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

[lockedoutalter]

I really enjoy the unwritten rules of posting things on this forum. We are only allowed to complain or question certain rules, otherwise just SHUT UP and file a protest. We are only allowed to pick on certain pros and if you try to criticize one that’s been deemed “untouchable” then people tell you to SHUT UP and go learn how to ride half as well as that pro.

This forum is a shining example as to why nothing will ever change in the industry. We cannot shrug at some cheating and light the torches for others. We can’t destroy some innocent poster over asking a simple question about the rules. We need people to ask questions and blow whistles.

[Moesha]

Seems pretty easy to understand?
The horse is owned by A and trained by B
A is working abroard and B advertises Horse
C has client who might like horse - D but D is not interested but C’s wife E likes horse and leases him from A.

Straightforward transaction to me. A is not C’s client. So the speculation ends there

huge congratulations to a so very much deserved and earned win!!!

[Midge]

[QUOTE=lockedoutalter;8368905]
I really enjoy the unwritten rules of posting things on this forum. We are only allowed to complain or question certain rules, otherwise just SHUT UP and file a protest. We are only allowed to pick on certain pros and if you try to criticize one that’s been deemed “untouchable” then people tell you to SHUT UP and go learn how to ride half as well as that pro.

This forum is a shining example as to why nothing will ever change in the industry. We cannot shrug at some cheating and light the torches for others. We can’t destroy some innocent poster over asking a simple question about the rules. We need people to ask questions and blow whistles.[/QUOTE]

Except, some people assume there is cheating, even when there is not. I agree people should question but when it turns out, in this case, the main assumption is wrong, I think it is equally in error to destroy some innocent exhibitor by stating that they still don’t believe it because they’ve seen some other person cheating, or because the way something is worded in a magazine article. On this forum, it seems everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

[Janet]

[QUOTE=MintHillFarm;8368302]
As an A/A, she could ride anyone’s horse; I don’t see anything in rule book to say otherwise.[/QUOTE]

There are several separate issues here.

The amateur rules apply to ALL divisions and all disciplines- eventing, dressage, saddleseat, etc. the question of whether or not you are an amateur is completely separate form the distinction between Amateur owner and Adult Amateur.

The rules say that the spouse (or other family member) of a Pro can BE AN AMATEUR,
BUT
the spouse (or family member) may NOT RIDE a horse for which the Pro is being paid- board, training, etc.

If the spouse or family member rides a horse for which the Pro is being paid board or training, he/she is NO LONGER AN AMATEUR.

It doesn’t matter what division, or whether it is at home or at a show. Riding a horse for which the spouse/family member is being paid means you ARE NO LONGER an Amateur.

To repeat, spouses of Pros can compete as Amateurs, but they have to be very careful about which horses they ride.

In this case, if the Pro spouse was not being paid - board, training, etc - then the amateur spouse can ride and show the horse without losong her Amateur status.

[lockedoutalter]

[QUOTE=Midge;8368973]
Except, some people assume there is cheating, even when there is not. I agree people should question but when it turns out, in this case, the main assumption is wrong, I think it is equally in error to destroy some innocent exhibitor by stating that they still don’t believe it because they’ve seen some other person cheating, or because the way something is worded in a magazine article. On this forum, it seems everyone is guilty until proven innocent.[/QUOTE]

I’m glad we can all agree that the person that posted the explanation is truly who they say they are and there’s no reason to ever question the validity of claims.

I think that a pro’s spouse should be scrutinized and be able to easily defend their ammy status at all times. They know the rules, they are riding a horse not owned by them, I think we should ask the questions.

I don’t think the OP wants to destroy anyone, I agree with them for wanting to keep everything above the board. As seen in recent threads there is a very seedy underbelly to the horse show world. Why is proposing the idea that there might be some shady business going on such a far out idea? I’m sure last year if someone said Inclusive looked drugged at Derby Finals they would have been raked over the coals. I question everything now.

[Moesha]

[QUOTE=lockedoutalter;8368905]
I really enjoy the unwritten rules of posting things on this forum. We are only allowed to complain or question certain rules, otherwise just SHUT UP and file a protest. We are only allowed to pick on certain pros and if you try to criticize one that’s been deemed “untouchable” then people tell you to SHUT UP and go learn how to ride half as well as that pro.

