We have qualifying in eventing because of the possibility of serious injury at the higher levels; it doesn’t kick in until you’re jumping the bigger stuff (prelim and up, which is where FEI recognition begins). I don’t think it’s necessary for hunters or jumpers (or dressage) in the same way. Again this can have the net effect of adding to cost without necessarily creating substantial benefit.
Be careful with what you wish for in terms of testing up the levels. Sometimes that means you test out of a lower level. Which has its own problems, especially for the amateur rider.
4 Likes
Many professionals don’t really train, either horses or people, they compete, and multiple Olympians have scammed clients. I don’t know that morality is a good gauge of professionalism 
2 Likes
This is what I think needs to change. I think the biggest problem with the amateur rules is that we need more restrictions on who can be a pro and everyone else falls into the amateur category, much like in other sports.
2 Likes
The horse world has been an amazing experience. My daughter, grew up a tough and natural pony rider and got lots of pony ride experience. In her later years She catch rode many horses in jr hunters, Eq & jumpers. This is a tough sport because, for some reason, sale horses are easier to sell with a Jr rider.
Now that my daughter is no longer a jr, she doesn’t have the same opportunities to show. We don’t have the funds, so, she has quite riding.
Here’s my concern about adding money to the amateur classes:
Just a few years ago, a show I was at had a $1000 Classic for the 2’6" Low Child/Adult Hunters and a $1000 Classic for the 2’9" Modified Child/Adult Hunters. (Wow, I thought – way to give back to the up and coming child/adults!)
Call me naive, but what happened was a trainer entered her international derby horse in both, ridden by the child of another trainer who was doing the 3’3" - 3’6" eq (but not at this show… at this show, the kid rode only in the classes necessary to do the Classics, so it wasn’t as though the kid was already showing at this show). And guess what? They won BOTH!!
I looked at the riders who came in 2nd and so on down the line, and thought, “You were robbed.” (Just typing the memory of this makes me feel sick to my stomach.) At the time, I spoke to the show manager who agreed it was completely inappropriate but that there was nothing they could do to prevent it.
8 Likes
I agree emphatically with this concern.
And…as I’ve watched over the years - the more money and prestige associated with the amateur divisions, the more expensive the horse needed to compete in the division. In the short term, adding extra prize money to those divisions is a nice thing for the competitors; in the longer term, those competitors may find themselves priced out as those with deeper pockets gravitate to the division.
If you’re going to pump money into the amateur divisions, I’d prefer to see it done via subsidizing the entries for those divisions (as opposed to prize money). So that all competing in those divisions get the benefit, not just those with the super expensive super nice horses.
10 Likes
Blockquote
So…I’m just spitballing here but…wouldn’t it be nice if subsidizing amateur divisions somehow counted towards getting that rating. I.e. instead of offering $2000 in prize money they just reduced the cost of entries by an equivalent amount (and yes, I know there’s all sort of practical problems with this that need to be worked out).
Speaking more broadly, it would be great if somehow support to amateurs at the horse shows, especially in ways not tied to performance in competition (since that results in an arms race towards ever more expensive horses) played into a show’s rating.
10 Likes
A little bit off topic but since we kind of veered into “the right to show affordably”… I can’t find it now, but I read an article that I believe was on COTH comparing events and horse shows in terms of cost. Why are horse trials so much less expensive than an HJ show at the same venue? It all came down to how the show is run. Our shows start on Wednesday and everyone wants to ship in on Monday or Tuesday and get to flat in the rings that first day. Horse trials are more of a Friday-Sunday thing and you come before you show. HJ show organizers then have to pay for the facility for those extra days.
So, not only in the entire HJ crowd paying the expense of all those millions of warm up classes and warm up days, amateurs have to pay extra to their trainer for those extra days. If your barn is leaving on a Monday that is typically your only opportunity to get your horse to the show. So you pay for pro rides while you’re at work, extra day fees, braiding fees for the warm up classes, etc etc etc.
As much as we’d all love to find a quick and easy solution to bringing the costs down, such as money classes, I just don’t think it’s all that realistic. We need to drastically alter how we show.
Here in the midatlantic there are still a few very nice Thursday/Friday-Sunday horse shows. There typically aren’t a ton of jumper classes and the pro hunter classes are a little limited. There also aren’t a million divisions for someone to enter… no age group eq for example. But the standard junior/am divisions are huge.
