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

[La-LaPopRider]

@rothmpp

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.

I wasn’t using myself as the example. Although, that’s not to say I’ve never experienced it myself. What I did say is, “I have witnessed this more times than I care to remember.” By that, I mean watching well ridden tests ridden by ammies on average horses at (let’s say) training & First levels - receiving low 60’s or less- even if the test was ridden accurately, (in accuracy of circles & lines meters wise & accuracy of the directives & collectives wise.) Meanwhile, a “pro,” brings a younger, fancier horse & rides the same test, making mistakes but receiving a 70. This does happen. Is anyone saying it doesn’t?

In my example up thread, I was referring to a few completely unrecognizable tests (3rd & 4th levels) handed 75’s. This was years ago when I’d stay around to watch, but, an ‘R’ judge can judge 3rd & 4th. If the person they’re judging maybe the S judge with the power to aid in said R judge’s leveling up, the last thing they’d do is score the ride badly- which is not to say I’ve never seen these tests receive a fairer, lower score.But the rider was furious when this happened & made it known loudly & clearly.

I’m not sure when this thread became about ME… Just Bc I have nice horses doesn’t mean they came “trained.” Two did. 1 had done the Junior’s & the other Inter, but considered GP schoolmaster as far as training movements. They were/are teachers and worth their weight in gold, educationally. The rest I train. Under the supervision, expertise & guidance of a trainer I’m lucky to have 6 days a week. Even though he will get on when only pure strength or serious finesse (from 45 years of experience) is needed - we both agree I am the trainer- he is coach & mentor. Anyone who thinks riding big moving, red hot, sensitive WB’s of all ages @ different places in their training, - (back to back, daily) is easy - & doesn’t count as “work,”- doesn’t understand the theory you and I share: “Sheer determination can get you a long way.” But, sheer determination IS work. As is patience. All coupled together cultivates SKILL. And Experience- for which there is NO substitute.

Surely, no one disagrees with that. Or the fact that I can comment & contribute without certain trolls (not aimed at you, per se) twisting this thread into a “ME,” (per se) thing.

[La-LaPopRider]

@iberianfan

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.

To your first point- counting on anything you didn’t write yourself (& had approved by your own attorney, preferably) is called a risk.

Next- your will to save the world from itself is commendable. Except, in this circumstance, (as pointed out by many way up thread) a false report already comes with penalty. As does refusing to change one’s own status when the situation demands it. Your determination spoken with SUCH EMPHASIS must make you the most “fit for duty,” in your attempts to police the system. Too bad your “words,” will likely not stop even “ONE” false report or force even “ONE,” person to realize they “really should switch,” status to comply with the rules.

FYI- I’m glad you now realize “remuneration,” can be goods or services- and whole hell of a lot of other things, depending on whom at USEF is designated to interpret the rule against the offense. “Remuneration is a very large umbrella.” As I said… repeatedly.

[Mersidoats]

Apparently your point was missed entirely.

[lorilu]

@La-LaPopRider

FYI- I’m glad you now realize “remuneration,” can be goods or services- and whole hell of a lot of other things, depending on whom at USEF is designated to interpret the rule against the offense. “Remuneration is a very large umbrella.”

OF course. the KEY, however, is receiving it in exchange for doing a prohibited action. Those prohibited actions are clearly laid out. Of course you can do them - but not receive remuneration. That is where the big “AND” comes in…

I believe the “goods and services” limit is $300/year. SO a dinner out, or a bottle of wine, probably is not a problem…

That example you gave of the uncle and the niece riding a sales horse? SOmeone could report that. If i were that Uncle (or aunt, I suppose…), I’d be sure that there is a long time between the sale of the horse and the shopping spree…

And I am truly sorry I ever used the words “family bank account” I meant the situation in which the family member gets a benefit from the prohibited actions of family members, or when there is a sham “job” at the barn for which the person is paid, while they are also riding clients horses… - and that is also clearly laid out in the rules.

[La-LaPopRider]

I don’t disagree with you (mostly) on pretty much everything you’ve said. We’ve been agreeing, to the extent that remuneration is needed for most activities. Just not all. And, for the moment, forget the “uncle & niece.” Assume a AA person went to ride a horse twice a week - claiming to have no idea that horse is for sale & is sold 4 weeks later. If an enemy of that person reported the riding of that horse to USEF, along with the soon after sale, there would likely be a hearing to determine whether or not the AA (or any family member, close friend, service provider, etc) was provided remuneration resulting in anything which could even be construed as a “gift,” to that rider. Yes- that’s how strictly the rule can be interpreted.

USEF leaves enough room for interpretation to make the decision which best suits USEF. Not the AA (possibly, now “pro,”) rider. And USEF doesn’t care whether they have to return $200 or keep it - from the reporter. They do care how big a headache the whole report will cause them & which party is most likely to make that headache an eternal migraine. Hence, that area for interpretation…

FWIW- this post should be the cautionary tale which either saves someone from breaking the rules & being reported or taking their chances believing that there is no one just waiting in the shadow for the opportunity to be ruthless. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m a realist. Anyone who believes competitive Dressage is not at least 90% politics & 10% indifference (as it pertains to the purview of USEF) is in severe denial. Anyone who says differently - either has zero clue or a bad case of kissassery.

