She’s back in Germany, so US rules don’t affect her anyway.
7 Likes
So are you saying that if free dinners or paid for spa days are offered to a person who rides your horse “for free” then whether or not it’s remuneration depends solely on whether the “client” says the largess was intended or not intended as compensation? If that were true, you could offer lots of in kind remuneration, but just say “well, she’s my BFF and I’m generous.” That would be a huge loophole.
2 Likes
That’s exactly what I’m saying and it does happen.
Unless the complainant can prove that the person in question is being paid, or doing something really obvious like posting about lessons or clinics they’re giving on facebook - it gets through.
1 Like
Well, it’s not unlimited. If someone receives more than $300 in freebies in a year, they can’t retain amateur status, according to the rules. But if the person doesn’t acknowledge it, it’s hard to prove.
2 Likes
You honestly believe either party (wrt your first sentence) is going admit that this “dinner,” was “specifically,” to compensate for the riding? Or, to any amount of “dinners,” (gifts, “treats,” etc) being “specifically,” compensation? Really? Why? For what purpose?
The minute you make someone else money from a sale or lease of their horse, after said horse was ridden by (g) you (AA) - it’s almost impossible to “prove,” whether or not that rider received a kickback. Probably no one is going around interrogating other people’s bank’s to find out if $$ was deposited & who gave it. They’d be unsuccessful, anyway. Guess you never really know how far a person would go to try & cause trouble … but I’m certain (without a doubt) these people do exist.
If many people witnessed the riding of the horse by Ammie - which was later sold - and those witnesses have any kind of axe to grind with said AA, (AA is a better rider, AA may “steal,” business away from 1 of the “witnesses,” or witnesses, AA is too nice, too naive, too b*tchy, take your pick of covet or disdains) she/he could be very well be reported. Most times it isn’t a report with an attached copy of a cashed check. It’s letters or calls by either bored people - or perhaps, just regular people who honestly think a rule was broken. In either scenario, if they lie as a means to an end, they’re no better than their purported “cheater.”
I have ridden my friends horses just to have fun jumping around a course after nothing but “dressage, dressage dressage. By the very next day I had people from other barns asking me “so… I hear you’re a ‘pro,’ now. Were you riding so and so’s horse yesterday?” Ignored them.
The following weekend there was a big show. Now , I have the same people plus a few add ons asking the same thing. Surely, my fun jumping session on my friend’s horse - who was never going to be for sale- could not be the focus of these other peoples’ lives. (Except it can & I can name them by screen name- but not today.) S judge trainer (mine, at the time) enters show tack room & tells me “I guess you’re a pro now - I just heard you were schooling so & so’s horse around larger fences than she is capable of riding. That’s called ‘training’ someone else’s horse.” I argued that, just Bc my friend just learned by watching me have fun that it’s not her horse causing the dead stops in front of jumps- it was her own fear making him hesitate, I’m not going to register as “pro.” So began the lecture of the rules - which many of you still don’t understand. No good deed goes unpunished.
Doesn’t matter that I didn’t get paid - nor, that $$ was the furthest thing from my mind Bc we were just having fun! This was not going to be let go- I could already tell. S judge then brought me to the office of the show management & asked the organizer to please share her story with *me.” Scary stuff. And also total BS- in the sense that she didn’t fight back when others tried to intimidate her. She had ridden (for fun) a horse that was later sold & she had “haters,” who simply couldn’t deal. They all reported her to USEF - even though she didn’t receive a dime. The reporters told USEF that the seller made more money on the sale precisely because this woman had ridden the horse. Mind you, she had no clue of the sale & definitely no “evidence,” existed to back up the claim that the horse was sold for “more” because of that ride. Yet, the reports were made & Bc most people are intimidated by the perceived authority of USEF, she “had to” (decided to submit &) wait a year before competing as an AA again. Plus, She needed letters from other pro’s confirming she hadn’t broken any rules since- and she warned me to do nothing - NOTHING- which could even be possibly construed as breaking a written rule - BEFORE reaching the words “AND REMUNERATION,” - Bc… (apparently) all it takes is a bunch of bored people all swearing they saw or heard from a “reliable source “ (eye roll) someone made $$ and that’s that.
I wish I knew then what I know now. My call to USEF would’ve been as aggressive as all the people who lied about the show organizer - only it would’ve been a call in her favor. Her “haters,” who bullied her into switching (by way of lying to USEF) - would have had to actually present “evidence,” of remuneration. Bc, my calls of opposition to their reports would cause that eternal migraine - discussed above- AS IT SHOULD. As I’ve been trying to convey to (hardly) any avail - Sometimes there’s fine print. Read it. Sometimes the fine print is invisible. But it IS there. Believe that & always be prepared. Ignore that & walk around believing you know more than you do. Whatever floats your saddle.
1 Like
I think you underestimate the power of mass reporting or whom it is doing said reporting. I think you overestimate the “honesty,” of the people who you claim would “just admit,” those “dinners,” were “specifically,” for the purpose of “remuneration.” No offense- but that’s almost laughable.
2 Likes
It is a bit of a loophole, but one that is much harder to exploit than the infamous “she’s the nanny for my kids” that was the running joke among the early 20s crowd in the hunter-jumper crew that brought on the necessity of such a detailed rule.
