I dont know any pro grooms who don’t lunge, so lunging is not insignificant, and many grooms ride. Not all, but many.
There are an awful lot of Hispanic grooms who don’t ride at all. So clearly there are plenty of grooming jobs that don’t require riding on the job.
If someone was really concerned about lunging, they could either ask to take care of horses that don’t lunge, or swap tasks with another groom in order to protect their amateur status.
The lunging thing is a relatively recent twist in the amateur rule, which seems like a debatable interpretation to me. I don’t know if anyone has actually been busted on it yet.
Pretty much all pro horses lunge at some time or another. That isnt particularly realistic. I dont think most professional grooms are too concerned about the amateur rule, so this feels more like protecting hobbiests.
1 Like
You are allowed to be a groom. As long as you aren’t paid to be one by someone whose horses you ride or by a trainer if you ride horses in their program. Lunging isn’t considered training as far as I know.
USEF GR 1306.3.h
https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/nT3TlM3v0NA/gr13-competition-participants-and
I don’t recall off the top of my head how the lunging issue came up. Did somebody email USEF about it for clarification and then post the reply here? Or maybe it was in some sort of Q & A about the amateur rule?
I do remember being surprised at the idea that it could be classified as training, especially considering the type of lunging that you usually see at a horse show.
2 Likes
Yes. The type of lunging you see at horse shows is sometimes the opposite of training.
8 Likes
To me, this just closes a loophole of sponsorship. Back when I was a very active blogger, I had products thrown at me almost weekly with requests of a review. Literally packages would just show up in the mail and they would ask if I would review them on my blog “for my opinion.”
Some I did. Some I didn’t. All I felt like it was questionable WRT the Am rule and sponsorship. I had to stop blogging due to lack of time, so the issue quickly dissipated for me. As I watch so many influencer partnerships grow it makes me feel uncomfortable as I KNOW they are accepting renumeration in the form of sponsorship.
Maybe it’s time to do away with sponsorship rules, as was done for Olympic athletes years and years ago. Though eventually they did away with amateur rules as well. It’s a slippery slide, and so many are in support of eliminating the rule all together.
3 Likes
Not sure who posted on Coth about it, but when I emailed them about opening a boarding barn and what services I could offer and keep my Amy status, lunging was specifically listed as no. But it was ok for me to put horses on a horse exerciser or hand walk. Seemed confusing and didn’t make sense on what was acceptable or not, I asked about a month ago for a time reference.
1 Like
I know at least Mary Babick opined that lunging would violate the rule.
I think there’s a difference between actual sponsorship and receiving unsolicited PR packages as a blogger/influencer. I like having some blogs with independent reviews available when I’m researching a new product purchase, because we know that most products for the horse world are not cheap.
A grooming / braiding resource I follow came up on my social media yesterday. There are some people who offer good educational content on these topics on their social media, blogs, YouTube, Facebook Watch, etc. Of course I don’t know anyone who would be skilled in one of those areas and not be a horseperson. So, they hold themselves out as a horseperson, they have this online content, they are offering services that could be ok for an amateur to offer and providing useful educational content. But if they accept any advertising money or something then they’d violate this new rule.
This also got me thinking about the vets… my horse was having some issues recently under saddle, but apparently it didn’t look anywhere near as awful as it felt. So my vet suggested she get on the horse to better understand what I was complaining about with the horse being NQR. She is not a pro rider, but I guess if she swung a leg over my horse as part of an exam I was paying her for, that would make her a pro to USEF, even though it was still in the context of a veterinary exam.
The problem with the amateur rule is that there are always loopholes where the type of conduct they are trying to stop leaks through. But the more they try to plug those holes, the broader impact it probably has on many other people that probably ought to have the amateur divisions available to them. The amateur/pro distinction has nearly zero to do with riding skill in most cases and everything to do with money.
6 Likes
You’ve just summed up the 60+/- year history of the amateur rule in three sentences.
7 Likes
Oh, USEF, bless your heart!
That’s what we say in the south when we don’t have nice things to say.
Let’s stop for one minute and think about WHY we separate amateurs and pros. In my opinion, it is to prevent legit ammies like myself from having to compete with people who would mop the floor with me. The point is to create a level playing field.
I don’t give two hoots about competing against a social media influencer. I DO care about competing against shamateurs who are so wealthy that the rules about how we make money are simply irrelevant.
Pro/Amateur status should be based on skill level, not whether you get free horse treats by posting about some company on Instagram.
