[QUOTE=Midge;8368577]
Good lord! How hard is this?
Reporter: Is he nice to work around?
Rider: Oh yes! He’s a barn favorite. Everyone loves him.
Reporter: When did you start riding him?
Rider: Oh that’s a funny story! I was having a bad week…[/QUOTE]
Yes, good lord is right.
Yours is speculation too, no??
I still see questions/confusion what’s an Ammie. Frankly, the rules are pretty easy to understand if you go read them. Janet, has infinite patience!
I see people confusing an A/O and an Adult Ammie. Again-pretty clear in the rules and division specs.
With all that-Congrats to the gal who won the WIHS Adult finals. I don’t know you but totally appreciate any rider that also has a full time job!
[QUOTE=right horse at the right time;8369467]
Yes, good lord is right.
Yours is speculation too, no??[/QUOTE]
Yep. I heard galloping and thought horses, not zebras.
[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]
[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]
These two. And look to other posters here to see why the honest DON’T come forward.
[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]
[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]
Yes, and clearly the line is black and white for you.
Thank you, vxf111 and Tha Ridge for confirming that I understood the rule right.
Also thank you to Janet for explaining the rules.
[QUOTE=right horse at the right time;8369486]
Yes, and clearly the line is black and white for you.[/QUOTE]
Nope. It’s not. But I am not going to assume that a horse in someone’s barn for a year cannot be referred to as the barn favorite. Once again, it’s not like the exhibitor was quoted as saying, ‘He sent me our barn favorite.’
Nor am I going to ignore the actual trainer of the horse who came here to tell us when she shipped the horse into the professional’s barn. I don’t know the trainer but she has six A quality show horses listed for sale on her farm web site and it appears she does a lot of buying and selling. There is a picture on her web site of her showing Davenport. These appear to be two fairly busy show barns.
[QUOTE=findeight;8369395]
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?[/QUOTE]
Correct. This person was no longer a junior while competing in the USET finals. Thus the question. As noted, it would be a moot point if the person was still a junior.
[QUOTE=comingback;8369540]
Correct. This person was no longer a junior while competing in the USET finals. Thus the question. As noted, it would be a moot point if the person was still a junior.[/QUOTE]
So, is he showing in amateur divisions?
[QUOTE=Midge;8369531]
Nope. It’s not. But I am not going to assume that a horse in someone’s barn for a year cannot be referred to as the barn favorite. Once again, it’s not like the exhibitor was quoted as saying, ‘He sent me our barn favorite.’ [/QUOTE]
Fair enough. But when the OP posted her question, that’s not the information anyone had. And also, in the interest of fairness, you have to admit that the article didn’t give the impression that the horse had gradually become the barn favorite over the (unspecified) amount of time he had been leased to the ammy.
I don’t mind anyone criticizing folks, even on the little things, so long as they are being fair and not mean-spirited.
Yes, the rules are fairly easy to understand; I guess my confusion comes from thinking I understand the rules only to have people tell that no X isn’t breaking the rules because of Y. Which leaves me very confused.
[QUOTE=Midge;8369553]
So, is he showing in amateur divisions?[/QUOTE]
Nope. Never did, to my knowledge.
[QUOTE=mvp;8369560]
Fair enough. But when the OP posted her question, that’s not the information anyone had. And also, in the interest of fairness, you have to admit that the article didn’t give the impression that the horse had gradually become the barn favorite over the (unspecified) amount of time he had been leased to the ammy.
I don’t mind anyone criticizing folks, even on the little things, so long as they are being fair and not mean-spirited.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but I think the people who said, ‘I don’t buy it because I see other people cheating’ and someone else saying something about the money being clean as if the horse was ‘laundered’ in some way are witch hunting, not trying to get to the meat of the matter.
I don’t think the reporter thought one second about the context of barn favorite.
[QUOTE=jhg140;8369585]
Nope. Never did, to my knowledge.[/QUOTE]
Huh. So I wonder why the question of his status ever came up?
[QUOTE=Midge;8369605]
Huh. So I wonder why the question of his status ever came up?[/QUOTE]
My question was regarding his registered status at the time as an amateur. I asked how you could be registered as an ammy with the USEF and be a working student. It wasn’t related to him competing in an ammy only class.
[QUOTE=comingback;8369614]
My question was regarding his registered status at the time as an amateur. I asked how you could be registered as an ammy with the USEF and be a working student. It wasn’t related to him competing in an ammy only class.[/QUOTE]
If he’s not getting paid, he could still be a working student.
I read it as he turned out to be a barn favorite over the time he was in the barn. Not that she was sent the barn favorite
This is silly anyway. Taking a phrase out of an article meant to convey a horses personality as some sort of fact as to wether a horse is in training with someone.
[QUOTE=comingback;8369540]
Correct. This person was no longer a junior while competing in the USET finals. Thus the question. As noted, it would be a moot point if the person was still a junior.[/QUOTE]USET is junior or young rider and you don’t have to be an amateur to be a young rider. It’s just an age thing.
So I have not read this whole thread, so maybe this was pointed out, but Ammie 's are allowed to ride horses that they do no own in the Adut Amtauer Hunters, just not the Amatuer Owner divisions. I believe now that eveb stretches to the modified 3’3 divisions. If this was the adult Amatuer division, not an A/O dicision then this shouldn’t be a problem that she rode any horse she could get her hands on, as long as she wasn’t getting paid to show it.
[QUOTE=MtnDrmz;8370038]
So I have not read this whole thread, so maybe this was pointed out, but Ammie 's are allowed to ride horses that they do no own in the Adut Amtauer Hunters, just not the Amatuer Owner divisions. I believe now that eveb stretches to the modified 3’3 divisions. If this was the adult Amatuer division, not an A/O dicision then this shouldn’t be a problem that she rode any horse she could get her hands on, as long as she wasn’t getting paid to show it.[/QUOTE]
The issue is not the A/A division rules.
The issue is whether or not she is an Amateur.
See my earlier post (number 85).
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