Why did these shows go away in other areas? Is it because of the mileage rule in other areas? Or is it because big barns are avoiding these shows in favor of big AA shows with every class under the sun? I think we need to answer these questions before we can move forward in figuring out the bigger picture of how to make horse shows more affordable.
4 Likes
I have tried to re-find Penelope Ayre’s (?)thread. I started to reply, then I got kicked off. ----
[In addition to my dissatisfaction with the “Amateurs” v. “Shamateurs” issue, let me say that I HATE THIS INCARNATION of the COTH site more than I hate the USEF in general].
Yes, a distinction needs to be made so that all members of the USEF have their voices heard. My main frustration is the way divisions are divided. Exhibiters who do not get paid for riding v. those who do is not a fair distinction. There are many other ways to look at this issue. Consider eventing: there are different levels of competence, and within each level, competitors are subdivided into pro v. ammie. This might not work in showing, but there could be levels of ammie competence. Perhaps if shows had ratings (based on several different criteria; i.e. shows being given 1*, 2* 3* ratings (all WEF and other winter series, and indoors, etc, being 3* shows, while 2 day shows would be classified as 2* – and 1 day shows would be 1* shows). Then, riders would “graduate” from 1 level to the next, based on the numbers of *'s they accrued. Not only would this equalize the playing field, it would create an incentive for “B” and “C” shows to return to the USEF.
Or perhaps the ammie division could be based on the purchase price of their horses. 
.
Somehow we need divisions so all riders feel they have a chance to perform against riders of similar skills.
AND, riders from each section of ammies could be members of the board of directors based on the numbers of riders they showed against or # of *,s they accrued. Or money they paid. Or the number of times they chipped in. There are innumerable ways to even out the representation on the BoD.
Because, right now, ammies are NOT being represented commensurately with their contribution to the sport. Many of us have given up and left the USEF. We need a reason to come back.
3 Likes
I do not know what thread you are looking for but I wanted to offer up two things.
First is that search on this new forum is much better than search on the old forum. Have you tried it yet?
Second being, some threads from the old forum seem to have been lost during the migration. I am not sure if they are finding them and putting them back or if they are lost forever. @Moderator_1 will know the answer to that. The lost thread thing is an issue they know about.
I always struggle to explain the USEF amateur rule to non-horsey friends. What they struggle with is the idea that one is professional unless proven amateur.
In triathlon, it’s the opposite - one qualifies for and is granted a pro card based on past performance (and you can opt out of it and stay an ammy).
In cycling, there is ranking by categories, and you can be forced to move up if you are winning too much in your current category.
In running, there’s no official recognition of pro versus amateur. Instead most races offer an "elite field’ which you qualify for if you have run certain times recently; the exact times vary from race to race, and from year to year. (it’s nice to be in the elite field because you get perks ranging from free entry to a special tent at the start/finish to your own bottles on course).
In none of them is there any distinction based on earning money from the sport. It’s all about performance, and the money earning stems from the performance.
It seems similar to the NBA, NFL, etc. In those sports you don’t just declare yourself a pro - you get good enough to get drafted or otherwise signed onto a team.
Equestrian sports seem to do it completely backwards from everyone else (with the exception of NCAA eligibility - which is based on refusal of money rather than level of performance). We prioritize income over ability, and the default is that one is a pro until proven amateur.
13 Likes
What is especially peculiar about our sport, and to my estimation, an idiosyncrasy which USEF whole-heartedly endorses based on their policy decisions is that success can absolutely be purchased.
Can you name any other Olympic sport, literally ONE, where a reasonably competent participant can be catapulted to the upper echelon of their sport solely through the purchase of the best equipment and some focused effort for a year or two?
[I think bobsledding, may qualify… wherein I saw a few years back a gentleman in average physical condition donate a princely sum to his nation’s bobsled team and got himself a spot on the four-man team as a pusher…]
This is perhaps for me the most irritating aspect of this sport.
Does anybody believe that under our current system THE ABSOLUTE BEST RIDERS are being identified for development? Of course not. Some darn good riders with absolutely unbeatable horses are being identified, but not THE BEST RIDERS.
