone might question or protest their amateur status. Should this happen it would be the responsibility of the amateur to prove to the Hearing Committee that that they are being compliant with all provisions in the amateur rules.
    So, under the new rule, remuneration is NOT linked to activities that most people would consider professional (riding, training, etc).

    If you sell anything within the barn (saddles, blankets, other used tack, puppies, car, truck, trailer, horse for > $300) and you're riding horses you don't own, you can be protested.

    The protestor only has to prove the transaction took place, apparently. Easy enough for something like a horse sale; change of ownership will show up through USEF.

    You have to prove the transaction was legitimate and that you're really an amateur.

    I suppose this is kinder than the services rule, where you don't get a chance to prove you were really cleaning stalls and riding school horses in lessons. At least they are saying you can defend the transactions/your amateur status in this case.



  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb. 5, 2008
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    2,063

    Default

    Frankly, I think there should be a monetary line drawn to define one as Professional or Amatuer.

    Making a "real" living with an income (think BNTs), as opposed to someone teaching a few beginner lessons or riding a sale horse and receiving a few hundred dollars as a thank you.

    There should be a limit on income. Say $10,000.00...no one can live on that (or probably 2 or 3x that these days)...but that amount or similar could help defray costs to show or keep a horse.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    16,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halt Near X View Post
    I got USEF's response today.

    In addition to asking about the puppy scenario, I asked what would happen if Person A sold a horse to Person B and then rode the horse after the sale.

    USEF's response (emphasis mine):



    So, under the new rule, remuneration is NOT linked to activities that most people would consider professional (riding, training, etc).

    If you sell anything within the barn (saddles, blankets, other used tack, puppies, car, truck, trailer, horse for > $300) and you're riding horses you don't own, you can be protested.

    The protestor only has to prove the transaction took place, apparently. Easy enough for something like a horse sale; change of ownership will show up through USEF.

    You have to prove the transaction was legitimate and that you're really an amateur.

    I suppose this is kinder than the services rule, where you don't get a chance to prove you were really cleaning stalls and riding school horses in lessons. At least they are saying you can defend the transactions/your amateur status in this case.
    If they can't tell you the outcome of a HYPO in a closed universe, who can have ANY FAITH about the outcome of an actual protest?!
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MintHillFarm View Post
    Frankly, I think there should be a monetary line drawn to define one as Professional or Amatuer.

    Making a "real" living with an income (think BNTs), as opposed to someone teaching a few beginner lessons or riding a sale horse and receiving a few hundred dollars as a thank you.

    There should be a limit on income. Say $10,000.00...no one can live on that (or probably 2 or 3x that these days)...but that amount or similar could help defray costs to show or keep a horse.
    That seems more workable. IMO, the distinction between Ammy and Pro is "opportunity for saddle time." The person who gets to jump 6 horses a day is going to be better at it than the person who jumps one horse once or twice a week.

    Make the "amount earned" low enough, but not the $300 and it looks workable to me.

    Oh, and last time I suggested we tie ammy/pro status to proof of income, people went nuts about that being a huge invasion of privacy. Personally, I don't see the big deal. I don't care if some pencil pusher in the USEF machine sees a W-2 for me.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vxf111 View Post
    If they can't tell you the outcome of a HYPO in a closed universe, who can have ANY FAITH about the outcome of an actual protest?!
    A lawyer can tell you what the law says, but, in an ambiguous situation, can not tell you how the court will rule in a specific case.

    Same here. The USEF staff can tell you what the rules say, but can not tell you how the hearing committee will rule in a specific case.
    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).



  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jan. 7, 2001
    Location
    Usually too far from the barn
    Posts
    8,917

    Default

    While MintHill's suggestion makes a degree of sense, the issue is that by setting a dollar limit, you are opening the door to the USEF having the right to snoop in your personal finances. Also, I could (in theory) earn far more than the limit but be "remunerated" in other ways (board, housing, cash) and be a fully functioning pro while showing an income level that makes me "ammy." IMO, that opens the door to far greater rule breaking and encourages tax evasion as well.
    F O.B
    Resident racing historian ~~~ Re-riders Clique
    Founder of the Mighty Thoroughbred Clique



Similar Threads

  1. Canadian Amateur Status Rules
    By Roxy SM in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Mar. 9, 2012, 11:04 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, 02:15 PM
  3. Obeying USEF Amateur rules
    By that-one-girl in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 323
    Last Post: Apr. 11, 2009, 09:49 AM
  4. Proposed changes to amateur rules
    By Janet in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 176
    Last Post: Sep. 23, 2008, 01:17 PM
  5. Replies: 157
    Last Post: Jan. 19, 2008, 02:51 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
  •