Question About Trainer's Spouses/Family Members & Amateur Rules

[Tha_Ridge]

Question about the winner of the $10,000 adult hunter class at Washington tonight…

It was my (perhaps incorrect) understanding of the amateur rules that an amateur could NOT ride or show a horse belonging to a client of their professional spouse, e.g., if my husband Dick is a trainer and Jane is his client, I am not supposed to ride or show Jane’s horse if I wish to maintain amateur status.

But yet, the winner of tonight’s class did just that: https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/davenport-gets-it-done-washington

[Equitational]

Maybe she purchased or is leasing the horse? Just the context of the article doesn’t state that?

[Tha_Ridge]

[QUOTE=Equitational;8367233]
Maybe she purchased or is leasing the horse? Just the context of the article doesn’t state that?[/QUOTE]

According to USEF records, she does not own the horse.

Anyway, I just looked it up in the rulebook and yes, it’s 100 percent against the rules. It even says that a lease does not absolve them of this rule. Basically, according to the USEF rulebook, she’s a professional. Sigh.

(FWIW, I don’t know this person, her husband, or the horse… I was just surprised at the seemingly blatant violation of amateur rules.)

[skydy]

Surely there must be some mistake. It’s expected that a trainer be aware of the rules.
Perhaps there is some fact that isn’t evident in the article that makes it permissible?

If they knew she was not eligible, surely they wouldn’t agree to be interviewed for a magazine article?

What an odd situation…

[skydy]

Reading the article again, it seems as if she has been showing the horse all season.

If she is found to be ineligible there will be an awful lot of class results to straighten, won’t there?

Does someone have to protest before USEF will look into the matter?

Her husband is an R judge as well as a trainer, he must know the rules. If he doesn’t, that’s a pretty big and embarrassing “whoops”.

[yellowbritches]

Granted, I don’t know much about the hunter divisions, but I thought there was a difference in rules between the Adult Amateur division and what you could ride, and the Amateur Owner division.

The Lohmans are pretty upstanding citizens, so I can’t imagine they would blantantly break rules, and I know Deloise pretty well, and she is one of the best horsewomen I know who is also VERY upstanding.

[copper1]

Makes no difference what class, the amateur rule is the amateur rule. Trainers do know the rules and some will ignore them. I do not know these folks but one would think that they are within the rules-sometimes ownership doesn’t get listed as changed, perhaps the owner is the riders mother or aunt or perhaps they are breaking the rules and then someone should file a protest. I am sure the 2nd place rider would be happy to do that if there was a violation!

[Ladylexie]

A well know Saddlebred person showed as an amateur despite her husband being a pro. I wouldn’t be surprised if they just figured they could flaunt the rules.

[findeight]

Think there’s more to this since the owner has been working in India all year. Would bet she leased the horse for the year, owner has not been a paying client and she does not assist in the business by riding client horses or teaching.

You really think she has been cheating while showing it most of the year and doing well (meaning beating people) and nobody has protested??? Not likely.

A family member of a Pro CAN show as an Ammy but they cannot touch anything Pro is paid to board/train. People cheat but they can ride a horse they own or lease as long as Pro spouse does not make a dime off of it and they do not ride any paying client horses.

These Pro spouses are under a microscope Ammy rule wise, especially if they are good and win a lot, those they beat would be waiting in line to protest if there was a hint of cause.

[roamingnome]

[QUOTE=findeight;8367351]
Think there’s more to this since the owner has been working in India all year. Would bet she leased the horse for the year, owner has not been a paying client and she does not assist in the business by riding client horses or teaching.

You really think she has been cheating while showing it most of the year and doing well (meaning beating people) and nobody has protested??? Not likely.

A family member of a Pro CAN show as an Ammy but they cannot touch anything Pro is paid to board/train. People cheat but they can ride a horse they own or lease as long as Pro spouse does not make a dime off of it and they do not ride any paying client horses.

These Pro spouses are under a microscope Ammy rule wise, especially if they are good and win a lot, those they beat would be waiting in line to protest if there was a hint of cause.[/QUOTE]

That was my understanding as well- Ammy spouse can ride/show a horse as long as Pro spouse is making no money off of it- whether it be boarding, training, etc. If the owner was in India all year, then it would be a nice deal for both- owner pays nothing but has a nice horse to come home to, Ammy spouse gets a nice ride for a year.

[Tha_Ridge]

[QUOTE=findeight;8367351]
Think there’s more to this since the owner has been working in India all year. Would bet she leased the horse for the year, owner has not been a paying client and she does not assist in the business by riding client horses or teaching.

You really think she has been cheating while showing it most of the year and doing well (meaning beating people) and nobody has protested??? Not likely.

A family member of a Pro CAN show as an Ammy but they cannot touch anything Pro is paid to board/train. People cheat but they can ride a horse they own or lease as long as Pro spouse does not make a dime off of it and they do not ride any paying client horses.

