Presidential Modification to Amateur Rule

[MorganMaresVT]

@dags

Who does everyone imagine is picking up this gig?

Speaking purely for myself, I was a 30-something desk jockey, DINK, and boarded my mare at the barn. I taught 3 lessons Saturday mornings from 8-11, and then rode my mare afterwards. I loved the excuse to have extra barn time and that meant the full time staff didn’t have to be there for the Saturday am lessons, which they appreciated.

I’m a USEF member by virtue of being an AMHA member but not a hunter/jumper, so this really has nothing to do with my situation. Just saying there may be more people out there who would enjoy taking on some fun/easy beginner lessons than you might think of you’re used to the show/lesson barn world. Obviously you all are talking about people trying to skirt the rules, and that’s such a far cry from the scenario I was in where the most prestigious show people went to was the local fair.

[dags]

I know that’s how it’s always been defined. That doesn’t mean it’s how it will always be defined, and it looks like they’re tossing at least some of that concept out the window.

In the interest of trying to keep this sport going, I think we’re going to have to re-examine previously defined concepts with modern eyes. So the whole “that’s how it’s always been done” doesn’t really mean much to me.

And while the USEF may define “pro” as this and “amateur” as that, it’s not like those two words don’t have meaning related to talent in the industry. “That’s a pro’s horse” and “that was an amateur mistake” relate to talent, not income.

“Those that can’t do, teach”
I think finding a way to welcome teaching types, without forcing them to completely write off horse showing, can be within the spirit of competition. I love the concept of Novice/Maiden/Limit/Open expanded, but that doesn’t seem to be the path USEF has chosen.

Disclaimer: I’m sorta in this boat. I substitute teach for a barn. Probably a couple dozen hours a year. I’ve shown once in the past 20 years. I’m finally in a place where I can maybe commit to riding again and I’m trying to figure out what the heck my goal for such an expenditure would be. Performance Hunters on Thursdays at the Horse Park? Yeesh. I’ll probably pass and just not show. Or I’ll give up the occasional substitute lessons (that I adore) and get my amateur card back, so I can pop-chip in like company and not make a fool of myself in the main ring.

[touchstone]

I don’t really understand what problem this rule is trying to solve.

I certainly don’t understand why it was needed on such an emergency basis that it couldn’t go through the normal process for consideration and approval.

[ClaraLuisa]

In my extreme youth I recall “limit” divisions where that was the case.
I have no idea why they went away.
Anybody know the history or the rationale for eliminating them?
(Of course, I also vaguely remember “touch and out” classes.)

[luvmyhackney]

My assumption is they were tired of having people reported or they feel this makes it more accessible.

It doesn’t. It literally means it’s a free for all in the amateur division. But honestly it already was.

[Rumorhasit93]

@Railbird

By the time someone is showing at USEF rated shows, being able to make 600 bucks a month teaching riding lessons isn’t moving the accessibility needle.

But what if they’re getting something else out of it? Board? Training? To me, that is moving the needle. Pretty significantly.

And let’s use the $600: that’s training for a week (ish) at a horse show. That’s grooming for the week. That’s a chunk of entries. That covers braiding for the week.

If you show once a month, that $600 actually does do something impactful.

[jvanrens]

For some it might be the difference between doing a show or staying at home. For some $600 isn’t chump change. I’m happy for you if it’s not you.

[Railbird]

600 a month pre tax, say 500 post tax, maybe offsets your hotel room for a 3 day show? Someone can make that grooming, clipping, braiding, trailering, babysitting, pet sitting, doing any number of things that aren’t actively acting as a professional. If the premise of the introduction of more gray area is the greater good of increasing accessibility, there are so many better ways to do this that apply to more people than this solution. In the sport as it stands, I see this as more of a benefit to opening up things for people already skirting the rules than making it more accessible to someone whose only possible second income comes from teaching riding lessons specifically.

I don’t begrudge anyone who is utilizing this in its own intent and I think it’s great. I just think it’s peeing in the wind of shows that are 2500 a weekend to attend but is a big open for people who want a better record on their sale horse but can’t get just the right rider under current limitations that prevent them from being paid directly by the farm.