I still can’t get the search to work for me, but back in 2008, there was a feel-good piece on COTH about some girls who were local to me. The oldest sister was 23 at the time and competing as a AA. The article unintentionally shone a light on the fact that she was absolutely anything but a AA. A thread got started on the forums questioning whether she was legitimately competing as a AA and she came on to defend herself as a AA, based soley on her skill level. She then proceeded to describe all the things she was provided other than money to "assist’ at the family farm. It put a microscope on the fact that some people didn’t and still don’t understand what constitutes remuneration. Which is why the AA rule is longer and more elaborate every year.
You can absolutely ride your friend’s hose for free, and you absolutely can go to dinner and have that friend pay for dinner, but to be totally aboveboard, you need to make sure that it doesn’t exceed $300 over the course of a year.
It sucks that you can’t teach a handful of up/down beginner kid lessons on the weekend to offset your own training bill, but the number of people exploiting those loopholes make it necessary.
And yes, it does fall on the accuser to provide some form of evidence of the charge. The USEF put a dollar amount on filing a complaint to cut down on the number of malicious, bogus claims.
13 Likes
It doesn’t stop them, though. And, once they’re in & $200 is collected, USEF doesn’t care either way. They choose board members not on experience & skill - or even votes - they choose them based on how well funded their sponsors are. Two words. Fritz Kundrun. Follow that lead & ALL the dots will be connected.
Haha… I remember the old “she babysits my kids sometimes, no biggie.” (So what if she also trains my horse, shows my horse in the Derby while I can clear 18’ inch fences at best!) How that was ever bought … will remain one of life’s great (ish) mysteries. That must’ve been a Hunter/jumper thing… back when I thought only jumping fences was “cool,” and dressage was for “old ladies.” LOL!
1 Like
Justifying your amateur status based on skill level indicates a basic misunderstanding of the amateur/pro divide. I know one genuine amateur who I think has a shot at the 2020 Olympic dressage team (I think they’re still calling it 2020). She may not make it, but she’s in contention.
When I show I’m competing primarily against myself (that is I care about the score and the comments more than the ribbon), so I don’t place much value on amateur status, anyway.
3 Likes
Thank you Thank you Thank you 
Sometimes I do think my way of thinking is retarded each time everybody is jumping on the train to prove I don’t know what I am talking about but that is exactly what I was trying to say…
But I am glad that this at least is now resolved… The AA Pro rule is even worse then it looks like because for people who know how there are loopholes 
So basically the average not so well off person is screwed if she tries to follow the rules and and you can use it to your advantage if you know the loopholes…
So this rule creates even more injustice than it appears to do…and I have to give USEF credit that they try to improve and to deepen this injustice by adjusting the AA rule every year…
Just saying in my example I was talking about going out for dinner once a week…
So you have been involved in the process of reporting someone for violating the AA status? You for sure sound like it 
. And did you just encourage people to break the rules because it’s hard to prove . You sure sound like it as well…
Wow wow so the system encourages you to cheat . As you know I am not a fan of the system, but you saying it so open is kind of amazing for me…
Is there something wrong with you that you constantly, willfully refuse to understand what people write, and then make preposterous assumptions based on your lack of understanding? And to accuse me of encouraging people to break the rules? You should
be ashamed.
15 Likes
Yes
I really think this all goes back to why do you care enough to report someone for this? Unless someone is running a full training barn and then going out as an amateur I kind of don’t care. I gave up my ammy status to ride a couple of nice horses for $ while I was strapped for cash and still in school. I wasn’t making enough money to show at that point either, and the first year I was back in showing, I showed in open. No one made rude comments that I wasn’t qualified or whatever else-- the only reason the divisions are separated is because they expect there to be a disparity in the quality of riding between the divisions. I’m not sure that’s always true.
4 Likes
All these posts and you still don’t get it?
12 Likes
To be clear, that was HER reasoning, not mine.
Yes, I was not attributing it to you.
The injustices are beyond any valid explanation. And, based on evidence & belief, it is not USEF actually trying to improve “injustices.” It is USEF trying to give the impression that’s what they’re doing. No matter how many extra words, lines, addendums etc, are “added,” - USEF always leaves room to subjectively choose a side. It’s just the way the cookie crumbles- until REAL changes are made.
Hypothetical. If you’re best friend has been accused of violating the rule, “proof,” of some form is provided - BUT your best friend is also a person who arranges high dollar clinics monthly, with one of the aforementioned, well funded (very well funded ) board members who is also, perhaps, a “friend,” of said board member, the complaint is getting squashed.
On the flip side, the only credit I will provide USEF is this: When a number of complaints come in about a person, around the very same time & it’s clear that 1 or more than 1 complainant doesn’t even realize what USEF is, but worse- possibly doesn’t know what the “US” in “USEF,” stands for, they’re pretty good at calling “BULLSh*%.” So, there is that. They are well aware of when they are blatantly being “weaponized.” But… it will not be the “Rulebook,” (with or without its many additions or subtractions to any rule) deciding whether or not USEF stops those injustices. Which, IMO, should NOT be discretionary - but a “bright line rule,” put forth by way of public statement, “we, at USEF, will NOT tolerate ANY attempt to weaponize this organization/NGB. All attempts of this nature will result in investigation & enforcement by this NGB & reports sent to SafeSport’s CEO & General Counsel for further inquiry.” (Or, something like that.)
Sometimes public statements are a lot more effective than losing $200. Bc, after all, even if a complaint is a successful- what did you really “win,” with the $200? Some cheater had to change status? Personally, I’d rather have a new tack room vacuum. (But, again, I DO understand the reasoning of those who feel reporting a real violator of the rules, even if I may not waste my own time doing it.)
2 Likes
