Amateur rule: where do you protest someone’s status?

[La-LaPopRider]

@soloudinhere

I see professionals, on clients horses and their own, getting 55-60 scores all the time, so I’m not sure that holds water.

I never said it never happens. It does. In my region, the judges know us all. (Mostly.) They’ve been judging horse & rider combo’s for many years & watched them/us move up levels, create businesses, gain clientele, complete ® programs and up, etc, etc. Is the scale the scale? Sure. But, when a very arrogant S judge - who does carry around the “Rulebook,” & USSF Omnibus daily, tells me “the scale/standard,” is more of a “guideline,” between professionals and AA’s- I believe her.

I’ve seen unrecognizable tests from pro’s and pro’s who are S judges, receive 75’s at 3rd at 4th levels when (IMO) the pair should’ve been eliminated- or given a score which reflected the ride. Also, a 60 represents a solid ride. Not a great ride. But a respectable one. The rides to which I’m referring should receive a 50 - 55 at best. Yet… 75% it is. And ammies riding the same test, come away with the 60. We can agree to disagree. But I’ve witnessed this more times than I care to remember.

ETA- clarity

[La-LaPopRider]

@iberianfan

Not every one requires remuneration .”
the only one I see that does not require remuneration is the advertising of training or lessons. All of the rest require somebody gets paid, whether it’s the individual or a family member/co-habitant/family business.
So it’s a little misleading to say that there are activities which make you a pro without being paid. Clearly a barn manager can be an amateur and you can advise someone for free.
Please just say you were mistaken.

Ok- so you DID locate at least one which DOES NOT require remuneration, yet you believe I should say I WAS mistaken?

I also stated that “remuneration,” is one large umbrella. These rules highlight that & I still wouldn’t want to be accused of being anywhere near that “umbrella.” Would you?

[La-LaPopRider]

“ Remuneration.”

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

[iberianfan]

@La-LaPopRider

You’ll find the word “handling,” mentioned more than once- without the requirement of having accepted “remuneration.”

I’m not going to argue this point. An AA may NOT “manage barn.” Period. If you wish to believe you can- take your chances. I have trained with S judges. I have trained with Olympians. And, Olympian “S,” judges. You will find that every single point I’ve stated is within the above rules.

FYI- “handling,” does include turnout, feed, grooming, stall cleaning, etc.
“Ringside tips,” of any kind are construed as “lessons/training.”
“Remuneration,” in addition to some of these requirements to not have to register as “professional,” are included. However, “remuneration,” is quite a large umbrella. I’d be sure I’m standing in the rain, than getting caught standing even partially under that umbrella

This is all incorrect with regard to the rules.

remuneration

[rəˌmyo͞onəˈrāSH(ə)n]

NOUN

1. money paid for work or a service.

synonyms:

[payment] · [pay] · [salary]· [wages] · [earnings] · fee(s) · [stipend] · emolument(s) · [honorarium] · [remittance]) · [consideration] [reward]· [recompense] · [reimbursement]

This word is used a LOT in the rule quoted above. Not sure why you don’t think we know it’s meaning.

[Moderator_1]

We removed some posts getting more into interpersonal issues than relating to the main topic of the thread.

[lorilu]

you are still wrong.

[lorilu]

The money in e,f,and g goes into the “family bank account” - and so those families are benefitting from it. Same goes for the business relationships.

[La-LaPopRider]

@lorilu

The money in e,f,and g goes into the “family bank account” - and so those families are benefitting from it. Same goes for the business relationships.

Again- you misinterpret the word “remuneration.” At least, in the manner of speaking which USEF interprets it & even spells it out. But it seems the disconnect is worse.

First- what exactly is a “family bank account?” At what age does one separate from her “family,” bank account and get her own? If a family of such wealth had a “family bank account,” - they’d not need contributions from the family equestrian. Regardless of age. Too many “rules,” for you to have make up in order for your “family bank account,” theory to make any sense whatsoever. Like, are you going to be collecting DNA samples to confirm whether a “family member,” is blood related? Married in? And either way- you ALL have the SAME bank account??? Ok. …, WHAT??? (Don’t answer that. Please.)

Picture this: You’re a 19 yr old girl who rides sale horses at her uncles 5 M dollar barn. A horse sells - uncle barn owner takes you shoe shopping at Louboutin and purse shopping at Birkin. You just collected *remuneration.” So did your uncle, so I hope he’s a registered “pro,” too.

Do you honestly think USEF intended for these rules to be so simply dissected? No. That would defeat the purpose of USEF’s lead lawyer & probably a team of legal department lawyers for USEF going over each & every rule - just in case a report comes in & someone smart has located a loophole- of which their are NOT that many. But… enough for wriggle room if the hearing committee doesn’t wish to sanction the reported equestrian. They already collected your $200 anyway.

