The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 101
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun. 20, 2012
    Location
    The Part of TN in the Wrong Time Zone
    Posts
    1,917

    Default

    Personally this is an easy answer for me. If you teach lessons, or train horses, you're a professional. If you get a catch ride or own a boarding stable or are a groom or barn manager, you are not.

    Get your crap together USEF.



  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    15,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janet View Post
    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.

    But in the quoted answer they didn't tell the asker "what the rules say." They indicates what the facts MIGHT GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF. They can't even answer in the hypothetical, given no other facts, if the hypo posed does or does not violate the rule.

    How useless is their answer?! That is the most equivocal answer I've ever seen from a rulemaking body!!
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/



  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    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.
    Even there, perhaps the most traditional sort of amateur is someone who doesn't have to have a job at all.
    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



  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,295

    Default

    The real problem here is that the perceived benefit to being classified as an amateur is too high. I mean, why WOULD people want to misclassify themselves as amateurs if they are teaching lessons or training horses? Why WOULD people come up with these cockamamie schemes for having payment go to a spouse or a fictional bookkeeping job? It's fundamentally odd that people would do that.

    In Ye Olden Days, there wasn't much place to show below 4' if you didn't have an amateur card or a green horse. That created enormous pressures towards shamateurism. Today, that has changed and there are many more options. Open the adult equitation division to everyone. We now have jumpers at all height-points open to any horse or rider who cares to contest them. If there is a place for people to show, where they feel they get satisfaction and some sort of feedback for the round they put in, they won't care so much how they are classified.
    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



  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poltroon View Post
    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.
    It is now 5 years. Check the rulebook.

    And it is really bsed on "competition experience", not "skill"
    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).



  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,043

    Default

    I just want to remind everyone who is sugesting that Amateur status "should be" or "is supposed to be" or "is intended to be" based on either skill or time in the saddle, that the FIRST LINE of tha Amateur rules STILL SAYS

    Regardless of one’s equestrian skills and/or accomplishments, a person
    is an amateur if his 18th birthday, as defined in GR101, he has not engaged in any of
    the activities identified in paragraph 4 below.
    It is explicitly NOT supposed to address skill.

    Furthermore when the Amateur rules were started, the vast majority of the Amateurs were either
    • Juniors who had aged out, but were still supported by their parents
    • Non-working spouses (mostly wives) who had time to ride all day, every day.


    So "time in the saddle" was not a factor either.

    I think it is great to have OTHER ways of categorizing riders based on skill and experience (such as the "RIDER" definition in Eventing). But don't try to squeeze that into the "Amateur" rules.
    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.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hunterrider23 View Post
    Personally this is an easy answer for me. If you teach lessons, or train horses, you're a professional. If you get a catch ride or own a boarding stable or are a groom or barn manager, you are not.

    Get your crap together USEF.
    If you run a boarding stable, and you ride your boarder's horse once a year, are you "training", or just "boarding"?
    Once a month?
    Once a week?
    Once a day?

    Where do you draw the line.

    As always, the broad concept is straightforward, but the devil is in the details.
    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).



  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,043

    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?
    Not an amateur under the old rules either.

    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?
    The old rules had an exemption for "his/her own horse". That seems to be missing, and needs to be fixed.

    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.
    Not an amateur under the old rules either.

    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.
    Under the old rules, being paid to do something else (book keeping) and riding horses for your employer, makes you not an amateur. But that is covered under 4c in the new rules.

    More troubling is that the new rule does not say anything about who the remuneration is FROM. I "accept remuneration" from my regular emloyer (desk job), which is a big corporation with no connection to the horse world.

    And I ride my own horses.

    The new rule needs to be fixed to clarify WHICH remuneration (who is doing the paying?) is covered by the rule.
    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.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vxf111 View Post
    But in the quoted answer they didn't tell the asker "what the rules say." They indicates what the facts MIGHT GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF. They can't even answer in the hypothetical, given no other facts, if the hypo posed does or does not violate the rule.

