OK, so I can not ride a lesson horse while my horse is healing from an injury or hack my friend’s horse that is in training with the barn owner that I clean stalls for…
But I can teach lessons.
2 Likes
When I boarded the horse I owned was retired due to soundness issues. I worked a full time (low paying) job, then drove to my barn and cleaned stalls/did weekend chores to reduce my board. I couldn’t afford a second horse and knew what happened if you gave away unsound horses so I was stuck. I rode my BOs horses she didn’t have use for and showed them, I used my own money for shows and lessons and paid someone for hauling. Well, mostly I got bucked off them and showed cross rails and into level dressage. This all technically made me a pro. I never showed in anything where it would be an issue but it was always pretty silly.
2 Likes
So what stopped them from continuing was that they wouldn’t be able to compete as amateurs? Not the fact that making a living in horses is quite hard and it’s easier to make a living elsewhere? You talk about how they’re struggling to put food on the table and walking away from the horse industry, but letting them show as amateurs will somehow solve these problems?
I suppose if they choose to stay in the horse industry part-time in addition to having other jobs that pay the majority of the bills, I can see how it would be financially better for them. But just because someone is only a part-time professional doesn’t mean they’re not a professional.
How is it “elitist” to say that amateur divisions should be reserved for amateurs and if part-time or low-level professionals don’t want to compete Open it would be better to have them in a separate division? How is it “elitist” for amateurs to not want to have to ride against assistant trainers on high dollar sale horses in a division that always used to be reserved for amateurs, but fine for those trainers to not want to have to ride against the big names?
12 Likes
This sounds to me like you want the divisions to be restricted by experience and/or ability, or horse price, and I don’t see how the amateur rule in any form would be the best way to achieve that. If you want divisions restricted by experience, ability and/or horse price, why not just have rules to do that?
This is a serious question, my whole life I have wondered why the horse world relies on the amateur rule to do a bunch of things it’s not designed to do, and then gets frustrated when it doesn’t do those things well.
4 Likes
If you’re replying to me, I am saying that if we need to find a way to make sure that people teaching lessons on a low level don’t have to compete in the Open division, having divisions limited by past show experience or wins would be a better way to do it than just lumping small-time professionals in as “amateurs.”
I’m not convinced that any change needed to be made other than enforcing the [old] amateur rules. But a lot of people were commenting that riding instructors were having throw away any ambitions of competing as a result of being previously considered professionals, and I’m saying that if we needed a way to make sure those people can compete somewhere other than the open divisions, that it would have been better to have a division limited by wins/experience that they’d be eligible for rather than redefining “amateur” to be anyone who isn’t a big name head trainer.
6 Likes
At bottom, I think we need to go back to basics on this one. What is the problem that we are trying to solve with the amateur rule?
Is it “I, a working adult, want to compete against my peers”? Your peers in riding ability, your peers in financial status, your peers in quality of horse? Those are three different problems.
Is it “I, the USHJA, want horse showing to be accessible to a broader swath of the population, so that my organization is more sustainable”? That’s a complicated problem that has intersection points with a lot of other problems, but it feels like that’s the problem that this rule change is intended to address.
Reading this thread, we all have a different take on the problem set- which is to be expected given our differing perspectives- and I think that’s the conversation the association needs to have, not just with the task force, but with the membership at large.
12 Likes
Interesting thread for sure. I don’t think think this would have any impact on the A/O divisions (where most people are very wealthy excellent riders, the wife of a pro, or used to be a pro), but definitely on the AA divisions and the pre-adult possibly. But already at the big shows the AAs are very competitive with a good number of the 3’3 riders with a 3ft horse as well. Ain’t much fair about anything though, at Upperville just competed with a rider with 3 horses in each of the A/O divisions, must be rough!
3 Likes
This rule change will have no impact on placings in the show ring. Here is why: teaching beginner lessons does not make one more competitive in the show ring; there is absolutely no competitive advantage gained by teaching beginners. This has been under discussion for a few years now; imo they put the rule through because it will have no impact on placings (but may slightly increase participation), and once the membership experiences for themselves no negative impact, the hand wringing will fade away.
How one places in the show ring depends on rider skill/talent, the horse, and the trainer. Time spent in the saddle impacts the first factor; money impacts the horse factor; accessibility and proximity impact the third factor. Teaching beginners has no impact: it does not increase one’s saddle time; it does not pay enough to upgrade to a better horse; it does not increase one’s lesson time with one’s own trainer. In sum, there will not be any noticeable difference to you (g) in the show ring.
