Help needed: what is a coach and why does USEF worry about it?

[hillary_again]

I noted that there was a rule change regarding the definition of “coach”.

From GR 108: revised as: “Coach: For the purposes of these rules, a coach is defined as any adult or adults on the show grounds who has or shares the responsibility for instructing, teaching, schooling, or advising a rider, driver, handler, or vaulter in equestrian skills.”

I’m curious about why the rule change was needed (it removed remuneration as part of the definition of coach). I am clear on the accountability of the “trainer” role, but I don’t understand what the “coach” accountability includes. Is this something to do with Safe Sport or --?

[Scribbler]

@hillary_again

I noted that there was a rule change regarding the definition of “coach”.

From GR 108: revised as: “Coach: For the purposes of these rules, a coach is defined as any adult or adults on the show grounds who has or shares the responsibility for instructing, teaching, schooling, or advising a rider, driver, handler, or vaulter in equestrian skills.”

I’m curious about why the rule change was needed (it removed remuneration as part of the definition of coach). I am clear on the accountability of the “trainer” role, but I don’t understand what the “coach” accountability includes. Is this something to do with Safe Sport or --?

What was previous? I would guess this definition is widened to include everyone who could possibly be advising or supervising another rider including parents, grooms, riding buddies etc. As opposed to just the trainer of record on the registration form.

[dags]

I believe coaches are relieved of care, custody & control liabilities, which failed drug tests would fall under. Think it is intended to cover folks that meet trainers at shows, but trainer has no idea what the prep routine includes and therefore shouldn’t be penalized for a failed test.

[Alterrain]

@dags

I believe coaches are relieved of care, custody & control liabilities, which failed drug tests would fall under. Think it is intended to cover folks that meet trainers at shows, but trainer has no idea what the prep routine includes and therefore shouldn’t be penalized for a failed test.

This

[hillary_again]

The rule was changed to remove the condition of “remuneration” as part of the definition - ie, old version said you needed to be paid to be considered a coach.

So, I keep my horse at – and meet Trainer at shows. Trainer does not have care/custody/control of my horse, so does Trainer now sign as Coach in this case? I thought in this case that I as an A/A sign my own self as Trainer, but yeah, in this situation, I understand how Trainer now signs as Coach and I as an A/A sign myself as Trainer.

However, that does not answer the question about why an extraordinary rule change was needed to remove the remuneration consideration. I’m guessing someone is circumventing suspension by acting as Coach. However, if you are suspended, you can’t even be on the showgrounds, correct?

[Janet]

I think it is all related to Safe Sport.

Under the old rule, someone who coached you at the show, but was not paid

• Did not need to sign the entry form
• Did not need to be a USEF member
• Did not need to take the SafeSport training.

With this rule change, someone who coached you at the show, but was not paid

• Does need to sign the entry form
• Does need to be a USEF member
• Does need to take the SafeSport training.

[MHM]

@hillary_again

However, that does not answer the question about why an extraordinary rule change was needed to remove the remuneration consideration. I’m guessing someone is circumventing suspension by acting as Coach. However, if you are suspended, you can’t even be on the showgrounds, correct?

I don’t know the specifics in this case.

However, the reason the rulebook turned into a honking big printed package that used to land in my mailbox like a big old salt block every December is that they have to keep writing new rules to close loopholes that shady people find all the time.

I would guess that in this case, it might have something to do with a person trying to avoid signing any paperwork by saying they were not getting paid to coach someone. Which means maybe then they would not need to be members of the USEF who have to follow the rules.

That’s just a theory, though.

Also, it’s harder to tell that a suspended person is on the grounds when they don’t have to sign anything. Unless the steward happens to know them by sight, or another exhibitor who knows them by sight reports them, the management would have no way to know they are on the property.

[hillary_again]

Wow, yup, honking big package…old salt block it has become!

This reads like a hard, complicated way to solve an issue with a few shady people. So, my friend who rides barrel horses comes to the show and helps me warm up is now subject to being hassled about being a coach? Really? What a shame that things have gotten to this point.

[Mander]

@MHM

Also, it’s harder to tell that a suspended person is on the grounds when they don’t have to sign anything. Unless the steward happens to know them by sight, or another exhibitor who knows them by sight reports them, the management would have no way to know they are on the property.

What’s to stop said shady, suspended person from still showing up and coaching without signing anything though, regardless of the definition? I’ve never seen anyone verifying that a person giving instruction/help/etc has signed the entry form as “coach”

[Scribbler]

@Mander

@MHM

Also, it’s harder to tell that a suspended person is on the grounds when they don’t have to sign anything. Unless the steward happens to know them by sight, or another exhibitor who knows them by sight reports them, the management would have no way to know they are on the property.

What’s to stop said shady, suspended person from still showing up and coaching without signing anything though, regardless of the definition? I’ve never seen anyone verifying that a person giving instruction/help/etc has signed the entry form as “coach”

It does give show officials the right to take action if they realize it’s happening.

[IPEsq]

Will the coach signature blank now be a mandatory part of the form?

[Annie10]

@MHM

@hillary_again

However, that does not answer the question about why an extraordinary rule change was needed to remove the remuneration consideration. I’m guessing someone is circumventing suspension by acting as Coach. However, if you are suspended, you can’t even be on the showgrounds, correct?

I don’t know the specifics in this case.

However, the reason the rulebook turned into a honking big printed package that used to land in my mailbox like a big old salt block every December is that they have to keep writing new rules to close loopholes that shady people find all the time.

I would guess that in this case, it might have something to do with a person trying to avoid signing any paperwork by saying they were not getting paid to coach someone. Which means maybe then they would not need to be members of the USEF who have to follow the rules.

That’s just a theory, though.

Also, it’s harder to tell that a suspended person is on the grounds when they don’t have to sign anything. Unless the steward happens to know them by sight, or another exhibitor who knows them by sight reports them, the management would have no way to know they are on the property.

Do you really think said suspended person is going to sign anything anyway. lol.
Plus so what if they get caught, other than getting asked to leave nothing happens.

[findeight]

IIRC, the idea of doing this has come up before in the years before SS and it was proposed as a way to clarify who was held responsible for positive drug tests and similar violations.

Its not just for a very few “shady people”. Sadly, there’s more then a “very few” of those plus the temptation to dance around vague and/or poorly worded rules is great.

[Janet]

Here is the official intent of the rule change.

The current definition of coach under the Federation’s rules includes a statement that the person be receiving remuneration in their role. The role of a coach at
licensed competition is based on the services provided and should not be tied to the receipt of payment of those services. As such, this rule change removes
the remuneration language from the definition of coach to ensure that all individuals serving in that role at a licensed competition are covered regardless of
whether they are being paid to do so.

I added the bold.

[hillary_again]

Are coaches accountable for D&M violations? I thought that was the reason to split the trainer and the coach role: coaches don’t have care and control of the horse. So, I’m still wondering what motivated this change.

[skydy]

Probably safe sport.

[Janet]

@hillary_again

Are coaches accountable for D&M violations? I thought that was the reason to split the trainer and the coach role: coaches don’t have care and control of the horse. So, I’m still wondering what motivated this change.

No, Trainers are accountable for D&M violations. I assume this change is to make coaches accountable for SafeSport violations.

[mfglickman]

Is it possible it has to do with high school/college competitions like iea, IHSA, etc? Those coaches are bound by safe sport and have to take the training, but are not necessarily trainers in that they may not make their living working with horses and clients.

No clue, just musing.

[hoopoe]

coaches are held liable for safe sport and compliance with other rules which include the abuse rules. By starting the " coach" designation, they could not claim ignorance or that they were not rule bound due to non-membership