Unlike every other Olympic sport, we have no system in place for this identification process to occur. Or, maybe better said, the system we have in place is accessible by so few that there is no way the BEST RIDERS are being identified. What we have in H/J land is akin to a debutante ball (i.e., a conspicuous yet socially acceptable way to display one’s wealth and reinforce one’s social network) combined with a “gentleman’s sport” (i.e, you need not have exceptional athleticism – though some do; you need not get your hands dirty or sacrifice virtually every other pursuit to succeed – though some do. Success at the amateur levels can be purchased.)
Years ago I remember seeing Beezie Madden flatting some horses at the Maclay’s, probably for her then brother-in-law Frank. This obvious elitism and unattainability is EXACTLY what the 1% want. They surely appreciate the 99% peripherally funding their pursuits and serving as proverbial blocking-dummies…
The decision-makers at the USEF/USHJA are the ones who stand to profit from this system in its current form. They are the breeders, importers, and trainers of these magnificent horses only affordable by the 1% that win 99% of the awards and team appointments.
If our system were made more egalitarian they would stand to lose millions in easy money pumping up the billionaires’ kids as the next Olympians.
18 Likes
So…I’m going to respectfully disagree with that assessment, as I can’t think of anyone that fits that classification (note: this is not an invitation to start naming names, as I think that would change the tone of this discussion and ruin it).
Are there rich individuals competing at the Grand Prix levels on horses they were able to afford through family money? Yes, absolutely yes. But the characterization of “reasonably competent” plus “some focused effort for a year or two” is off, IMHO.
Every rich kid competing at the big Grand Prix level got there after a LOT of miles in the ring - many years in the BigEq, plus a lot of experience in the high junior/amateur jumper level. That’s many years of hard work - by the time you’re winning in the Big Eq you are far beyond “reasonably competent.”
I believe that getting to the top in equestrian sports requires at least 2 of the 3: talent, money, hard work. You can get there on sheer money and hard work with little talent. But you can’t get there on money alone.
I also think it’s worth noting that discussing the opportunities to get to the very top of the sport are just one very small part of the broader issue of supporting amateurs in general.
7 Likes
My post was primarily aimed at the amateur Hunter and Equitation rings, especially at the juniors in those disciplines, so I apologize that I did not more clearly state that distinction.
Your post was very well worded.
@Darkwave FWIW, that isn’t true.
I am one who will absolutely agree you don’t get to and through and compete at the grand prix level without a lot of work and ability. But definitely everyone did not do the lengthy and systematic program you outlined above. Not even American riders, who are really the only riders who have that system you described above.
5 Likes
I thing this thread is going off the tracks. Can we please stick with the Amateur discussion.
2 Likes
Juniors are exempt from the amateur rule so your argument boils down to a complaint about people having more money.
I do agree the USEF has made a mess of the rule with their random attempts to patch the loop holes. The rule needs a complete overhaul and they need to take the complaints and suggestions from the working ammy.
5 Likes
Dose the USHJA state anywhere why there is a difference between an amateur and a pro? Maybe that should be the starting point?
2 Likes
While I don’t know that I necessarily like the idea of “graduating” up a tiered system for a number of reasons–not the least of which is that is not always financially possible, or something one possesses the skill or horse to do–I 100% agree that one of the big factors that could help average Ammys is a return of more B and C shows. Those tend to be smaller and more able to focus on the Amateur/Junior divisions rather than all the pro classes/derbies/etc. They also tend to run over only 1 or 2 days, allowing much lower expenses for things like stabling and daycare/pro rides/braiding. (And on that note, maybe that’s another thing we could carry over from this year–don’t penalize for not braiding at the unrated/B/C stuff, because while that is something that some people including myself are capable of doing themselves, for many that is an additional expense that could make a difference for some.)
I’m in MD, and while there are still a few B/Cs around, even just in the last few years we’ve lost quite a few of the local ones that could be an affordable foot in the door to rated showing. Make it easier for good local shows to get some kind of affiliate system going to step up to being a B or C, where you shouldn’t need things like hospitality and vendor rows, just focus on good footing and inviting jumps.
I also very much agree with the point that there should be amateur board positions for those who are actively riding/showing as amateurs (either in the AO/AAs, or even below that in something like PreAdults!), not those who could technically do. While I don’t think managing a show should make you a pro, it also doesn’t really lend itself to being an unbiased representative of what the average working amateur rider wants.
4 Likes