This forum is a shining example as to why nothing will ever change in the industry. We cannot shrug at some cheating and light the torches for others. We can’t destroy some innocent poster over asking a simple question about the rules. We need people to ask questions and blow whistles.[/QUOTE]

Of course people can ask questions - but in this case whether through misunderstanding of the situation or the articles tone- it has been explained that NOTHING about the sitiation is in any way impconsistant with the rules and yet people keep going on and on

So yes Some things on this board will never change like people Actually reading posts instead of continuing to post mob like mentality based on false information

[Pennywell_Bay]

[QUOTE=Moesha;8368955]
Seems pretty easy to understand?
The horse is owned by A and trained by B
A is working abroard and B advertises Horse
C has client who might like horse - D but D is not interested but C’s wife E likes horse and leases him from A.

Straightforward transaction to me. A is not C’s client. So the speculation ends there

huge congratulations to a so very much deserved and earned win!!! :)[/QUOTE]

This is a good way to break it down.

I have a question (I’m afraid to even ask with the hostility over this)- how is the horse in C’s barn that it can be taken to a show, the horse isn’t living for free? Even if the client doesn’t want the horse, it isn’t on a free ride? Maybe I don’t understand exactly how the horse ended up with C in the situation it could be taken to a show.

Anyway, glad it could be worked out.

[copper1]

You can make aprotest to a steward at a show and if it warrants, USEF will investigate but you will not be kept in the loop. If you file the protest and pay the fee you will be involved and will have to make an appearance if it gets to a hearing. People will not protest because they fear for reprecussions from powerful people.

[Midge]

[QUOTE=lockedoutalter;8368992]
I’m glad we can all agree that the person that posted the explanation is truly who they say they are and there’s no reason to ever question the validity of claims.
.[/QUOTE]

Wait. You think the person who posted they were the horse’s trainer, a very specific person named in the article and signing her name here, is not actually the person she says she is?

Once again, people are only questioning this, not because there is someone who knows something different, not because there is any evidence that wrongdoing has occurred, but because of the way something was worded in an article. I agree, questions should be asked when things do not appear above board. But, the horse’s trainer came here and explained the situation, which is common, i.e., horse gets tried for one client, works out better for another.

I take that at face value.

[comingback]

[QUOTE=lockedoutalter;8368905]
I really enjoy the unwritten rules of posting things on this forum. We are only allowed to complain or question certain rules, otherwise just SHUT UP and file a protest. We are only allowed to pick on certain pros and if you try to criticize one that’s been deemed “untouchable” then people tell you to SHUT UP and go learn how to ride half as well as that pro.

This forum is a shining example as to why nothing will ever change in the industry. We cannot shrug at some cheating and light the torches for others. We can’t destroy some innocent poster over asking a simple question about the rules. We need people to ask questions and blow whistles.[/QUOTE]

I questioned the ammy status of a working student that won a major eq final and had the mob chase me. I was accused of making it personal. No wonder people don’t want to question anything.

[Firebug]

[QUOTE=Janet;8368981]
There are several separate issues here.

The amateur rules apply to ALL divisions and all disciplines- eventing, dressage, saddleseat, etc. the question of whether or not you are an amateur is completely separate form the distinction between Amateur owner and Adult Amateur.

The rules say that the spouse (or other family member) of a Pro can BE AN AMATEUR,
BUT
the spouse (or family member) may NOT RIDE a horse for which the Pro is being paid- board, training, etc.

If the spouse or family member rides a horse for which the Pro is being paid board or training, he/she is NO LONGER AN AMATEUR.

It doesn’t matter what division, or whether it is at home or at a show. Riding a horse for which the spouse/family member is being paid means you ARE NO LONGER an Amateur.

To repeat, spouses of Pros can compete as Amateurs, but they have to be very careful about which horses they ride.

In this case, if the Pro spouse was not being paid - board, training, etc - then the amateur spouse can ride and show the horse without losong her Amateur status.[/QUOTE]

Question:
So a child of a trainer who’s now an adult can not ride any sale horse that is in their parents barn? If they do the adult is not considered a amateur because they are riding a horse for which their parent is being paid. Do I have that correct?

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Firebug;8369358]
Question:
So a child of a trainer who’s now an adult can not ride any sale horse that is in their parents barn? If they do the adult is not considered a amateur because they are riding a horse for which their parent is being paid. Do I have that correct?[/QUOTE]
That’s correct assuming the parent/trainer is paid by the horse owner

[mvp]

[QUOTE=Midge;8368973]
Except, some people assume there is cheating, even when there is not. I agree people should question but when it turns out, in this case, the main assumption is wrong, I think it is equally in error to destroy some innocent exhibitor by stating that they still don’t believe it because they’ve seen some other person cheating, or because the way something is worded in a magazine article. On this forum, it seems everyone is guilty until proven innocent.[/QUOTE]

Now, now. The confusing writing in the article played a part in generating the question. And the history of cheating plus the industry really taking a laissez-faire attitude about cutting that crap out both helped get us here. The cause of suspicions doesn’t lie with this forum especially.

