[QUOTE=right horse at the right time;8367612]
What if trainer trains his wife on the horse on a free lease? Isn’t this required to be recorded before the showing begins?[/QUOTE]
Trainer can train his wife on a free lease. I don’t know if the recording matters. I believe the only thing that matters is whether any money passes from horse owner to trainer once the wife gets on the horse. As noted above, basically horse owner has to stop being the trainer’s client entirely.
[QUOTE=right horse at the right time;8367612]
What if trainer trains his wife on the horse on a free lease? Isn’t this required to be recorded before the showing begins?[/QUOTE]
Don’t think so. Long as owner is not a paying client of husband it’s within the rules.
[QUOTE=vxf111;8367627]
Trainer can train his wife on a free lease. I don’t know if the recording matters. I believe the only thing that matters is whether any money passes from horse owner to trainer once the wife gets on the horse. As noted above, basically horse owner has to stop being the trainer’s client entirely.[/QUOTE]
Thanks -
So in order to prove anything, USEF would have to obtain financial records?(which isn’t going to happen…)
Maybe they anticipated this and wrote out something rock solid because they’ve been around so long they had the foresight to document the free lease and cessation of all board/training/etc.
An error in marking not participating membership but GMO membership before a show has cost others their year end awards, yet it’s not necessary to ensure a horse’s proper ownership/lease status and therefore allow suspicion to be raised?
Yikes.
[QUOTE=right horse at the right time;8367664]
yet it’s not necessary to ensure a horse’s proper ownership/lease status and therefore allow suspicion to be raised?
Yikes.[/QUOTE]
It’s not necessary because the ownership/lease status is IRRELEVANT to the rule.
[QUOTE=findeight;8367638]
Don’t think so. Long as owner is not a paying client of husband it’s within the rules.[/QUOTE]
This is not how I interpret the rules. The rules explicitly state that a lease (which is essentially what this is—lessee taking over all horses expenses, thus owner is “no longer a client”) does not nullify this rule.
[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 agree with you, but the horse shown is called “the barn favorite” and the husband/trainer had access to him such that when his wife called and said, “Just throw a horse on the trailer for me to show, any horse” he picked this one. You really think the HO of that horse didn’t have a financial relationship with the trainer? How else would the gelding have been the “barn favorite” and been available to the trainer in such a casual way?
[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8367676]
It’s not necessary because the ownership/lease status is IRRELEVANT to the rule.[/QUOTE]
I’m playing this a bit out - here’s my thinking.
If he has a horse in his barn that is available to his WIFE, there is a higher suspicion that he’s in charge of this horse and therefore has a financial relationship with the owner. He’s taking board? Training? He is responsible and accountable for horse? This isn’t free.
If there were a lease agreement on file that wife took over all expenses (which isn’t how the article sounds…) before the show, then that would answer these questions, right?
[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8367681]
This is not how I interpret the rules. The rules explicitly state that a lease (which is essentially what this is—lessee taking over all horses expenses, thus owner is “no longer a client”) does not nullify this rule.[/QUOTE]
Well that changes my opinion above then… where are the rules people on here?
Could also be as simple as “I’m moving to India for a year, I still technically ‘own’ the horse but you can do what you want with him while I’m gone (lessons etc) and you assume all costs for him”.
Let me just say that I disagree with your interpretation and the assumptions you’ve made to arrive at your conclusion.
“GR1306.4(f) - Rides, drives or shows any horse that a cohabitant or family member or a cohabitant or family member’s business receives remuneration for boarding, training, riding, driving or showing. 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.”
[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8367728]
Please cite the rule regarding the lease.[/QUOTE]
I already did. See here: http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?478222-Question-About-Trainer-s-Spouses-Family-Members-amp-Amateur-Rules&p=8367549#post8367549
But again, GR1306 says:
[…]
[…]
f. Rides, drives or shows any horse that a cohabitant or family member or a cohabitant
or family member’s business receives remuneration for boarding, training,
riding, driving or showing. 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.
Did you read the story? The horse belongs to a client. That would lead me to assume that said client does, or has, paid the trainer (rider’s spouse) for boarding and training the horse. And thus, rider should never, ever throw a leg over this horse until it is owned by her, or in another trainer’s barn.
As the rule says, even if the client is not currently paying on the horse, because of lease by trainer’s spouse, that is still against the rules.
ETA: Bent Hickory, I’m going to make one more assumption, based on your location, that you either know or have some sort of relationship with the people in question and that’s why you’re getting your hackles raised. As I said, I don’t know them and I’m sure they are perfectly nice people. I don’t think they intentionally broke the rules, if they did. I’m asking because there appears to be an obvious violation of what seems to be a pretty clear rule.