[Manni01]

I posted this example in another thread, no idea whether it fits here, but is shows beautifully the stupidity of the current system…

let’s assume I am a wealthy AA who owns a beautiful FEI horse. because keeping this horse is expensive I need to work a lot and need somebody to ride my horse once or twice a week… because I like my horse I am picky about who rides it… In my barn is a nice rider who owns a young horse. so I ask her whether she would ride my horse for free.
It’s a win win situation because she likes my horse, and she can ride movements with him which will help her with her young horse… And I know my horse is well cared for…

Because she is my friend we go out to dinner at least once a week. yes I pay for her because I have more money then her and I like to spend time with her…

BOOOM!!! We violated the rules… and wait this cannot happen in the US… the young rider would be a pro already and I would never let my horse getting ridden by a friend, because the system requires that I am in a Pro AA relationship and finance a Pro…(sarcasm )

[soloudinhere]

No, you didn’t violate the rules unless you took your friend out to dinner specifically to compensate her for riding your horse.

Remuneration is payment for services. It is not any gift you give someone who happens to have ridden your horse.

This is why the amateur I posted about above has passed the smell test multiple times - the trainer gives her an FEI horse for 5+ years out of the goodness of her heart, according to them. Without documentation to prove otherwise, it is what it is.

[BigMama1]

@Manni01

BOOOM!!! We violated the rules

Nope, you didn’t.

[SillyHorse]

@Manni01

Because she is my friend we go out to dinner at least once a week. yes I pay for her because I have more money then her and I like to spend time with her…

BOOOM!!! We violated the rules

No, you didn’t. Please stop.

[Manni01]

Interesting… let’s say there is another boarder at our barn… She regularly shows against my friend and her nice young horse on the same levels… For whatever reason her scores are never as good as my friends. she has dinner at the same restaurant and watches me paying… so she files a complaint to USEF that my friend receives enumeration for her riding my horse in the form of food…

As you are explaining it, I defend myself by saying this is BS I am simply inviting my friend because she is my friend, not because she is riding my horse… ok sounds good…

[Manni01]

Honestly if I didn’t violate the rules the situation is even worse then I thought… Because obviously there are holes for people who know how to use the system… …
i know this happens all the time with all kind of rules and this stupid rule is no exception…

[SillyHorse]

@Manni01

Interesting… let’s say there is another boarder at our barn… She regularly shows against my friend and her nice young horse on the same levels… For whatever reason her scores are never as good as my friends. she has dinner at the same restaurant and watches me paying… so she files a complaint to USEF that my friend receives enumeration for her riding my horse in the form of food…

As you are explaining it, I defend myself by saying this is BS I am simply inviting my friend because she is my friend, not because she is riding my horse… ok sounds good…

First, it’s remuneration. And if that person files a complaint, she will have to prove that 1.) your treating a friend to dinner is remuneration for riding and 2.) that you have paid for more than $300 worth of dinners (or anything else) annually. From the rule book:

[An amateur is permitted to] Accept a non-monetary token gift of appreciation valued less than $300 annually

Again, please stop, until you have read and understand of the rules.

[soloudinhere]

Well that’s actually exactly how the process goes, and unless you as the complainant can prove otherwise, it’s innocent until proven guilty.

This so why specific job titles are called out, because it was a completely trivial way to avoid the rules. Then it had to be showing horses owned by your employer because they would put the horses in the name of a business instead of a person to avoid this. Then they would lease the horse and now that’s in the rules too.

There’s always a loophole. Eventually it just becomes easier to focus on yourself.

[Manni01]

Thank you so basically people who don’t know the loopholes are screwed and the others use the loopholes…

Great… makes the Pro AA rule even more meaningful

[SillyHorse]

@Manni01

Thank you so basically people who don’t know the loopholes are screwed and the others use the loopholes…

Great… makes the Pro AA rule even more meaningful

Maybe you should stop showing if it bothers you so much. Or just pay attention to your horse and yourself and not to whether someone does or doesn’t know the “loopholes,” which I like to call “the rules.”

[Manni01]

oh I left this behind me … But have fun with your yearly show (if you can even afford one ). Because this seems to be what you like!!! I am happy for you

[SillyHorse]

@Manni01

oh I left this behind me … But have fun with your yearly show (if you can even afford one ). Because this seems to be what you like!!! I am happy for you

Are you talking to me? If so, what you wrote makes absolutely no sense.

[Mander]

Oh my, what volumes a statement like this speaks of your character.

[BigMama1]

Unless you specifically made an agreement with your friend that she would ride your horses in exchange for meals at restaurants you are not violating the rules by taking her out to dinner. Period. Why is it so hard for you to grasp?

[BigMama1]

@Manni01

Great… makes the Pro AA rule even more meaningful

Why don’t you just show in the open division? Then the “stupid rules” won’t affect you at all, and you can stop losing sleep over what other people may or may not be doing with their horses.