As I’ve said from the very beginning, I would NOT want to do anything which would resemble collecting “remuneration,” or which might be (purposely, or, not purposely) construed that way. At that end of the day, it doesn’t matter one iota what you believe. I have seen this process in motion. It’s common. Petty. But common. Though, due to the general pettiness of USEF’s top officials (at the moment- they’ve been better in other years) I’ll wait to register as pro & collect as much “remuneration,” as I feel my skill set price tag reflects. Plus tax.

If I decide to report someone, you can probably assume they did something unconscionable - something I could absolutely not look away from. And, assume my knowledge of the Ammie/Pro rule would “win,” me my borderline petty/concerned citizen “case.” To each his own on whether to report. To each his own “family attorney,” on whether a reported person gets out of it unscathed. (They probably pulled their “family attorney,” right out of their “family bank account.”)

[La-LaPopRider]

@SillyHorse

I keep trying to dredge up some sympathy for her, but she ruins it every time.

Gosh. I guess I should be grateful? I sit around ALL day just hoping beyond hope for your “sympathies.” Even the “dredged up,” kind! It’s really a shame I miss the mark “every time!” I’ll try harder! Or, I’ll go on as I have been - not giving a rats rear end what you feel you should be doing with your “sympathies.” Btw, my condolences.

[La-LaPopRider]

@endlessclimb

That’s what the AND (in all caps to stress it) means, but some people can’t read, and instead will dig their heels in instead of saying “whoops, I was wrong”.

Or, maybe the “ALL CAPS,” in the AND,” is there to “stress,” the LACK of the “and,” in (I’ll leave it at the one you picked out all by yourself, even though there are more & until the word “remuneration,” is fully understood by you, it honestly doesn’t matter) “advertisements.” At least, I think that’s the one you picked. If it’s not, my heart is so sorry it BLEEDS!

Worth pointing out, though, you make the statement “none exist,” - in the very sentence prior to your finding of at least one which exists, no less.

Not digging my “heels in.” Don’t need to. You’ve kinda assisted in making my case quite sufficiently. Why would I ruin my heels? You’ve let me borrow yours! Thanks!

ETA - clarity & grammar

[SillyHorse]

Wow, just wow.

[endlessclimb]

Listen, lady.

Let me make this clear to you.

YOURE WRONG.

Want me to contact them to prove it? Or would you like to?

[atlatl]

Maybe stop feeding the troll.

If someone wants to take action on an erroneous reading of the rule, they will quickly learn it’s wrong and lose the money they need to ante up to initiate such a protest.

[La-LaPopRider]

@iberianfan

This is all incorrect with regard to the rules.

remuneration

[rəˌmyo͞onəˈrāSH(ə)n]

NOUN

1. money paid for work or a service.

synonyms:

[payment] · [pay] · [salary]· [wages] · [earnings] · fee(s) · [stipend] · emolument(s) · [honorarium] · [remittance]) · [consideration] [reward]· [recompense] · [reimbursement]

This word is used a LOT in the rule quoted above. Not sure why you don’t think we know it’s meaning.

You’re not sure why I don’t think you know it’s meaning? Probably, Bc you just listed 14 synonyms which are ALL included in the definition according to Miriam- Webster with even more room for interpretation by USEF- and you still fail to understand.

[La-LaPopRider]

@endlessclimb

Listen, lady.

Let me make this clear to you.

YOURE WRONG.

Want me to contact them to prove it? Or would you like to?

So… you’re going to “contact them,” and then what? Yes. I choose YOU contact “them.” They’ve got my email and cell number. I promise, if I receive an email or call from anyone who at USEF who has any kind of authority & (I know who those persons are) THAT person tells me their licensed S Judge taught me wrong- I will post the email here- I swear on my horses. Better get to “proving,” it!

Again, I’m POSITIVE USEF knows I would report a person for breaking these rules - And, I’d have all the proof I need Bc, luckily, I do know the rules & could prove the “activity,” easily. Except, I didn’t start this thread. Why? Bc, I already know the answers to the inquiries in OP. And, Bc, I find it difficult to think of any situation where some wuss “pro,” (by rule of USEF only) who is scared to ride against other “pro’s,” - yet happily advertises sale horses and makes commissions on such, would ever interfere with my life or my training enough for me to give it a second thought. I train all day … I take my relaxation time seriously.

