[QUOTE=Xctrygirl;8713742]
Thanks Janet. I just dug up the rule book and read it through and I see the one level thing.
So the one I found in the results was a no no, but I checked and she’s not renewed with the USEF (no status listed due to not being renewed) so possibly not the culprit OP referenced.
Emily[/QUOTE]
USEF membership/renewal is not relevant. It is USEA membership that counts in this case.
[QUOTE=Janet;8713863]
USEF membership/renewal is not relevant. It is USEA membership that counts in this case.[/QUOTE]
I think you missed why I said this. The OP had mentioned that the ‘offender’ she is referring to still shows up as being renewed with the USEF as an amateur. My point was that the person I saw with an issue in the results/ eligibility wise, is not currently renewed so that she doesn’t show as having any status. IE. probably not the person the OP was talking about.
Emily
[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8705379]
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. [/QUOTE]
Just out of curiosity, how are the rider divisions typically split? Do they try to put a mix of experience/placings/results, or do they put all the good people together and all the less good/less experienced people together? Just curious.
Don’t mind me, I’m a law student, so I kind of geek out about rules, but just a couple thoughts…
I think it’s important to consider the purpose of this rule… Of course there will be random outliers with every rule (although every effort to minimize them should be taken) but I think the point (just an observation, not arguing with anything else that’s been said) is to keep less experienced amateurs from competing against people not necessarily of higher/better skill levels (that would take away any sense of competition) but people who have a similar OPPORTUNITY to better their skill at the same level. Naturally, someone who rides all day every day has considerably more TIME than someone who works or has a family and who rides for an hour 4-5 times per week.
For example, if I, as an amateur with a job and a life that is mostly not horse related, compete against another amateur with a life that is mostly not horse related, but that amateur, with the same amount of time in a day that I have, is able to take more lessons/is naturally more talented/rides with a better trainer/works harder/etc., and she beats me, then three cheers for her. She deserves to beat me and I have no objection to being in the same division as her. That’s the whole point of competition.
However, as riders, competing isn’t just to see what place we come in. We go to see where we can improve. This goal seems to be best served by putting similarly situated people in the same division. A professional doesn’t find the holes in their young horse’s training by competing against me and my old campaigner. They find it by competing against other similarly situated competitors–professionals on young horses. If they beat me, and I took up riding a week ago but my horse is an experienced packer, that doesn’t help them see how their horse is progressing.
Similarly, I don’t find the holes in my riding by measuring my performance against a professional on a young horse. I find them by measuring myself against another amateur who competes as a hobby. For example: if Phillip Dutton and I compete in the same division and he and I both have a stop at the same fence on cross country, I’m probably not going to look at that situation and think, “Gee, we both should have ridden that differently.” Instead, I’m going to think, “I can see that he rode it perfectly, but his horse was unclear on the question. My ex-intermediate horse probably didn’t misunderstand the lower-level question, so its 99.9% likely it was my fault. What did I do wrong?” Whereas if the same situation happened between me and another adult amateur, I can look to see how she handled the same question I was asked on course, and ask myself why she answered it more effectively than I did. Maybe its something in her position that I could observe at the competition and learn from. Maybe I hear her trainer say something wise in warm up, and consider taking a lesson or clinic with her. This is a hugely important part of competition for me, personally, and that’s why I would want to see this rule enforced.
This is why the multiple options for divisions are so valuable. I completely understand those who have expressed that they don’t mind competing against professionals, so the open division is available to anyone. However, if riders who want to measure themselves against other riders in the same kind of program as themselves want to go in a rider division, there is a ton of value in that as well. But that’s the point, isn’t it? It needs to be a choice. And if the rules that keep professionals out of rider divisions for people that specifically elect to compete against other similarly situated riders, that’s a problem.