[QUOTE=right horse at the right time;8367692]
If he has a horse in his barn that is available to his WIFE, there is a higher suspicion that he’s in charge of this horse and therefore has a financial relationship with the owner. He’s taking board? Training? He is responsible and accountable for horse? This isn’t free.[/QUOTE]
Lot’s of assumptions…
[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8367743]
That would lead me to assume …[/QUOTE]
File your protest based on your assumption…
[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8367753]
File your protest based on your assumption…[/QUOTE]
If I were 2nd place in the class, you better believe I would.
[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8367743]
Did you read the story? The horse belongs to a client. That would lead me to assume that said client does, or has, paid the trainer (rider’s spouse) for boarding and training the horse. And thus, rider should never, ever throw a leg over this horse until it is owned by her, or in another trainer’s barn.
As the rule says, even if the client is not currently paying on the horse, because of lease by trainer’s spouse, that is still against the rules.
ETA: Bent Hickory, I’m going to make one more assumption, based on your location, that you either know or have some sort of relationship with the people in question and that’s why you’re getting your hackles raised. As I said, I don’t know them and I’m sure they are perfectly nice people. I don’t think they intentionally broke the rules, if they did. I’m asking because there appears to be an obvious violation of what seems to be a pretty clear rule.[/QUOTE]
I don’t read the rule that way. I read it to say that the rule applies even to leased horses. Not that the horse must leave trainer’s barn.
[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8367744]
Lot’s of assumptions…[/QUOTE]
Read this paragraph of the published article and tell me how “off” those lots of assumptions are:
"Lohman got the ride on Davenport by accident. During a stressful work trip, she called her husband and trainer, Alan Lohman, and asked him to put a horse on the trailer for her so she could compete at the Virginia Horse Park in Lexington.
"I told him, ‘Just find me a horse, I don’t care, just throw something on the trailer,’ " she recalled.
That horse turned out to be a barn favorite, Davenport. With owner Dani Di Pietro working abroad in India, “Dylan” needed a job. He and Jessica clicked, and next thing she knew, she had a new partner for the season."
If the husband/pro wasn’t taking money from owner Di Pietro, what should we assume gave the pro access to the horse?
[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8367743]
ETA: Bent Hickory, I’m going to make one more assumption, based on your location, that you either know or have some sort of relationship with the people in question and that’s why you’re getting your hackles raised. As I said, I don’t know them and I’m sure they are perfectly nice people. I don’t think they intentionally broke the rules, if they did. I’m asking because there appears to be an obvious violation of what seems to be a pretty clear rule.[/QUOTE]
I’ve already disclosed my relationship to the Lohmans:
And I’ve already stated my reasons for my hackles being raised:
To further clarify why my hackles are raised now in the case of the Lohmans, by your own admission, you’re making assumptions without facts - just like what happened to me.
[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8367743]
As the rule says, even if the client is not currently paying on the horse, because of lease by trainer’s spouse, that is still against the rules.[/QUOTE]
And that’s not what the rule says.
hi there!
[QUOTE=mvp;8367765]
Read this paragraph of the published article and tell me how “off” those lots of assumptions are:
"Lohman got the ride on Davenport by accident. During a stressful work trip, she called her husband and trainer, Alan Lohman, and asked him to put a horse on the trailer for her so she could compete at the Virginia Horse Park in Lexington.
"I told him, ‘Just find me a horse, I don’t care, just throw something on the trailer,’ " she recalled.
That horse turned out to be a barn favorite, Davenport. With owner Dani Di Pietro working abroad in India, “Dylan” needed a job. He and Jessica clicked, and next thing she knew, she had a new partner for the season."
If the husband/pro wasn’t taking money from owner Di Pietro, what should we assume gave the pro access to the horse?[/QUOTE] Hi guys! Thanks so much for your enthusiasm for the sport! I’m excited there are so many of you! Wow. I don’t know if you will find this helpful or not but I sent Davenport to Lohman Stables the same week of Lexington thinking he would make a nice amateur horse for a completely different client of Alan’s. She ended up not being interested, so Alan asked if I would mind letting Jessi show the horse. I was thrilled and within the same week, Jessi showed the horse at Lexington, and did well, so she leased the horse from me. Dani is away doing wonderful things for the world and we all thought it was a win win. We are all very aware of the rules, we all work together, and sometimes I even train Jessi at shows. Dani DiPietro is my client, not Alan’s. Thank you so much ! I hope this helps. Very truly yours, Deloise
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