These Pro spouses are under a microscope Ammy rule wise, especially if they are good and win a lot, those they beat would be waiting in line to protest if there was a hint of cause.[/QUOTE]

I don’t know, I’ve found people loathe to protest. For one, it’s not free, and two, plenty of people would rather idle by while the rules get broken.

Perhaps they do own the horse now, but that still meant she showed it earlier this season when it was owned by someone else, given that USEF still shows her husband’s client as the owner. And plus, even if she was/is leasing the horse and her husband was no longer making money off it, the rule states:

A cohabitant or family member of a trainer may not absolve themselves of this rule by entering into a lease or any other agreement for a horse owned by a client of the trainer.

I have no doubt they are perfectly nice people and good horseman. I’m just legitimately curious to know the full story here, since at first glance, she’s not an amateur.

[vxf111]

The issue of whether someone with ammy status can show a leased horse in the A/As is a fully separate issue from whether a rider who is the family member of a pro can ride a horse in her family member’s training. Two totally separate issues.

My spouse has a non-horsey job. I can lease Dobbins and show him in the A/As. No problem. I’m still an amateur.

My spouse is a trainer and Dobbin’s owner is his client. If I ride Dobbins-- Im no longer an ammy. Doesn’t matter if I ride him in the A/As or the baby greens or at home-- the issue is that I got on a horse my spouse trains.

[vxf111]

In order for this to be kosher, the horse’s owner had to stop being AL’s client. In other words, from the moment JL got the ride, the horse’s owner would have had to have been paying AL NOTHING for the horse (not board, not training, nothing). Given the “oh heck, let’s just throw a horse on the trailer” way the story is told-- it sounds fairly unlikely that there was some master plan for JL to lease the horse and pay all expenses. Not impossible but seems unlikely. For it to be ok, the horse’s owner basically would have had to have stopped being AL’s client. No money from horse owner to AL from the moment JL swung her leg up. I suppose it’s possible…

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8367238]
According to USEF records, she does not own the horse.

Anyway, I just looked it up in the rulebook and yes, it’s 100 percent against the rules. It even says that a lease does not absolve them of this rule. Basically, according to the USEF rulebook, she’s a professional. Sigh.

(FWIW, I don’t know this person, her husband, or the horse… I was just surprised at the seemingly blatant violation of amateur rules.)[/QUOTE]

Why don’t you put your money where your nose and mouth is and file a protest rather than come on CoTH and stir the pot?

Bottom line is you don’t have enough information to accuse the Lohmans of cheating because: 1) you don’t know the amateur rules well enough to speak on the topic much less condemn someone; and 2) you don’t have all the facts. You have what every other railbird here has - a beak poking somewhere it doesn’t belong.

Why do I care? Because I have been accused of violating the amateur rules as an owner by someone who didn’t have all the facts. I know what the rules are and I know how to comply with them. As do the Lohmans. You most assuredly aren’t the first “super sleuth” to make these accusations about them or file a protest against them. And yet Mrs. Lohman still regularly wins as an amateur.

(The Lohmans are in our area and I know Alan enough to say hi, but that’s about it.)

[jennifersw]

I’m with Bent Hickory. Either put up or shut up. I’m sorry someone even suggested that I read this. It makes me hate this sport and all the trolls who play it even more. Get off your butts, get away from the computer, and GO RIDE, so that maybe one day YOU can win the $10,000 WIHS Classic.

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=findeight;8367351]
[Amateurs] can ride a horse they own or lease as long as Pro spouse does not make a dime off of it and they do not ride any paying client horses.[/QUOTE]

Amateurs can ride ANY HORSE, regardless of whether they own or lease it, as long as the amateur isn’t getting paid at all and the pro spouse isn’t getting paid for the horse being ridden.

[findeight]

The owner is NOT a client whether in India or Indiana if she is not paying anything for board or training. Ammy can lease or just ride a horse owned by a non client even if they were a former one.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

I know nothing personal about this particular situation.

I do know that until the attitude changes about following rules, it’s a free for all. I personally know of three instances of blatant cheating regarding AA/open status or ownership recording, two from people I would never, EVER imagine. I confronted those two people; both felt justified in one way or another due to extenuating circumstances. I was shocked. One has since rectified the situation.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

If it affected me directly (as in I was in the same class), I would report it.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

[QUOTE=findeight;8367590]
The owner is NOT a client whether in India or Indiana if she is not paying anything for board or training. Ammy can lease or just ride a horse owned by a non client even if they were a former one.[/QUOTE]

What if trainer trains his wife on the horse on a free lease? Isn’t this required to be recorded before the showing begins?

[comingback]

You do not need to pay to request an investigation. I know of a couple of people that requested an inquiry by sending an email to the USEF, and they did in fact investigate it.

It’s a bad rule in my opinion, but it is the rule.