Maybe call their main phone number (I assume they have one?) and ask a live humanoid where to best direct your query?
I generally like the Rider/Horse/Open division setup, and I feel that a dedicated amateur division is unnecessary and would only open the door for “shamateurs” to invade the world of eventing … At the present time, it’s really not an issue. Even the case Divine Comedy described involved someone who seemingly just didn’t bother to do the required paperwork when they gave up amateur status rather than someone who was intentionally frauding.
I personally would change it, however, so that once a horse/rider has completed an event at the next level up within 5 years they must compete in Open if they drop back down. For example, my horse and I have been competing in TR, but if we move up to P and complete an event, I think that it would be reasonable for me to have to compete in Open if I decided to take him back to T for his first outing next year. I think that would be fair… As it is now a horse and rider combination could have successfully completed 10 P events and still enter TR. I don’t see how someone who is currently going Intermediate could be eligible for TR even under the current rules though … Perhaps an Xentry glitch?
If you make a protest (USEF) "unofficially, they will investigate but you will not be kept updated. Pay the $200 and you are kept in the loop.
I hate seeing pros ride in amateur divisions because it is not fair to the true amateurs.I am a trainer whose now adult child is an avid rider and as a junior loved riding any horse in the barn. Since she has aged out, got married and lives out of state with a job totally removed from the horse world she can only ride her horse or one belonging to our family. Can’t even get on just to exercise. Limits her joy to a certain degree since she loves to ride so much but we have stuck to the letter of the rule. Then we go to a show where we see the adult child of a trainer, riding and showing client horses. (This person was eventually caught and busted) In our case, nothing to do with prizes or money, just principle!
[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8703249]
If someone is producing and selling their own horses, not a pro. Even owning your own farm is not a pro. I have my own farm but do not get paid for training or teaching—trainer leases stalls from me. But if someone is being paid to teach or paid to ride, that is a pro.[/QUOTE]
Not quite as simple as that. You can own a farm but you cannot sit on any boarder’s horses or any trainer’s horses. It follows what you ride and who gets paid. Own a farm, trainer leases. ride only horses you own: ammie. own a farm, trainer leases, rides any boarders horses/sale horses/trainers horses: pro.
I think the ammie rules should be as tight as possible. And if you suspect someone, call USEF. If they are not violating the rule then its NBD and they can prove it. If they are, then they may not realize it (the rules have changed dramatically in the last fews) or they get investigated if they are in fact violating the rules.
It sucks, yes, but as a working ammie, I want to compete against ammies. There are so many people who get away with being a shamateur because no one will speak up and it really, truly sucks. My view might be jaded though since I just switched to eventing after years and years in the hunters aka land of fake ammies.
You can ride any horse you want to ride as long as you receive no remuneration for the riding or training. Whatsoever.
For example, if trainer gives you a lesson on their horse, you can still be an ammie.
Or if you borrow your boarder’s horse to go for a ride for no payment or compensation to you, whatsoever, you can still be an ammie. This means no trading your riding for anything at all, whether $$, services, or goods.
It is all about for remuneration for riding or training.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;8704993]
You can ride any horse you want to ride as long as you receive no remuneration for the riding or training. Whatsoever.
For example, if trainer gives you a lesson on their horse, you can still be an ammie.
Or if you borrow your boarder’s horse to go for a ride for no payment or compensation to you, whatsoever, you can still be an ammie. This means no trading your riding for anything at all, whether $$, services, or goods.
It is all about for remuneration for riding or training.[/QUOTE]
Actually no to the bolded. The moment you swing a leg over a horse that is boarded with you - you are a pro. You are accepting money for board, therefore you are being paid. For all TBTB know, your board is $2500 and not $650, which would obviously include training rides but a BO could say “They don’t pay for training, they pay for board only, I ride him because I luff him”.
[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;8705000]
Actually no to the bolded. The moment you swing a leg over a horse that is boarded with you - you are a pro. You are accepting money for board, therefore you are being paid. For all TBTB know, your board is $2500 and not $650, which would obviously include training rides but a BO could say “They don’t pay for training, they pay for board only, I ride him because I luff him”.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. You can say anything for anything, obviously. But the key to pro status is compensation for riding or training. Period. Read the rulebook.
[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;8705000]
Actually no to the bolded. The moment you swing a leg over a horse that is boarded with you - you are a pro. You are accepting money for board, therefore you are being paid. For all TBTB know, your board is $2500 and not $650, which would obviously include training rides but a BO could say “They don’t pay for training, they pay for board only, I ride him because I luff him”.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. So if I take a lesson on my boarder’s horse because mine is lame, then I am a pro. Wow.
Call USEF. Get the rule details from them.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;8705049]
Interesting. So if I take a lesson on my boarder’s horse because mine is lame, then I am a pro. Wow.[/QUOTE]
Yes. USEF is extremely helpful but I this is what was told to me from USEF. (side note- if I am acting/being paid as a groom [to offset my costs]- I can lunge no other horse except mine for my trainer because I am being paid and USEF considers that “training”- not that we lunge a ton). I don’t know how many people abide by this, but technically if someone complained- I’d be at fault. 
