Amateur violation question

[3PB]

Reading up on the amateur rules and came across something I hadn’t read before.

“Any individual found to have knowingly assisted in the violation of the Amateur rule may also be subject to proceedings in accordance with Chapter 6. See GR1307”

Does this mean whoever’s name is on the entry blank as trainer for the “shamateur” can face consequences also? Fines suspension etc? I read GR1307 as well but didn’t see anything about that specifically. If yes has anyone heard of that actually happening in practice?

[faultfree]

Bumping as I am interested to know as well?

[hoopoe]

@3PB

Any individual found to have knowingly assisted in the violation of the Amateur rule may also be subject to proceedings in accordance with Chapter 6. See GR1307”

where exactly, did you read this, What chapter / section?

[3PB]

Don’t know why it took me 3 times to type it correctly LOL but GR1306 6a

[hoopoe]

Wow not sure when that rule snuck in , but it certainly does seem to imply that anyone who knows of the situation could be held liable. It has been a long time since I concerned myself with those rules.

It doesn’t say that they have to have signed the entry form. It does not even say they have to be present on the grounds. I always signed my own entries as trainer since I took care of my horse, myself, on the show ground and that is the definition of trainer.

In these days of SM, I can see a barn owner, trainer , coach getting caught out by proclaiming the success of their shamature assistant trainer in the Ammy Classic at Upsand Downs farm

I suspect this is in response to the long tradition of having the bookkeeper / cook/ child care specialist riding sale horses in the adult ammy classes for the benefit of their employer

[mmeqcenter]

@hoopoe

but it certainly does seem to imply that anyone who knows of the situation could be held liable.

@hoopoe

It doesn’t say that they have to have signed the entry form. It does not even say they have to be present on the grounds.

Sure, but it does say “…knowingly assisted…” which is not the same as just knowing about it.

[mmeqcenter]

@3PB

Does this mean whoever’s name is on the entry blank as trainer for the “shamateur” can face consequences also?

I would assume so.

[hoopoe]

I would love to see a “test case” on this rule. Or what exactly the thinking is behind it, what particular case, if any , inspired it.

[Baybear]

It’s been quite a long time but I knew of a barn where the head trainer and managers pretty much knew they had some “amateurs” who were on thin ice. One of those situations where everyone knew the rule was being violated but no one would report them. That seems to be the biggest thing with the amateur rule. People knowingly violate it yet the person who reports them is ostracized by the local horse community.

[Atlas_Shrugged]

Because I often ship in my horse(s) to shows from my private farm to meet up with my trainer, I sign as “trainer” of my own (ammy) horses, If trainer signs, then he/she would also be on the hook for the horse/rider.

[Janet]

@hoopoe

Wow not sure when that rule snuck in , but it certainly does seem to imply that anyone who knows of the situation could be held liable. It has been a long time since I concerned myself with those rules.

It is not new, though the wording has changed.

It seems to have started in 2013

In 2013 to 2015 it said
The trainer may be subject to disciplinary action if an exhibitor who shows as an
amateur is protested, and that protest is sustained by the Hearing Committee, and it is
determined that the trainer had knowledge of their professional activities.

In 2016 it changed to
Any individual found to have knowingly assisted in the violation of the Amateur rule may also be subject to proceedings
in accordance with Chapter 6. See GR1307.

If I remember correctly, it was due to a case where a trainer was intentionally having his working students (who were being paid) show in Amateur classes.

[hoopoe]

plus as adults they can sign entry form as trainer . The new wording gets around that issue of “trainer of record”.

[Baybear]

the reasoning behind it is you have people who are working say as “bookkeeper/office staff” at a barn but show their employer’s horses or horses that are boarded and/or in training - you can’t compete a horse that earns income for your employer. The head trainer was the “office staff” trainer - as was the general manager. So that’s 2 people besides the rider who should’ve know they were violating the rule. However, no one ever reported them because they knew they would be vilified for it. Hopefully with social media it’s much easier to report and prove a violation.

[hoopoe]

yes am very much aware of that old trick… Was friends with past president of AHSA ( how old we are) who said this was a very common practice, hence the original old rule. They were not ashamed of the practice, very matter of fact.

[Atlas_Shrugged]

Yes- that is true now. But riders who “ship in” to shows are less likely to drag their trainers into the fray

[Atlas_Shrugged]

As an attorney who exclusively represents professionals, there are many, many incidents that are settled early on so you are not apt to hear of them.