And the way that sentence is written in context does imply that Davenport was already a barn favorite by the time he was put on the trailer for the ammy to show. See for yourself:

"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."

The writing (“That [particular] horse”) implies that the ammy was being shipped a mystery horse and, upon arrival, discovered his identity or his having a fixed quality (being the barn favorite).

Had the author meant to convey that the horse subsequently because the barn favorite during the time he spent with his new lessee, the sentence would have been constructed differently.

If folks would be both transparent and careful with their words, tempests in tea pots like this wouldn’t get started. Of course, there are a lot of people in this industry who really don’t want transparency in word or deed.

[findeight]

[QUOTE=comingback;8369195]
I questioned the ammy status of a working student that won a major eq final and had the mob chase me. I was accused of making it personal. No wonder people don’t want to question anything.[/QUOTE]

Theres a difference between questioning and piling on and running with no facts and incorrect assumptions based on a casually worded “press release” for want of a better word. Continuing after the correct facts are revealed.

Arent most, or all, the “major Eq finals” for Juniors anyway?

[Tha_Ridge]

[QUOTE=lockedoutalter;8368992]
I’m glad we can all agree that the person that posted the explanation is truly who they say they are and there’s no reason to ever question the validity of claims.

I think that a pro’s spouse should be scrutinized and be able to easily defend their ammy status at all times. They know the rules, they are riding a horse not owned by them, I think we should ask the questions.

I don’t think the OP wants to destroy anyone, I agree with them for wanting to keep everything above the board. As seen in recent threads there is a very seedy underbelly to the horse show world. Why is proposing the idea that there might be some shady business going on such a far out idea? I’m sure last year if someone said Inclusive looked drugged at Derby Finals they would have been raked over the coals. I question everything now.[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes, and yes. You nailed it.

As an amateur married to a pro, you are going to be under greater scrutiny and have more eyes on you than your average ammy. If you’re following the rules, you shouldn’t be afraid to explain your actions.

[Tha_Ridge]

[QUOTE=comingback;8369195]
I questioned the ammy status of a working student that won a major eq final and had the mob chase me. I was accused of making it personal. No wonder people don’t want to question anything.[/QUOTE]

Well, professional/amateur status doesn’t apply to juniors. You can pay a working student a million dollar salary and they’re still a junior.

[Midge]

[QUOTE=mvp;8369377]
Now, now. The confusing writing in the article played a part in generating the question. And the history of cheating plus the industry really taking a laissez-faire attitude about cutting that crap out both helped get us here. The cause of suspicions doesn’t lie with this forum especially.

And the way that sentence is written in context does imply that Davenport was already a barn favorite by the time he was put on the trailer for the ammy to show. See for yourself:

"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."

The writing (“That [particular] horse”) implies that the ammy was being shipped a mystery horse and, upon arrival, discovered his identity or his having a fixed quality (being the barn favorite).

Had the author meant to convey that the horse subsequently because the barn favorite during the time he spent with his new lessee, the sentence would have been constructed differently.

If folks would be both transparent and careful with their words, tempests in tea pots like this wouldn’t get started. Of course, there are a lot of people in this industry who really don’t want transparency in word or deed.[/QUOTE]

All of the issues that arose around this particular ammy came from one throwaway line about the horse being a barn favorite. It was not a quote from anyone connected to the horse. It was, I assume, a piece of information provided during the course of the interview.

I don’t think the reporter meant to convey anything about the timing of the horse becoming a barn favorite. Seriously?

[Tha_Ridge]

[QUOTE=Firebug;8369358]
Question:
So a child of a trainer who’s now an adult can not ride any sale horse that is in their parents barn? If they do the adult is not considered a amateur because they are riding a horse for which their parent is being paid. Do I have that correct?[/QUOTE]

Like vxf said, that is correct. And that exact situation was the only reason I knew of this rule in the first place…

When my best friend—a trainer’s kid—aged out years ago, she showed a horse belonging to her mother’s client once. Womp, womp. They did the right thing and she was a pro until she could reinstatement her ammy status, lesson learned.

[Midge]

[QUOTE=comingback;8369195]
I questioned the ammy status of a working student that won a major eq final and had the mob chase me. I was accused of making it personal. No wonder people don’t want to question anything.[/QUOTE]

If your working student was a junior, she is not an ammy or a pro.

[jhg140]

[QUOTE=Midge;8369425]
If your working student was a junior, she is not an ammy or a pro.[/QUOTE]

I’m guessing this is in regards to a USET finals winner recently