I had touched base with the USEF because years ago (when I was younger) I did not think twice of hopping on my field boarders horse, I am BO, there was a different trainer/rider/instructor. I even showed him in a schooling show. I didn’t get paid- I thought I was just helping out. I was already there showing my horse and the owner had an injury and would have had to scratch. The judge, with whom I am friend and is an R judge, took me to the side- email or phone call I can’t remember it wasn’t at the show- and said what I was doing disqualified me as an ammy, even if I am only getting paid board. No way- so I called and emailed the USEF. Sure enough- it was their term “throw a leg over a horse that boards with you”!
Touch base on your own, maybe they have lightened the restriction? This was YEARS ago.
There are a lot of threads on this because the ammy vs pro is more often funny business in hunters due to the large number of ammy classes.
[QUOTE=saje;8705074]
Call USEF. Get the rule details from them.[/QUOTE]
^^^ this.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;8704993]
You can ride any horse you want to ride as long as you receive no remuneration for the riding or training. Whatsoever.
For example, if trainer gives you a lesson on their horse, you can still be an ammie.
Or if you borrow your boarder’s horse to go for a ride for no payment or compensation to you, whatsoever, you can still be an ammie. This means no trading your riding for anything at all, whether $$, services, or goods.
It is all about for remuneration for riding or training.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. It is way beyond just getting paid to ride or train. USEF revised the old rules that said just riding and training and included a lot more to cover loop holes because hunter ammies were getting paid by a trainer for “accounting” on the books, when in fact the compensation was for riding client horses.
In your two scenarios, you are correct that you are an ammie until any form of money/compensation changes hand from the trainer to you (not the other way). Example, grooming and getting paid, book keeping, cleaning stalls. Once you have accepted remuneration you cannot sit on any horse owned, trained or boarded by your trainer and still be an ammie.
See GR1306:
https://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2016/2016CompleteRulebook.pdf
[QUOTE=Winding Down;8705036]
I disagree. You can say anything for anything, obviously. But the key to pro status is compensation for riding or training. Period. Read the rulebook.[/QUOTE]
Its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. Its stated very clearly by USEF what defines an amateur. You need to read the 2016 USEF Rule Book, though the rules were revised I believe in 2013.
The ammy/pro rules are STUPID. You can be running a sale business riding and selling 10 horses a day…and that is the sole source of your income…but as long as they are horses that YOU own, you are not a “pro.” But if you are riding and training for someone else…that is how you become a pro. So a person, who owns their own barn, rides and sells their own horses…but all they do is ride…might still be an ammy.
You could also be paid to lead trail rides, or ride western roping horses…and that blows your ammy status for eventing or hunters… even if you were green as grass to jumping.
The rules DO NOT make logical sense. That is why the way the USEA works with Rider divisions and Horse divisions based purely on actual competitive experience make a hell of a lot more sense to me.
The history of the rule comes from the rich owners who didn’t want to ride against their trainers…but also didn’t want to rule out those that all they did was ride. IT was NEVER drafted to make the playing field even from a skill or experience level. Or to protect the office working stiff that had a horse.
[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8705321]
The ammy/pro rules are STUPID. You can be running a sale business riding and selling 10 horses a day…but as long as they are horses that YOU own, you are not a pro. But if you are riding and training for someone else…that is how you become a pro. So a person, who owns their own barn, rides and sells their own horses…but all they do is ride…might still be an ammy.
You could also be paid to lead trail rides, or ride western roping horses…and that blows your ammy status for eventing or hunters… even if you were green as grass to jumping.
The rules DO NOT make logical sense. That is why the way the USEA works with Rider divisions and Horse divisions based purely on actual competitive experience make a hell of a lot more sense to me.[/QUOTE]
They do make sense. They reduce the amount of loopholes that people can find and makes the sport more fair. When I did the hunters I showed against amateurs that were actually pros and let me tell you that when you work your ass off to afford one horse and you get beat repeatedly by a pro riding as an amateur, it sucks. Big time.
Lets say USEF decided that pro status goes with discipline. You know what will happen? Payments will just on on the books for that discipline. A rider can collect payment for training and riding a horse in a discipline they are an “ammie” in while getting paid on the books as if the horse is being trained for the discipline they are a pro in. Having it be by discipline makes is A LOT easier to fake your ammie status.
[QUOTE=Jersey Fresh;8705362]
They do make sense. They reduce the amount of loopholes that people can find and makes the sport more fair. When I did the hunters I showed against amateurs that were actually pros and let me tell you that when you work your ass off to afford one horse and you get beat repeatedly by a pro riding as an amateur, it sucks. Big time.
