• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

New Amateur Rules 12/1/2012 -Huh?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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.
    Halt Near X | Horse Bloggers - Blog Directory

    Comment

    • Original Poster

      #3
      I don't know. (I probably should) My recollection from years past is no comments/explanation are given, just proposed and/or final rules.

      Comment


      • #4
        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

        Comment


        • #5
          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!

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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

                    Amy's Stuff - Rustic chic and country linens and decor
                    Support my mom! She's gotta finance her retirement horse somehow.

                    Comment

                    • Original Poster

                      #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        BestLegUp you are just being purposefully obtuse.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.
                          Halt Near X | Horse Bloggers - Blog Directory

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                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."

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  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.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    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?

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      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.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        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.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X