[Sticky_Situation]

I’m all for allowing low-level professionals opportunities to compete in like company, but IMO a Limited division based on prior competition results would be a much better way to accomplish that than completely redefining what an amateur is. And while it won’t stop perpetual beginners with full-time office jobs from having to compete against the independently wealthy hobby riders on their 7-figure horses, it would hopefully keep the assistant trainers on sale horses from also crowding into those divisions.

But clearly none of our opinions matter one bit anyway, since this was shoved through with zero input from any of us!

[Montanas_Girl]

@Railbird

600 a month pre tax, say 500 post tax, maybe offsets your hotel room for a 3 day show?

Not everyone lives in that world. Must be nice for those of you who do, though.

$600 is an entire season of entry fees for me. Granted, the shows in question aren’t USEF rated (ARHA), but they are every bit as competitive - 25 horses, several of them past World Champions, in my rail classes.

When I was a graduate student, doing barn work on Sundays paid more than half my board. Cleaning stalls and feeding at shows paid my hauling and coaching fees. But I couldn’t take a lesson on a barn owned horse or even longe a client’s horse in the morning because then I wouldn’t be eligible to show in the adult amateurs. I understand why the amateur rule evolved as it did, but that doesn’t make it reasonable.

I’ve said multiple times before and will say it again that, if leveling the playing field is truly the goal, the horse industry will let go of this ridiculously antiquated “amateur” concept and go to a leveling system based purely on previous experience/winnings. I won’t be holding my breath for that, though.

[Railbird]

That’s exactly my point- this is like the Maserati dealership saying they’ve decided to help defray the costs of ownership by giving you free wiper blade replacements. This applies to rated USEF shows, not local circuits where it’s significantly more likely to be used as intended. (Though I guess via trickle down, but nothing prevents local organizations from instituting something like this independently) The proposed rule change wouldn’t have changed your scenario at all, just allowed you to teach for income. I think a much more useful rule change would be to let people work off riding lessons with a similar qualification as this rule for example- the idea you can’t hack a horse the same place you clean stalls is a lot more of an issue for real amateurs trying to make it work than saying you can teach 20 hours of riding lessons a week now for students who don’t show and keeping the rest unchanged.

[Tha_Ridge]

So while we’re creating archetypes here for the type of people this would benefit, I thought of one.

I know a kid (20, I think) whose mom has one of the very grassroots types of barns we all posit to embracing and wanting to save. Mom is a professional — not a particularly good or brave rider (and knows as much), but she teaches children well and appropriately up to a certain level and emphasizes safety and horsemanship. Daughter mostly works around the farm and occasionally steps in to teach these lessons for whatever reason.

She has a young horse she’s developing and has been meeting a good “A”-circuit show barn at the shows to further her own knowledge. At the first show with big barn, I asked “Oh, are you doing the 1.0 or the 1.10 Amateurs this week?” “No, I have to do the open classes — I’m a pro, since I get paid when I help my mom.”

I appreciate the honesty because I know 10 other versions of this kid doing FAR more egregious things and still showing in the AAs, but I don’t think a young adult in this particular situation needs to be a pro, nor do I feel threatened by having a 20-year-old college student, whose parent happens to own a barn that she occasionally has to help at, on a 5-year-old jumper in my ammy Olympics.

Way more obnoxious to me when I show up to do my little 3’ Adult Medal and find that last year’s top-three Maclay/USEF Medal finishers are conveniently back from college for the summer on a new “lease horse” that happens to be owned by their trainer and for sale.

[Peggy]

IMHO this could help accessibility at both ends, both from the standpoint of getting people into riding and providing a pathway for people to defray some of their costs.

Lesson programs. While suitable lesson horses is a limiting factor, based on personal observation so is staffing the lesson program. A young adult home from college for the summer or someone with a K-12 or college teaching job who doesn’t work summers could help out with summer camp. Adults could help lesson kids and their parent tack up safely while the instructor deals with back-to-back lessons that don’t allow for much help on the ground (true story at more than one barn). Adults with sufficient skills could teach a few lessons, help out while someone goes on vacation or is at a show, or whatever. So, by helping riding programs it makes riding more accessible by being able to provide starting lessons for more people.