    How useless is their answer?! That is the most equivocal answer I've ever seen from a rulemaking body!!
    Well, it at least confirms that there was no typo in the rule as some were saying. It's not remuneration "for" riding, training, etc. It's remuneration of any sort AND riding, training, etc. There does not have to be a direct relationship between the remunertion and horse-related activities.

    Beyond that, I think it's confirmed my initial impression of the rule and made some decisions on my part easy. So the answer was actually useful for me.



  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,043

    Default

    These two sections appear to contradict each other.

    j. Accept reimbursement for any bona fide expenses directly related to the horse
    (i.e. farrier/vet bills, entries). Travel, hotel, equipment, and room and board are
    not considered bona fide expenses.
    and
    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.
    j explicitly says it is ok for someone else (e.g the horse's owner) to pay the entries.
    k says the rider has to pay the entires (in H/J).

    Which is it?
    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).



  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov. 22, 2010
    Location
    Where they've got all Hell for a basement
    Posts
    1,149

    Default

    This thread makes me

    a) happy to be a Canadian amateur

    and

    b) want to send cookies and/or drugs to the poor person on the other end of that amateur rule inquiry email at USEF.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    15,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halt Near X View Post
    Well, it at least confirms that there was no typo in the rule as some were saying. It's not remuneration "for" riding, training, etc. It's remuneration of any sort AND riding, training, etc. There does not have to be a direct relationship between the remunertion and horse-related activities.

    Beyond that, I think it's confirmed my initial impression of the rule and made some decisions on my part easy. So the answer was actually useful for me.

    It confirmed your reading but not what the outcome would be if a protest was brought under the facts you suggested. Just how it "might look." It "might look" like a violation but we STILL don't know if it is.

    This isn't a lawyer guessing what a judge might say. This is a judge saying SHE doesn't know how she'd enforce her own courtroom procedure that she wrote?!
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2009
    Posts
    1,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janet View Post
    These two sections appear to contradict each other.


    and


    j explicitly says it is ok for someone else (e.g the horse's owner) to pay the entries.
    k says the rider has to pay the entires (in H/J).

    Which is it?


    I agree it needs clarification. There have been a number of circumstances where I've wanted another ammy to show my horse for me -- on my dime. In all the cases it was as a favor to me and I wouldn't have DREAMED of asking her to pay for her own classes. I certainly wasn't paying her TO ride the horse, but I was absolutely paying FOR the horse to go in the classes.

    That would be an unfortunate rule change.



  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    14,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janet View Post
    These two sections appear to contradict each other.


    and


    j explicitly says it is ok for someone else (e.g the horse's owner) to pay the entries.
    k says the rider has to pay the entires (in H/J).

    Which is it?
    I wonder if the idea was that j would apply to the catch ride in the adult amateurs, or any class other than amateur-owner, and k would apply to the amateur-owner division. Perhaps the language was lost in the revision process? As it stands, it seems contradictory.



  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2010
    Posts
    28

    Default

    I want to thank Janet, Halt Near X, and the others who took the time to carefully read the new rules and offer helpful comments. At least a message has gone out that the amateur rules are substantively changing on Saturday.

    As for 1306.4.a., I think the USEF may have hit on a perfect rule, one that renders the other sections superfluous. Only the unemployed can be an amateur. If you have a job (waitress, accountant, doctor), then you are receiving remuneration and upon riding a horse become a professional. No way a shamateur could get around that one! (and yes, I am kidding- I do not support such a draconian rule, even though that is literally what the USEF wrote).

    I initially thought the problem was in the execution of the drafting: the USEF failed to clearly express their intended boundary for amateur status. But now I wonder if the USEF doesn't really have its arms around what it wants the rule to be. In that case, it is no wonder they failed to produce a clearly worded rule - they don't know what they are trying to say.

    Glad I am a pro and don't have to worry about signing an amateur card.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan. 7, 2001
    Location
    Usually too far from the barn
    Posts
    8,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poltroon View Post
    The real problem here is that the perceived benefit to being classified as an amateur is too high. I mean, why WOULD people want to misclassify themselves as amateurs if they are teaching lessons or training horses? Why WOULD people come up with these cockamamie schemes for having payment go to a spouse or a fictional bookkeeping job? It's fundamentally odd that people would do that.