The rule change may allow for a slight uptick in participation at shows, however. The reason is that at virtually all rated shows, open classes are held during the week, and amateur classes are held on the weekend. The vast majority of working adults work during the week and have weekends off. Shows, therefore, are largely inaccessible to a working person (with an inflexible job) unless they qualify for the amateur classes.
If open classes at all heights were held on the weekends, amateur status or lack thereof would not be holding anyone back from participating. But the current model is so ingrained that it is not practical to change: every trainer who brings students to shows has built their business model around the current schedule: pro shows horse during the week; amateur shows same horse on the weekend. Shows don’t offer open classes on the weekends because they don’t fill and the weekends are already jammed packed with classes.
When the amateur rule was first instituted, the intent was to be elitist and classist. Wealthy people did not want to participate in a horse show alongside working people. This is why earlier versions excluded farriers for example; it had nothing to do with fair competition. Over time the amateur rule was changed to try to use it as the vehicle for fairness in sport rather than elitism, but this process is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
11 Likes
This is true if we assume that the average person who teaches lessons for up to 20 hours a week rides no better than the average AA, and ignore the effect of larger divisions on the placings of those people who aren’t consistently at the very top. While you’re correct that teaching lessons does not automatically make you a better rider than someone who doesn’t, and technically a true “assistant trainer” who also rides training horses and teaches the students that are competing at recognized shows won’t qualify, I think it requires a lot of assumptions, including assuming that nobody will take advantage of the obvious loopholes, to say that it won’t affect placings of people who have been competing as AAs.
This is true about the original intents of the rule. But if we’re trying to make things more fair instead of less, maybe we shouldn’t be ignoring the fact that people already tried to bend the rules as they were, and assuming that this rule is a good move because if it’s followed to the spirit and not the letter it affects nobody other than the working class riders who can’t afford to show unless they teach lessons and all the people who could afford to ride but just can’t seem to find an instructor.
3 Likes
Do we really think that if the intent of this rule change is to help the working class ammy who couldn’t show otherwise or the up-down rider who can’t find a teacher that it would have been pushed through by presidential fiat?
7 Likes
Me personally? Not for a second. But that argument has been made in favor of the rule change quite a bit in this thread.
4 Likes
I’m at a saddlebred barn, we’ve already enjoyed this rule. A couple boarders have been able to help out teach up-down lessons and still show in pleasure (amateur) classes.
It’s not a big deal. The people doing lessons are decent, experienced riders, but one in particular is terrible exhibitor. She freaks out in the ring, her ring anxiety is unbelievable. She’s also got a nice, but not fantastic horse that isn’t super competitive.
But she’s good giving up/down beginner lessons. It frees up our trainer to do something else for that hour. No one our show circuit really cares. The notion that she should show in an Open 5 Gaited or Open Park class because she teaches up/down lessons is ridiculous.
I haven’t seen anything that makes me think this rule is unfair or a bad idea. I think some here are tilting at windmills simply because the windmill is there.
10 Likes
So, in a FB group someone posted the Cutting Horse rules (if these are wrong, correct me, I’m trusting FB here). Apparently they have 2 “non-pro” divisions: Amateur and Non-Pro. All Amateurs are by default Non-Pro, but not all Non-Pros are Amateurs (this is why I prefer Semi-Pro language, but they didn’t ask me 
).
To be an Amateur, you must not have:
- EVER ridden or trained horses for remuneration
- assisted in training horses or riders for remuneration
- been married to or lived with a professional trainer
- lived or live on a premises with a training operation
- lived or live with a person who is classified as a trainer
- been directly or indirectly employed by a professional trainer
- work at a horse training operation
- been an apprentice trainer at any time
I’m looking for the rules for Non-Pro vs Pro, but I think the cutting horse world is doing something right - at least this is a little more clear than whatever is about to count as an “amateur” in the hunters.
ETA: if they asked me, I’d allow a reclassification system so (for example) the college kid who lived in the barn and was a working student for a year could compete as an amateur later in life. But that’s just me, since we are talking hypothetically
2 Likes
Hmm.
That one seems a little questionable to me. You could certainly be a very legitimate amateur who owns a property that has a training business on it where you live in the big house and other people do all the horse related things.
But obviously they’re trying to close every conceivable loophole.
Ditto on the idea that if you’ve ever done any of those things, you could never be an amateur, even 50 years later, and even if you had not touched a horse for the previous 40 years.
6 Likes
Exactly. I like a lot of it, but as with anything there’s some edits I would do. It seems as if they are closing some of the same loopholes USEF is opening even wider for H/J
1 Like
I don’t think shows have more time for additional divisions. They already go until 5 or 6 at night. Longer days. No thanks.