If the goal of the rule is to keep professionals who ride all day every day competing against each other, and amateurs who spend only a fraction of their time in the tack against each other, then that’s what the rule should accomplish, and should be enforced with that in mind. If the rule is mostly catching people out who work off their board one day a week by mucking stalls, the rule isn’t working (that seems REALLY arbitrary). And, in that same vein, if the rule is letting people slip through that are, for all intents and purposes, professionals, the rule isn’t working.
It sounds like, based on the confusion caused by the rule based on lack of clarity, and the fact that the rule is not accomplishing its purpose, it needs to be redrafted. However, a big road block here is man power. I can’t speak to the USEF, but I personally have quite a bit of experience with the USEA. First off, the USEA is a non-profit, funded by membership fees and endowments and donations. There are not a lot of extra funds sitting around to hire an expert to draft a new rule. The people already on staff are extremely hardworking, horse loving people who are willing to take less compensation to serve the sport they love. And they’re stretched too thin as it is. This is not only a problem when considering redrafting, but also a huge problem for enforcement. There might not be the man-power to enforce the rule, and if the rule were redrafted to be more specific, educating riders and organizers on it and enforcing the nuances of it would be even more of a task.
Based on this, the best recourse seems to be flagging down someone who can amend the situation at the horse show. That way the burden is spread out among horse show staff (not that they don’t already have PLENTY to do) all over the country for each individual show. Plus, they’re the people that can do something about it in a way that actually solves the problem for you, as a competitor who has paid money to compete at a show in a certain type of division. Contacting the USEA or USEF might be helpful, but it’s probably too slow of a process to afford any relief to that particular situation. By the time the query was addressed, the show would be over, and there would be no way to go back in time and fix it (although it might continue to demonstrate a need for clarification of the rule that would benefit all members going forward).
Maybe this is too confrontational, but it’s just an idea… There’s always the option of going up to the person, introducing yourself, and kindly and politely asking them to explain their rationale for competing as an amateur, and then politely asking them to compete as a professional or in an open division. Obviously there are a LOT of ways that could go wrong, so do so at your own risk.
Sorry for the long-winded post. This issue just really got me thinking 
[QUOTE=Xctrygirl;8713944]
I think you missed why I said this. The OP had mentioned that the ‘offender’ she is referring to still shows up as being renewed with the USEF as an amateur. My point was that the person I saw with an issue in the results/ eligibility wise, is not currently renewed so that she doesn’t show as having any status. IE. probably not the person the OP was talking about.
Emily[/QUOTE]
OK
If the person has been found to have violated the rules, they can always be eliminated (and fined) retroactively and made to return anything they won. Much safer than chasing down people at competitions and demanding they justify their status.
There is no rule against being a professional in the rider divisions-- it goes by current competition level, not status.
[QUOTE=spencergbennett;8714109]
Don’t mind me, I’m a law student, so I kind of geek out about rules, but just a couple thoughts…
I think it’s important to consider the purpose of this rule… Of course there will be random outliers with every rule (although every effort to minimize them should be taken) but I think the point (just an observation, not arguing with anything else that’s been said) is to keep less experienced amateurs from competing against people not necessarily of higher/better skill levels (that would take away any sense of competition) but people who have a similar OPPORTUNITY to better their skill at the same level. Naturally, someone who rides all day every day has considerably more TIME than someone who works or has a family and who rides for an hour 4-5 times per week. [/QUOTE]
Just quoting the first paragraph for brevity.
Unfortunately, that is NOT the intended purpose.
When the Amateur divisions were first started, the Amateurs were, almost universally.
Wives who did not work outside the house, and were supported by their husbands.
Young people who had aged out of “Juniors” but were still being supported by their parents.
That is who the rule was INTENDED to apply to.
More later.
If you pull up a rider’s USEA record, under each result (you may have to click “more” … I know I do on my phone) in addition to the USEA points there will be a section for Am Points if the person has declared as an amateur. So a declared amateur rode in a division with all open competitors, they may earn points for amateur placing even if they finished out of the ribbons. The Am Points section will not show up for open competitors (pros and those who did not declare amateur status.)