Lets say USEF decided that pro status goes with discipline. You know what will happen? Payments will just on on the books for that discipline. A rider can collect payment for training and riding a horse in a discipline they are an “ammie” in while getting paid on the books as if the horse is being trained for the discipline they are a pro in. Having it be by discipline makes is A LOT easier to fake your ammie status.[/QUOTE]
This is where we disagree. Most people who want to ride against their peers…do not care about pay. They care about experience level. As a full fledge ammy…I have no issue riding against a PRO at Olympic level in divisions where I personally have enough experience. But absolutely think it is more fair to split things based on competence at a level. More akin to the way the RIDER divisions are split. Although I would personally go back to the points system too where if you win too often at a level, then you need to move into the open division (you can stay at novice forever if you want but once you and THE same horse show you are more than competent at that level by winning a bunch, you need to show in open).
But this is also why most eventers do not care…we are used to riding against pros already…and we do have “rider” divisions where you are going against people who haven’t ridden above that level. As an ammy…I’ve beaten pro riders with multiple Olympic miles at a lower level because I was sitting on a more forgiving horse (and myself very experienced at the level)…and they were on one who it was it’s second show. So it all evened out nicely.
[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8705321]
The ammy/pro rules are STUPID. You can be running a sale business riding and selling 10 horses a day…and that is the sole source of your income…but as long as they are horses that YOU own, you are not a “pro.” But if you are riding and training for someone else…that is how you become a pro. So a person, who owns their own barn, rides and sells their own horses…but all they do is ride…might still be an ammy.
You could also be paid to lead trail rides, or ride western roping horses…and that blows your ammy status for eventing or hunters… even if you were green as grass to jumping.
The rules DO NOT make logical sense. That is why the way the USEA works with Rider divisions and Horse divisions based purely on actual competitive experience make a hell of a lot more sense to me.
The history of the rule comes from the rich owners who didn’t want to ride against their trainers…but also didn’t want to rule out those that all they did was ride. IT was NEVER drafted to make the playing field even from a skill or experience level. Or to protect the office working stiff that had a horse.[/QUOTE]
It should, because you are considered a profession in that capacity, regardless of what discipline you are riding. There would be liability if one was an ammy in one discipline but a pro in Western Trail riding and someone got hurt. Lots of red tape, I imagine.
Jumping isn’t the only ballgame, obviously. The rules are made in an attempt to keep people honest. Some are not he most logical, but in a world where people are trying every avenue to cheat, it is the best they can do. Ammies may not care about pay because, they are not doing it for a living 
I’d venture a pro (rides every day, shows every weekend on multiple horses) on a green horse can still beat the pants off of an ammie who works, rides 1 or 2 horses and is doing it for the love of competition but still may want the ego boost of a 30 cent ribbon. Though your experience has differed, it may be the exception.
Nevertheless, those are the rules. People don’t have the like them, but they should play by them regardless of discipline.
Pro and ammy status has nothing to do with liability or how an accident is reported or other red tape. In my opinion it doesn’t have much to do with the likelihood of being hurt, either.
[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;8705555]
I’d venture a pro (rides every day, shows every weekend on multiple horses) on a green horse can still beat the pants off of an ammie who works, rides 1 or 2 horses and is doing it for the love of competition but still may want the ego boost of a 30 cent ribbon. Though your experience has differed, it may be the exception. [/QUOTE]
My experience has been different…and my experience is not unique. We see it all the time in eventing. In my area, it is NOT unusual for me to be in a novice or Training division of 25+ riders/horses and be one of only 3 ammies. And yet most of the ammies will be JUST as competitive.
There are plenty of ammies doing this for fun who ride better than a lot of “Pros” under the rule. Hell, we often can take our training to a different level, get more help an focus on the individual horse in a way pros can not. Just being a pro doesn’t always mean being a great rider even. And under the current rules, there is no difference in the pro teaching up down W/T lessons or the WS who legs up a fox hunter and an Olympic contender with a top level string. Again…the ammy/pro rules are NOT about making it a level playing field…they never have been.
[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;8705555]
I’d venture a pro (rides every day, shows every weekend on multiple horses) on a green horse can still beat the pants off of an ammie who works, rides 1 or 2 horses and is doing it for the love of competition but still may want the ego boost of a 30 cent ribbon. Though your experience has differed, it may be the exception. [/QUOTE]
BFNE is not the exception. When I was an Ammy (And I am about to go back being one) I could win events. Noteably in the winter in Florida one year I won my Prelim division at the first event of the year, against “red coats” on Advanced mounts. I don’t think I am a better rider, but I certainly had a better weekend over all three phases than anyone else in my division. Ammy or pro doesn’t really matter once you’re in the event and going. Everyone is capable of having a crap weekend, and with a little luck, everyone is capable (though maybe not likely) of winning it all.
For me personally I abhor the concept of amateurs only competing against amateurs. I get that it can be discouraging to finish 6th or lower against BNR’s or former big time horses now with an ammy, but the fact remains for me that this is the beginning of the slippery slope of awarding mediocrity. If events could award a top ammy prize for the level, not for each division, I think that would be better. But now a days it seems that everyone wants a pat on the back and reinforcement everyday. That’s just not reality. It’s not true in college, jobs or marriages. Moreover it signals a lack of confidence that trainers and family members should take note of. When you do your job well and you know it, you don’t NEED the accolades. When you do your job ok and come looking for praise, it really should be second in line behind an honest critique of the actual ride you had.
~Emily
