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

[Tha_Ridge]

[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]

Sigh. Did you even read past the first page? This was never, ever the problem, as Janet points out. (As a competitor in A/As myself, I’m well aware that you can show a horse you don’t own.)

[vxf111]

This thread is useful if for no other reason than as a reading comprehension test

[alter0001]

So here’s my question/issue for you all. As someone who recently graduated from the jr ranks and now shows in the younger AOs I find myself often competing against well known trainers kids. When these now amateurs were juniors they often showed horses of their parents’s clients-- no attempt was made to hide the fact that they talented kid could hop on the trainers horse/pony and show or school it.
These trainers are of course, well known trainers but also import & sell a lot of horses. How fair is it for “sale horse” to be put in amateur kid’s name and campaigned all year in the AOs? Is there anyway of knowing that these jr superstars now amateurs are not still schooling/riding horses of clients? After all, it would be silly for trainer parent not to take advantage of their kid’s riding ability. Like I said, I have no idea what they are doing at home.
I have an issue with a trainer putting a horse they purchased/legally own in amateur’s name for the sake of USEF showing in the AOs. Same with those that “own” their AO horses but actually lease them for a few months.
I find it incredibly frustrating how easy it is to circumvent USEF’s amateur rules, especially in the AOs. Why can’t people play by the rules??

[findeight]

The exact same rules discussed repeatedly in this thread regarding the spouse of a Pro having Amateur status apply to any other family member. It’s not illegal if they abide by the conditions outlined.

The A/O ownership requirements are a totally different issue then Amateur status but if they abide by those conditions, it’s an Amateur and the horse is Owned by them at the time, there’s no problem.

[alter0001]

[QUOTE=findeight;8370383]
The exact same rules discussed repeatedly in this thread regarding the spouse of a Pro having Amateur status apply to any other family member. It’s not illegal if they abide by the conditions outlined.

The A/O ownership requirements are a totally different issue then Amateur status.[/QUOTE]

Right… I have no issue with the WIHS champion but was just wondering if anyone had input on this. I guess they’re not that similar!

[Tha_Ridge]

[QUOTE=alter0001;8370411]
Right… I have no issue with the WIHS champion but was just wondering if anyone had input on this. I guess they’re not that similar![/QUOTE]

Well, I think what findeight was getting at is that what you describe is legal and within the realm of the rules, the current way they’re written—I’m referring to “owning” an A/O horse for a year or a $1 or whatever.

As for riding at home, I’m sure that most amateurs that are kids or spouses of trainers ride everything at home. What’s USEF gonna do about it? :no:

[sixteenhands]

[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8370514]

As for riding at home, I’m sure that most amateurs that are kids or spouses of trainers ride everything at home. What’s USEF gonna do about it? :no:[/QUOTE]

Every amateur I know that is a child or spouse of a trainer is very careful to not break the rule at home.

[Linny]

I read the article and came away with the same assumption as the OP. Since the article names the owner of the horse but never mentions that the horse was procured from a different trainer, it certainly appears to read as if the horse is trained by Lohman. The article references the ammy asking her (pro) husband to send her a horse, and mentions that a horse is sent, with reference to the owner being overseas.
Better journalism would have mentioned that the (pro) husband was friendly with Deloise who happened to have a very nice horse standing around looking for a job etc. Since the ammy rules are a near constant issue within the H/J ranks, I’d have expected more detailed and accurate reporting.

[Janet]

First, the Amateur rules are almost completely independant of the A/O division rules. it is no easier to circumvent the Amaeure rules “in the AOs” than in Eventing , Dressage, or Western.
(The rules are actuallly stricter forhunters than for other disciplines)

Second, in AO you can ride a horse owned by a family member. If the Pro-Parent OWNS the sales horse, there is no need to transfer ownership to Amateur (Adult) Child. It is perfectly legal for an Amateur (adult) child to ride his/her parent’s horse, regardless of whether the parent is a pro or not.

it is also perfectly legal for an Amateur to ride his/her OWN sales horses. Buying and selling horses (that you own) is permitted for Amateurs.

Third, if the (adult) child is riding “client’s horses”, presumably the clientt is paying board and/or training fees. As stated before, if a family member rides a horse for which the Pro -Parent is receiving remuneration for board or training, etc. (regardless of who nominally “owns” the horse), they lose their amateur status.

[QUOTE=alter0001;8370333]
So here’s my question/issue for you all. As someone who recently graduated from the jr ranks and now shows in the younger AOs I find myself often competing against well known trainers kids. When these now amateurs were juniors they often showed horses of their parents’s clients-- no attempt was made to hide the fact that they talented kid could hop on the trainers horse/pony and show or school it.
These trainers are of course, well known trainers but also import & sell a lot of horses. How fair is it for “sale horse” to be put in amateur kid’s name and campaigned all year in the AOs? Is there anyway of knowing that these jr superstars now amateurs are not still schooling/riding horses of clients? After all, it would be silly for trainer parent not to take advantage of their kid’s riding ability. Like I said, I have no idea what they are doing at home.
I have an issue with a trainer putting a horse they purchased/legally own in amateur’s name for the sake of USEF showing in the AOs. Same with those that “own” their AO horses but actually lease them for a few months.
I find it incredibly frustrating how easy it is to circumvent USEF’s amateur rules, especially in the AOs. Why can’t people play by the rules??[/QUOTE]

[alter0001]

[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8370514]
Well, I think what findeight was getting at is that what you describe is legal and within the realm of the rules, the current way they’re written—I’m referring to “owning” an A/O horse for a year or a $1 or whatever.