The purpose of the amateur rule is to keep the “haves” from having to compete with the “help”. Since eventing isn’t really set up on such rigid class lines, separating riders by actual competitive experience is far more relevant.
[QUOTE=Janet;8714152]
Just quoting the first paragraph for brevity.
Unfortunately, that is NOT the intended purpose.
When the Amateur divisions were first started, the Amateurs were, almost universally.
Wives who did not work outside the house, and were supported by their husbands.
Young people who had aged out of “Juniors” but were still being supported by their parents.
That is who the rule was INTENDED to apply to.
More later.[/QUOTE]
But not any more.
The purpose has changed. The original history is what it is, but that doesn’t make it relevant today.
I agree with the law student that a more-level playing field is the goal, and the real goal is to keep the amateurs as interested competing members. They are not an afterthought any longer. In many ways they are central to the entire structure, as they provide business for the professionals.
I’d be interested in the statistics, but I would suspect that, nationally, amateur adults are the USEA’s largest competing segment. At many horse trials, amateur adults are the backbone of the entry and stabling fees.
[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8714860]
.
I’d be interested in the statistics, but I would suspect that, nationally, amateur adults are the USEA’s largest competing segment. At many horse trials, amateur adults are the backbone of the entry and stabling fees.[/QUOTE]
Actually…I suspect that is not the true numbers. I bet it depends on the event. Many of the events that I’ve seen…the backbone is now the pros (not all big names) with the strings of multiple horses and then the juniors. Other events it will be amateur adults…but I see far more amateur adults at the unrecognized events than USEA events.
But that is besides the point. The Ammy rule’s historical purpose still matters because that is why the rule doesn’t work. Because you do NOT make a “level” playing field based on ammy/pro divisions. So why does this rule stick around…because of history.
Where as divisions based on experience/competition points…really do tend to level the field much more fairly.
As to catering to the Adult amateurs…that would be best served as it has by having more lower levels AND scheduling that matches work life. I’d personally like to see more adult beverage options and food options too!
[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8715744]
Where as divisions based on experience/competition points…really do tend to level the field much more fairly.[/QUOTE]
I think this was what I was trying to say, you just put it more clearly. I just meant that it sharpens you to measure your skills against someone with your similar experience, and people that ride on nights and weekends clearly have different experience than someone who rides all day every day. All that to say, I totally agree with the conclusion you came to - putting people with similar experience against each other. Thanks for clarifying!
[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8714860]
I’d be interested in the statistics, but I would suspect that, nationally, amateur adults are the USEA’s largest competing segment. At many horse trials, amateur adults are the backbone of the entry and stabling fees.[/QUOTE]
As someone who used to work in the industry, I suspect you are right :winkgrin:
I can’t tell if you are intentionally being obtuse or what.
If we switch to your scheme, if Boyd gets bored with being a PRO, becomes an accountant, acquires ammy status, works 10 hour days at his new accounting firm, riding only on weekends and competes against me in a Novice Division in two years, he still wouldn’t have the same “experience” I do just because we are both accountants working 10 hour office days and riding only on weekends. You seem to want to peg it to life experience, not competitive riding experience.
On the other hand, a riding instructor who teaches children up down lessons all day who has not ridden above Training in the past 5 years has relatively the same experience I do. It’s not about how much time you have to ride. Who cares if she has the time to ride 4 horses and I can only fit in my one.
I swear some people would only be totally satisfied if they were competing in a division of people whose husbands make exactly the same amount, who have the exact same number of children who make demands on their income and time, whose horses cost the exact same amount of money (bonus if they’re the same breed) and who started riding at exactly the same age. Even if it was a division of 1. Because really, what’s the point without a ribbon, right?
I really hope that most amateur eventers are like me. Experience = competition experience is the most fair way of dividing a division if you have to. I will never accept otherwise.
And if someone stays away from eventing because they have to compete at Novice Rider with the local up down trainer who tells the truth about her pro status instead of lying about it because there’s no incentive to lie, then maybe eventing isn’t the sport for them.
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