Defraying costs for amateurs. It could also help someone who can make a bit of money (or help out a family business) and still be able to do amateur classes. This might come down to a convenience factor as there aren’t as many open classes on the weekends, when someone who has a “real” job aside from their teaching gig, is likely to be able to show. Also, non-USEF shows (county rated, unrated, etc.) often defer to USEF amateur rules so this could help someone to show at a one-day show where the extra $600 is likely to go a bit further.

I can also see it as a slippery slope. Or as a way for USEF to have a list of amateurs who are legitimately teaching and anyone not on the list who is teaching could wind up in trouble (or probably not).

Above post deleted because I accidentally replied to a single poster, which wasn’t my intent.

[Railbird]

I’m all for it for that kid, for sure, but I think for every one of her there are 4 of the former maclay winners who now get paid to ride those “lease horses” under the guise of lessons when it comes to USEF shows and 10 people who should be able to hack a horse they don’t own at the barn where they pick up shifts and 100 people who could hang in the competition who just can’t swing the absurd cost of a USEF show whether or not they can reach a few riding lessons. I’m not against it, I just think it wont have the intended effect, I don’t like how it went down without a vote from membership, and I think if the goal is more accessibility and major rule changes are being made, I suspect there are several others that would benefit larger populations before this.

Maybe my tinfoil hat is on high and tight but you have to wonder who is influential enough to push this through without a vote, and it’s not the people with beginner lesson programs…

A dollar limit may have been more appropriate here than saying the students can’t be horse showing to prevent abuse

[MHM]

@Railbird

I don’t like how it went down without a vote from membership

Members don’t vote on any rule changes.

Members usually get to comment in advance of the vote. Not vote themselves.

[trubandloki]

So wait, as the rules stand now if I clean stalls at my trainer’s barn I can not ride a lesson horse or lunge my friend’s horse still, but I can teach lessons and still be an ammy?
That seems like a strange line to be drawn in the sand.

I get the reasons why the rules about not riding horses that are not yours if you get paid to do anything at that barn came around. But with this rule change how can they keep that rule too?

[Renn_aissance]

@dags

I also think the way they think they are going to track and police this is absolutely asinine.

I think saying “track and police” uses the wrong verbs. The whole idea of having the time logged is the person’s CYA against getting protested. USEF doesn’t care.

@Railbird

the idea you can’t hack a horse the same place you clean stalls is a lot more of an issue for real amateurs trying to make it work than saying you can teach 20 hours of riding lessons a week now for students who don’t show and keeping the rest unchanged.

I do agree with you here. (I goofed up my amateur status about 10 years ago because I helped warm up horses for an IEA show at the farm where I worked as general barn staff. Oops.) On the other hand, this is something that would need to be carefully thought out and sent through the regular rule change process, because I think riding horses + receiving money is a much bigger issue to “amateur status” than yelling “check your diagonal” on repeat for 20 hours a week. Remuneration to ride, whether with money or in-kind, is being paid to develop a skillset that directly translates to someone’s competitiveness. Teaching up-down lessons does not.

Which, again, is why the entire concept of “amateur” needs to be reconsidered and overhauled.

[MHM]

@trubandloki

I can not ride a lesson horse or lunge my friend’s horse still

I believe they removed lunging from the amateur rule not too long ago.

[Catherine_Cullen]

I think it would be helpful if the USEF/USHJA better communicated the purpose or goal of the amateur rule.

If we define amateur status and have restricted classes, then…what?

For example, if we have prohibited drugs and a testing regime, we will encourage sustainable horsemanship and prevent masking symptoms that are bad for the horses or dangerous for people (or whatever).

I think people have varied ideas about the “then” part for the amateur rule and that makes it hard to assess whether or not changes make things better.

Maybe they’ve done this and I just missed it.

[Railbird]

@Renn_aissance

On the other hand, this is something that would need to be carefully thought out and sent through the regular rule change process, because I think riding horses + receiving money is a much bigger issue to “amateur status” than yelling “check your diagonal” on repeat for 20 hours a week.

Maybe? But I think there are more people who are competing at rated shows who would benefit from being able to trade work for receiving instruction than whose only viable way to offset costs is giving beginner lessons. I hope I’m wrong and next year I see more amateurs showing in ammy divisions because this opened up a vehicle for them to participate rather than more people who are already borderline being more blatant about it.