I know I heard the name of the original “bookkeeper” at one point, although I don’t recall it off the top of my head.
She and her shady employers certainly have a lot to answer for after all the complications they caused as a result of that rule.
2 Likes
The “hey, life isn’t fair” argument here also works as the inverse too, though. Life isn’t fair that some ammies have the resources to have 2/3 lovely animals and some of us don’t. But the amateur division isn’t classified by how resource-rich you are or how experienced or winning your horse may be. It’s purely: do you make money off of this sport or not?
I think there’s just never going to be a good solution here. Everyone’s definition of what’s fair and what isn’t varies, and I don’t think USEF can keep creating divisions so everyone feels they have a space to compete. Should we propose we create income brackets adult hunter classes? And you have to show a W2? Sounds wild, but I feel like that’s the argument a lot of people are making in smaller ways (if you are wealthy and own nice animals or don’t work a 40+ hour week job, you shouldn’t get to show in MY classes) - it sucks, but I don’t think that’s quite fair, either! Sigh. We might never solve it.
7 Likes
Two thoughts, here one general, one specific:
General: I just renewed my USEF membership today, and, as I do every year, I reread the amateur rule before marking myself in the amateur membership category. I try to be scrupulous about following the amateur rules, regardless of my preferences on various aspects. I view it as my responsibility to make sure that nothing has changed that would bear on my behavior.
There is a lot of discussion on this forum about how the amateur rule is hard to understand and how there are lots of grey areas. And I just want to say that I actually think that the rule is fairly clear, and it would behoove everyone to read it periodically and think through what it means. I see so many violations out there, and I think many of them come from ignorance–though perhaps it is sometimes willful!
Now specifically: I think the sponsorship provisions of the amateur rule are kind of dumb, and I find this particular one to be especially problematic. How on earth is the USEF going to find out whether an instagrammer writing about their favorite new saddle pad got free product or not? IMO: It would be better for USEF to focus on core professional activities of riding or teaching for money, since those seem to be hard enough to investigate and enforce.
4 Likes
One of our former trainers actually had two people on her payroll that violated the amateur rule. One was the bookkeeper and one was an actual assistant. Both consistently road horses not owned by them while accepting renumeration. No one who trained with said trainer said anything about it.
I have thought for years they should define ammy vs pro based on income. For instance, make more than 10k a year off of training horses, sponsorships, etc and you are a pro. Less and you are an ammy. Get rid of these convoluted rules that make little sense.
The current rules punish (mainly hunter) riders who might teach a local kid on the side, work summers as a teaching assistant between college, or get sponsored by a company and earn a few bucks or get some free grain or something.
In the jumper world, if you go pro it’s not such a big deal. You loose the high/low adults, but there is always a comparable division offered. But in hunters, you basically just eliminated several height divisions at quite a few shows.
2 Likes
But how would you police this? Require tax returns with membership? That’s just never going to fly.
3 Likes
No way to enforce it. USEF has no authority to demand tax returns. Even if you could get tax returns, if Betty is running a boarding business, but sometimes rides boarder’s horses, how do you determine how much of that board income should “count toward” non-amateur status?
FWIW, quite a few years ago, Eventing actually got a USEF rule PASSED with an Eventing-only Amateur definition of something like “not more than $3500 riding/training income”. But before it could go into effect the USEF legal team got it cancelled as legally unenforceable.
3 Likes
You could argue the same right now. USEF ammy status runs on the goodwill of members.
‘I’m not being paid to teach lessons. I’m being paid for babysitting. Or, they just happen to buy cookies from me every week and I throw in a free lesson.’
2 Likes
I think someone did suggest that idea or something similar in a previous discussion of this subject on the BB. Lol.
This sort of arrangement is clearly against the current rules. If you get paid and you teach riding lessons to someone who pays you, you are a professional, regardless of whether the student says the money is for cookies or lessons. If this hypothetical person gets reported to USEF, and there’s evidence they made cookie money, they will lose their amateur status.
4 Likes
Oh it definitely is against the rules. But it happens all the time. Very, very common in H/J land
2 Likes
Question from an eventer, is it that hard to beat the pros in the H/J ring?
In eventing here in Ontario we regularly compete against the pros and Olympians.
If you have shown the level above within 3 years for 3 events successfully then you have to show in the Open for the division below.
So say I event Novice and finish 3 events. If I want to show BN I would have to show open.
I have to show all my young horses in Open against all the pros and Olympians. It’s a badge of honor when you beat them 
2 Likes
It would definitely be a badge of honor in H/J too, most of the time.
For a good majority of ammy hunter riders, yes, it’s pretty hard to beat a pro rider because pros rarely miss a distance and amateurs often miss at least one, and that’s a big deal in the hunters. There are nuances (and judges can apply nuance if the horse happens to jump beautifully despite a missed distance), but in general pro hunter riders are pro because they don’t miss and they give a smooth ride.
The best Am hunter riders could and would beat a lot of pros because they usually have fancy horses and they ride quite well, but they don’t have to. Just a different world.
Different for jumpers, where style doesn’t matter.
4 Likes
There are other considerations too. Amateur classes at relatively low levels tend to have more prize money than comparable open classes. And they are much more likely to run on the weekend, a huge convenience for people who work during the week.
Appreciate the insight!
1 Like
This is my complaint. I work for a feed company. Sometimes I film promotional/educational clips about horse care and our products. So, does that mean I’m a professional rider/trainer? REALLY? I was just about to apply for reinstatement of my amateur status (because I had a similar problem in my previous role as a university faculty member - I taught “horse handling and care” and was therefore a pro…).
Argh.
1 Like
This is it.
I started another thread on this rule before seeing this one - but this is my main issue with the ammy rule and all of the subsequent “plug the hole” rules that follow. They are written in such a broad, general way that it doesn’t really effect the folks who it’s meant to. The people who have 100k followers on social media and get all of their tack and equipment for free - OK, I get it.
But for the local person who has maybe 657 followers and gets free treats from her friend who is starting a homemade treat company in exchange for a few shout outs on social media - now she is a professional? That just makes no sense to me at all.
They should rewrite this rule to root out the issue that’s actually on the table here. Specify how many followers they have, or a total dollar amount in product a year. That alone could effectively close the loop hole without shutting out the folks who are already struggling to make showing work.
I’ve long thought that the ammy rule should be amended in the first place to include a dollar amount of remuneration you’re allowed to take in on a yearly basis before you’re classified as a professional. That would allow so many of us to teach beginner lessons a few days a month to pay off a show - but alas. I’m not holding my breath for that one, but I just hope they don’t take this next step to make a simple product review potentially a red zone.
4 Likes
I believe that anyone who is a USEF member may go to the website with all the proposed rule changes and post comments about the specific proposals. The most effective time to do that would be now, before they all come up for discussion at the USHJA annual meeting next month.
The rule changes are discussed at the annual meeting at great length, so if you have an opinion on them, it’s a good idea to speak up about them on the USHJA site before they get passed. Posting here on the subject probably won’t have much effect on the USHJA’s decision.
4 Likes
Just attempted that.
In true backwards USEF technology form, if you click on one of the rule change links, it just takes you to a PDF of the rule that you can’t submit any feedback or comments on - you can only download it. It does however provide a contact email:
In lieu of any way to submit online comments, Emailing comments this address appears to be the best course of action.
If I’m wrong someone has found a workaround or a place to submit comments, please let me know!
Did you sign in on the USHJA page and then click on the word comment?
When I did that, I got to a form to submit a comment on the proposal. I did not actually try to submit a comment, since I was just testing to see if it worked. But it seemed functional.