    In Ye Olden Days, there wasn't much place to show below 4' if you didn't have an amateur card or a green horse. That created enormous pressures towards shamateurism.
    It's not about height. At any level, most pro's are just better. (No, not all, but most.) Watch an ammy class at a C show and a non-ammy restricted class at the same show/level. Many of the same horses will show in both and the pro clearly can get a better, more consistent trip. Sure many circuits are going to have a few "really good ammy's" that could show up in your class but I'd rather take my chances against them that have to show against their trainer.

    At the bigger shows, the ammy classes are run on weekends and pros primarily during the week. That alone is incentive for those of us with jobs of the 9-5 variety.
    There is value to knowing that when you enter the showring you are competing against your peers. Showing is very expensive and while I'm not in favor of creating all kinds of divisions to assure everyone a win, maintaining a separate status for the ammy has value.
    There are always going to be folks who by circumstance can ride more often. If I hit the lottery, I'd have lots of time and fancy horses but I wouldn't go pro, I don't think I'm good enough and besides I'd have all that lottery money!
    F O.B
    Resident racing historian ~~~ Re-riders Clique
    Founder of the Mighty Thoroughbred Clique



  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jan. 7, 2001
    Location
    Usually too far from the barn
    Posts
    8,705

    Default

    As for sections "j" and "k" i am interested in clarification. I am a horseless ammy. I'm a reasonably good rider, but no pro. I have a couple of friends who allow me to hack their horses from time to time, 1 of whom has mentioned the potential for showing. He is hoping to get a horse that is currently without a rider (owner in college) out and worked and sold. He's an old pro type, who would be good for a kid or ammy so it stands to reason that they'd like a "kid or ammy" to ride him. I had figured on paying all fees because I just like to show. If in fact they insist on picking up entries, I don't want to be seen as shammy.
    F O.B
    Resident racing historian ~~~ Re-riders Clique
    Founder of the Mighty Thoroughbred Clique



  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb. 5, 2007
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hunterrider23 View Post
    Personally this is an easy answer for me. If you teach lessons, or train horses, you're a professional. If you get a catch ride or own a boarding stable or are a groom or barn manager, you are not.

    Get your crap together USEF.
    Yep. It should be that simple. Now we have this convoluted section of guidelines for amateurs that people constantly need clarification on. My husband, who is a cyclist, just laughs at all this. In cycling, which is under the rules of USA Cycling (USAC), you are only considered a pro if you are paid to ride on a pro team. All others are considered amateurs and they can receive sponsorships and cash assistance for races and no one seems to whine about it. Maybe because they are mostly men who do competitive cycling.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb. 5, 2007
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linny View Post
    As for sections "j" and "k" i am interested in clarification. I am a horseless ammy. I'm a reasonably good rider, but no pro. I have a couple of friends who allow me to hack their horses from time to time, 1 of whom has mentioned the potential for showing. He is hoping to get a horse that is currently without a rider (owner in college) out and worked and sold. He's an old pro type, who would be good for a kid or ammy so it stands to reason that they'd like a "kid or ammy" to ride him. I had figured on paying all fees because I just like to show. If in fact they insist on picking up entries, I don't want to be seen as shammy.
    And you shouldn't be considered a shammy. You are catch riding. The owner's are paying for the horse to go in the class. They are not paying you to ride the horse in the class. Leave it to USEF to confuse people even more. Sheesh.



  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyPenny View Post
    And you shouldn't be considered a shammy. You are catch riding. The owner's are paying for the horse to go in the class. They are not paying you to ride the horse in the class. Leave it to USEF to confuse people even more. Sheesh.
    It seems to me that the Amateur divisions are not meant to encourage catch riding in the first place. It's an interesting twist and perhaps a good way to solve the problem, that if you're truly an amateur and riding for your own pleasure instead of someone else's, you pay your own entry fees. That rule alone may allow for some of the other byzantine pieces to go away.
    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.

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
  •  
randomness