9 Likes
But for the sake of argument, how do you define an “amateur just like you”. Because your definition may not match mine, or the next person, or the next. Is it how much money you have, how high you’ve competed, how talented you are, how many times a week you ride?
I agree the entire pro versus amateur distinction is a mess. But in my world we’d solve that the same way eventing separates by level of experience of horse or rider, not by income. Unfortunately the likelihood of abolishing the AA and AO divisions is probably slim to none.
1 Like
I think I proposed this long ago–on one of the prior threads about ammy vs. pro. (And I’m sure others have, as well.)
That a better way to divide divisions would be to take the maiden/novice/limit model and go with expanding/refining that, based on points won in a given division.
Sort of how IHSA riders “point out” and then move up a level in competition.
Because there are godawful pro riders, and exceptionally talented ammy riders, so “skill” level doesn’t apply.
The very original ammy/pro divide was concocted to keep working class athletes out of the Olympics.
7 Likes
I agree with both sentences.
2 Likes
I think that’s a great idea Ghazzu!
2 Likes
But for someone like me, I’d be effed. At least the money distinction creates some line between those that ride 10 horses a day 6 days a week vs those that don’t because we have real jobs. Granted there are the ultra wealthy exceptions. I ride straight up ok. Not great. Not terrible. If I had time in the tack like the true pros, I’d ride a lot better.
However, in my life time I have shown up to the 1.30 level, have had several a/o horses, have brought along dozens of baby green horses. My experience would put me out of any limited division. My time in the tack (day to day) would put me out of the ribbons agains the pros. I simply don’t ride 8 jumps with 100% accuracy 90% of the time like the pros do. My ribbons would be few and far between in this model. The very idea of being limited to baby green and the 3’-3’9 green divisions because of lack of experience by my horses, or the performance division for me is incredibly disheartening. In the mod/a/a/a/o ring I have a fighting chance at a prize and a championship. Not so in the pro divisions.
5 Likes
In the eventing model there’s a time frame that contributes to eligibility. So if it’s been over say 5 years since you jumped above 3’, you would qualify for the rider restricted divisions at 3’ and below. Now, if you have multiple horses then, yes your babies would have to go in the open divisions or those limited by horse experience. But if you can afford to keep and show multiple horses, you already have an advantage over me since I can only afford one competing horse. But hey, life isn’t fair.
It’s impossible to find a system that pleases everyone. You worry about people who get more saddle time, I get discouraged when multiple people in my AA jumper class are riding horses that were doing the 1.30m or higher just a year or two ago. 
3 Likes
But your concern is wholly that someone can afford more/better horses than you. Income inequality is permanent. My concern is that I don’t have the time to ride like those that get paid to do this do. That’s where the am rule comes in and works about as good as any model I can think of. Even if they made it so it was based on horse or rider experience, someone who hasn’t done 1.30 in 5 years could go buy themselves a 1.60 horse and walk right in. Your situation wouldn’t really change. Mine would.
I typically have two horses. One going a/o, one baby. I show them in the am division that is appropriate for them. If you made it about experience, I wouldn’t qualify for a limited division likely any time soon.
I make up my own horses, they don’t get pro time in the ring. I also work 60 hours a week, have a 5yo kid, haul myself, and put my heart and soul in to this sport. It’s hard enough as it is competing against the 6 figure horses that do week in week out with the pros. Under this model I’d literally have no where to go.
1 Like
I never claimed by solution was perfect for everyone, but I think that scenario would be much easier to enforce than the current method of debating whether a social media influencer is a pro, or trying to police backroom/under the table deals, or the poor folks trying to afford their horse hobby by teaching a few up-down lessons a week. And the current process still leaves you with those fortunate enough that they don’t have to work and can ride all day or those who have retired and have the hours to ride all day on their trainers horses without receiving compensation just like the 1.60m horse scenario you posed in mine.
I think the current amateur rules are hard to enforce and just grow more complicated as USEF tried to close loophole after loophole. Even then we can’t all agree on what end result we are looking for - are we dividing the playing field by income? Time riding? Professionally trained vs. owner trained? Pure ability?
It makes for interesting discussion but rarely produces any answers.
5 Likes
While the current amateur rules are not easy to enforce and are violated by some people, they do ensure that I don’t have to compete against John French or Nick Haness, have divisions that run on or adjacent to weekends, and that there are equitation and medal classes for amateurs.
You can restrict by prior experience or winnings, but people will violate that as well, especially if the stakes are seen to be sufficiently high. One of the worst offenders of the the maiden/novice/limit classes on our local circuit was the same barn that is rumored to be one of the inspirations for the amateur bookkeeper rule.