Disclaimer- I fully understand the frustration of others who believe (rightfully so) - people should follow the rules Bc THAT’s what real competitors do. And I wouldn’t judge them for reporting the cheaters. Personally, I’d let the universe catch up with them. But, (as I’ve repeatedly stated) To each her own.

[endlessclimb]

@La-LaPopRider

I promise, if I receive an email or call from anyone who at USEF who has any kind of authority & (I know who those persons are) THAT person tells me their licensed S Judge taught me wrong- I will post the email here- I swear on my horses.

Ah, there it is. The trump card of “only XYZ person can be the one to tell me that I’m wrong”. How did I know that would be coming?

I’m going to stop engaging with someone who is spreading blatantly false information [edit].

[SillyHorse]

@endlessclimb

Ah, there it is. The trump card of “only XYZ person can be the one to tell me that I’m wrong”. How did I know that would be coming?

The very definition of hubris.

And I agree – it’s time to stop feeding. Past time, really.

[iberianfan]

OK, one more try. I do know the meaning of remuneration, and your example clearly sets forth remuneration for services. It doesn’t have to be in the form of money, but can be goods or services.

What I object to is your blanket statement that an AA cannot manage a barn (or muck stalls, or feed, or turnout someone else’s horses and be paid SOLELY for said mucking/feeding/turning out). That is simply NOT TRUE. What I don’t want is someone turning in their barn manager, or the barn help to USEF as a pro when they perform NONE of the prohibited acts for money. Your blanket statement is FALSE.

In my reading, the rules have a measure of common sense and I count on USEF to act in that manner.

I realize this is a useless exercise, but if it stops ONE false report, it is worth my effort. Also, if it makes ONE person realize that they are, in actuality, acting as a pro, and taking that step to record themselves as such, hurray.

BTW: family bank accounts are not uncommon, hence why they are mentioned in the rules. Belittling the rules because you don’t understand that such a thing exists is disingenuous at best. Families have family bank accounts, family offices (that take care of all family business - including something as small as paying the utilities for family members…).

[Mersidoats]

@iberianfan

BTW: family bank accounts are not uncommon, hence why they are mentioned in the rules. Belittling the rules because you don’t understand that such a thing exists is disingenuous at best. Families have family bank accounts, family offices (that take care of all family business - including something as small as paying the utilities for family members…).

Family bank accounts can exist for non-business reasons, too. In the days before Venmo and Zelle, my parents and I had a “family” bank account so they could easily transfer money to me from one of their linked accounts when I went away to college.

Re-reading the the rules has been helpful for me. I’m an AA, but I help out a lot at the barn - throwing hay, holding horses, cycling turn-out, tack-walking, ponying, ground-work, etc - all for free, because I enjoy it. Glad to know that I’m still an AA.

[rothmpp]

@La-LaPopRider

I never said it never happens. It does. In my region, the judges know us all. (Mostly.) They’ve been judging horse & rider combo’s for many years & watched them/us move up levels, create businesses, gain clientele, complete ® programs and up, etc, etc. Is the scale the scale? Sure. But, when a very arrogant S judge - who does carry around the “Rulebook,” & USSF Omnibus daily, tells me “the scale/standard,” is more of a “guideline,” between professionals and AA’s- I believe her.

I’ve seen unrecognizable tests from pro’s and pro’s who are S judges, receive 75’s at 3rd at 4th levels when (IMO) the pair should’ve been eliminated- or given a score which reflected the ride. Also, a 60 represents a solid ride. Not a great ride. But a respectable one. The rides to which I’m referring should receive a 50 - 55 at best. Yet… 75% it is. And ammies riding the same test, come away with the 60. We can agree to disagree. But I’ve witnessed this more times than I care to remember.

I’m not sure I buy this - I’ve scribed extensively for all levels of judges, including those who have filled the last several Olympic and WEG panels. There may be a small amount of judges who have rose-colored glasses when it comes to VERY VERY BNTs, but for the most part they judge the pros with the same scale as the rest of us lowly ammies.

Disclaimer - I’ve been through the L program, I’ve shown my own, self-trained horse up through PSG.

If the pros are getting better scores, if you are brutally honest with your evaluation, it is often because they are on nicer horses than the AVERAGE ammie. The pros who are getting the monster scores are usually better riders than the average ammie who is lucky to have time ride one horse 5 days a week. All that usually adds up to a higher score on the scale. You can’t use yourself as an example - you have much nicer horses than most ammies - hell, most pros if we are being totally honest. Your job is riding your own horses - you don’t have to work 60 hours a week to afford them. There is nothing wrong with that - it’s just a fact. You’re certainly not the only AA that enjoys that advantage. But it makes a difference - it can’t improve inherent talent or lack thereof, but sheer determination can get you a long way.