I couldn’t find anything though a quick google search, but thought for sure some COTH’ers would either know the answer or be able to point me in the right direction.
I was just talking about this in theory, and curious if you were to have a lease purchase that was registered with the USEF, if that would allow you to show in the AO’s?
No.
What do you mean by lease purchase? You have to be an owner.
Nooooo.
Amateur Owner. Not Amateur Lessor. Doesn’t matter if one is paying $30k per year to lease the horse, and has taken the time to register the lease with USEF. A lessor is still not the owner of the horse and therefore cannot show it in Amateur Owner classes.
[QUOTE=50ShadesOfHay;7609722]
I couldn’t find anything though a quick google search, but thought for sure some COTH’ers would either know the answer or be able to point me in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
The “right direction” woud be the rule book, available on the USEF web site.
I was just talking about this in theory, and curious if you were to have a lease purchase that was registered with the USEF, if that would allow you to show in the AO’s?
The Rule Book says
HU107 Amateur Owner Hunter
If you have a lease-purchase agreement and you elect to make the purchase when the option arises, then you could enter the a/o after that purchase was made but not under the lease itself, even if those lease payments were allowed to be applied to the purchase price.
Second time this has come up in as many weeks. I maintain that it’s confusing b/c registered leases are listed as the owner.
But simple answer is no, leases do not count.
[QUOTE=Nickelodian;7609870]
Second time this has come up in as many weeks. I maintain that it’s confusing b/c registered leases are listed as the owner.
But simple answer is no, leases do not count.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Nickelodian. I was obviously able to look up the USEF rule, and know that leased horses are not eligible for the AO’s; however as you said that when you register the lease was what seemed vague since it then lists the Lessee as the owner on their USEF and show entries.
[QUOTE=Nickelodian;7609870]
Second time this has come up in as many weeks. I maintain that it’s confusing b/c registered leases are listed as the owner.
But simple answer is no, leases do not count.[/QUOTE]
Smart observation. They really ought to add a category so the same category isn’t used for recorded lessees AND owners. It seems really counterintuitive the way it shows up now.
Quick question: Why doesn’t USEF just change it to Amatuer Hunter then have the 3, 3’3, and 3’6 heights? Same for jumpers. It’s hard for a lot of riders to buy a horse to show and leasing a horse is an excellent option.
Can someone explain the logic on this rule?
[QUOTE=Limerick;7612422]
Can someone explain the logic on this rule?[/QUOTE]
There is an extensive discusion of the (outdated) logic in the other recent thred on leases andA/O.
See, for instance, http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?438373-Theoretical-amateur-rules-question
post 21
Answer: No
Why? Because its an elitist sport and little has been done to change that reputation.
What about for juniors in local hunter A/O classes? Do the same registered lease rules apply?
Juniors aren’t amateurs, by definition those terms are mutually exclusive. So your question doesn’t make sense, gerut. There are no “junior owner” classes so juniors can use a leased horse in the junior hunters. I have never heard of a local “junior owner” class before, but assuming it runs by USEF rules I presume a lease would not count.
[QUOTE=gerut;7613389]
What about for juniors in local hunter A/O classes? Do the same registered lease rules apply?[/QUOTE]
You might find juniors and AOs combined in the hunters at local shows but as I understand it A/O is originally a division for adult owners at rated shows. Juniors would not show in that division regardless if they owned their own horse or not.
It’s so incredibly confusing as there is also an Adult division which now goes up to 3’3" although there is no adult 3’6". It would be more fair to those who lease if they had an adult division that went up to 3’6" and was comparable to the junior hunters.
But, at any rate in the hunters a junior (under 18) could compete in the ponies, children’s hunters (3’-3"3") or in the junior hunters (3’3" - 3’6"). In any of these you may lease a horse to show.
Hopefully I have this right but I’m sure that someone will correct me if I’m wrong:) It’s taken me years to figure all of this out, and I still haven’t been able to explain it to my husband.
Thank you, vxf111 and carroal. I was thinking about the "Local Hunter - Owner/Rider 3’division at Upperville - “Open to horses owned and ridden by residents of counties within a 60-mile radius of Upperville.” I thought it was for juniors because I noticed quite a few juniors on leased horses pinned - my mistake. I know two junior riders who were on leased horses - although registered as “owners” with USEF - that placed in that division. I didn’t see any modification to the owner rules in the Upperville prize list.
Since that’s not a USEF rated division, the show is free to set its own eligibility definitions for the class. You’d have to look and see what they say about ownership. It’s likely spelled out in the prizelist.
At Devon the local owner to ride class cribs the USEF definition of ownership so a leased horse cannot be ridden by the lessee. But that doesn’t mean all shows draft their definitions the same way. At Ludwig’s Corner they do an “amateur” to ride baby green class and it doesn’t have to be the owner or even a lessee— any amateur can ride. When you’re talking non USEF rated or zone divisions, the show has leeway to decide the requirements.
[QUOTE=gg4918;7613256]
Answer: No
Why? Because its an elitist sport and little has been done to change that reputation.[/QUOTE]
The trouble I have with allowing leases and/or doing away with the owner clause are the plethora of ammys who are independently wealthy and/or trainer right hand people that would ride multiple sale horses or horses that need a tune up before the juniors get there. By limiting to owner you’re limiting to only horses that a person owns. Even the shamatuers typically only have 2-3 at a time.
So would doing away with the rule help or hurt the more “common” rider?
I keep hearing about this 3’3 ch/ad section being offered. This far this year alone I’ve shown in 3 zones (it’s a zone controlled division) and 4 states and have yet to see it offered.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