1 Like
They can shorten days by limiting entries. But of course that decreases bottom line.
Given that most jumper divisions can run concurrently (i.e. child jumpers along with amateur jumpers), I’m not sure that the # of divisions is the hold up. Probably efficiency and number of entries.
The more I think about how onerous, unreliable and untraceable this new modification is, the more I’m thinking this was created to protect the shamateurs. Just convoluted enough and obscure enough that they can do whatever they want.
However, given that all results get sent back up the chain to the governing body, actually tracking those that won X of whatever class is simple. If you mistake it, somehow, and enter in the wrong class your points get taken away and you lose your inaccurate “win”.
Plus for the ‘baby-non-pros’, showing competence and experience by winning your way up to the open division can be a selling feature. Human and horse (if you’re buying) can hold their own in skilled company. Not a perfect system, of course, but merit based, traceable and objective …. Might be worth a try??
2 Likes
Agree. Open cards are already a thing.
1 Like
https://www.nchacutting.com/members/new-faqs/non-pro-amateur-faqs
Non-Professional riders are governed by Standing Rule 51.a. We recommend you read the rule fully to determine your status. A brief overview of Non-Pro definition includes:
- A Non-Pro has not received direct or indirect remuneration to work in any manner in the following activities on the premises of a cutting horse training operation: showing, training or assisting in training a cutting horse or cutting horse rider. For purposes of this rule, a cutting horse training operation is any facility where cutting horses are trained.
- Any person who has NOT trained horses astride in any cattle/cow horse equine discipline for direct or indirect remuneration.
- Any person that is Hall of Fame equine trainer in any discipline is NOT a Non-Professional by this Association, with the exception of those who have been granted a change of status. Please review the current exception rules.
- Employees on a cutting horse training operation MAY be considered non-professionals by this Association provided they do not teach cutting horse riders or train cutting horses on cattle or a cattle training device.
- Professional cutting horse trainers’ spouses who do NOT teach cutting horse riders or train cutting horses on cattle receive indirect remuneration may be a Non-Professional
- Non-Professional members show their own legally owned or a family-owned horse. Any corporation, partnership, ranch, farm or other business entity relating to ownership of cutting horses by an NCHA Non-Professional must be totally owned by the Non-Professional or his immediate family as defined in Rule 51.a.4.
**Premium money won shall not be considered remuneration so long as all winnings are returned to the individual Non-Professional who competed on the horse.
[What is the difference between a Non-Pro and an Amateur?](javascript:void(0))
While all Amateurs are automatically also Non-Pros, not all Non-Pros are eligible to be Amateurs.
To be an Amateur, you must not have:
- EVER ridden or trained horses for remuneration
- assisted in training horses or riders for remuneration
- been married to or lived with a professional trainer
- lived or live on a premises with a training operation
- lived or live with a person who is classified as a trainer
- been directly or indirectly employed by a professional trainer or work at a horse training operation
- been an apprentice trainer at any time
There are a few exceptions for granting Amateur status. Refer to the NCHA Rule Book Standing rule 51.a.6 for complete information. Additionally, you must fill out an Amateur / Non-Pro Declaration as well as read all the Amateur rules and agree to comply with them.
2 Likes
Some opinions:
- anyone who gets paid for teaching lessons is, by definition, a professional coach
- the skills needed to coach beginners (say, wtc and up to 18" crossrails for this, though I don’t think that’s a good definition of “beginner”) do not correlate much to an advantage in the show ring in amateur classes
- the way the H/J world works right now, there is a distinct financial incentive to say a sales horse did XYZ with an amateur riding
- there is a history in the hunters in particular of people bending the rules/flat out lying to put unqualified riders in the amateur rings
- this Amateur Rule Modification is ridiculously vague and unenforceable
- I can see the benefits of allowing certain types of people, who currently would have to compete as pros, to go in divisions that run on the weekends and aren’t pitting them against the Nick Haness’s of the world
- I do not think this rule accomplishes that goal
ETA more thoughts
- there is a genuine lack of grassroots and entry level options for people who aren’t ready to shell out the big bucks. Not many “tee ball” places vs “travel ball” programs
- it is very hard for a person to make an entire living teaching beginners after school and on weekends, when the current state encourages other models
- it is discouraging to someone to have to compete Open because they have a little backyard starter program
- if we are going to define our divisions by amateur vs professional: getting paid to teach lessons makes you a professional coach
6 Likes