As for riding at home, I’m sure that most amateurs that are kids or spouses of trainers ride everything at home. What’s USEF gonna do about it? :no:[/QUOTE]

These are the exact issues I have with usef. I’m a college student and only get to ride my horse. I’ve only ever had 1 horse. But there’s no way for usef to enforce what people do at home. Or the fact that “amateur owner” horses are owned by people who are not amateurs or owners-- but transferred to the “amateur’s” name for the sake of doing the AOs. Be it a year lease for a dollar or someone who actually doesn’t own the horse.

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8370514]
As for riding at home, I’m sure that most amateurs that are kids or spouses of trainers ride everything at home. What’s USEF gonna do about it? :no:[/QUOTE]

The problem I continue to have with your original post and now again here: you start from the perspective that “the amateurs MUST be cheating.” Your original post wasn’t a simple question about the rules. You outright condemned the Lohmans for cheating, just like now you’re condemning most amateurs with pro connections. Yet, YOU HAVE NO FACTS other than “assumptions” and “you’re sure.” You were sure that the Lohmans were cheating and you were DEAD WRONG.

If your original post(s) was as innocent as you now claim, you wouldn’t be so quick to condemn another group of people based on nothing.

[Renn_aissance]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8370802]
The problem I continue to have with your original post and now again here: you start from the perspective that “the amateurs MUST be cheating.”[/QUOTE]

I didn’t read Tha Ridge’s original post that way and wholeheartedly agree with Linny’s post that this particular situation is a tempest in a teapot caused by the way the article was written, which didn’t make it clear whose client was whose. I know the folks involved (and the horse- Davenport is lovely and would only have to be in our barn for one hour to become a barn favorite) so I didn’t have the same questions reading the article, but upon a re-read with this thread in mind, understand how those questions arose.

That said, the amateur rules are ridiculously over the top restrictive and have to continue being that way because people continue to ignore them. As an amateur who did follow the rule and sat out of ammy classes as a professional after the rule said I was one, I find it frustrating that other people are willing to completely flout that rule. Tha Ridge, if I remember correctly, you also show in the ammy classes, and I hear that same frustration that I feel coming out of your posts.

[findeight]

I don’t really think we need to have a detailed chart detailing owner/leasee names, locations and all trainer affiliations with billing information accompanying a quick blurb about a major win and a few quotes by the excited rider to prove they are not cheating.

Scum bags and cheaters we got for sure but no need to publish background checks on all featured horses and/or riders…COTH is an informational and entertainment magazine, they are not the USEF. I am in no way naive or supportive of some of the crap that goes on but that’s on USEF.

Some may not believe it but most Ammies with Pro connections only get to ride their horse just like you. There’s that having babies and raising kids stuff and the younger ones also go to college and don’t have time.

The several wives and one young AO trainer kid I know were scrupulous about what they rode at home…and did not have time anyway. They were actual Ammys, most of them ride like it too, not enough saddle time just like most of the rest of us.

Will say their connection probably allows them access to better horses but that is hardly against any rules nor should it be.

[Janet]

[QUOTE=alter0001;8370730]
These are the exact issues I have with usef. I’m a college student and only get to ride my horse. I’ve only ever had 1 horse…[/QUOTE]

But don’t forget that the Amateur Owner division was NOT set up for “working stiffs”.

When the Amateur Owner Division was set up, the intended clientelle was:
Stay-at-home wives, whose husbands supported their horse habit
Wealthy busunessmen
Recently aged-out-juniors (typically in college) whose horse habit was still being supported by their parents.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=findeight;8370899]
I don’t really think we need to have a detailed chart detailing owner/leasee names, locations and all trainer affiliations with billing information accompanying a quick blurb about a major win and a few quotes by the excited rider to prove they are not cheating.[/QUOTE]

The article didn’t need a chart. All it needed (which would have been nice for the ACTUAL trainer, to give her some credit) is to insert the phrase “who had been trained by Noble-Strong” into the article and explain the relationship. That’s it. Then it would have been clear that the horse was sent by DN-S to AL’s barn. And then the trainer who helped make this horse so nice as to become an immediate barn favorite would have been recognized.

just take this sentence

<<That horse turned out to be a barn favorite, Davenport.>>

and make it

<<That horse turned out to be a barn favorite, Davenport, who had been trained by Noble-Strong and was in Alan Lohman’s barn on trial for another client.>>

Voila. Clarity.

[Moesha]

[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8367232]
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

[/QUOTE]

Actually they did accuse them and maybe should edit the original post. I think this is disgusting - the people being discussed are some of the most wonderful people in the Mid Atlantic Show World and since the whole thing is based on completely wrong assumptions the remaining discussions about amateur rules should be on a new thread.

[alter0001]

[QUOTE=Janet;8370927]
But don’t forget that the Amateur Owner division was NOT set up for “working stiffs”.

When the Amateur Owner Division was set up, the intended clientelle was:
Stay-at-home wives, whose husbands supported their horse habit
Wealthy busunessmen
Recently aged-out-juniors (typically in college) whose horse habit was still being supported by their parents.[/QUOTE]

I still don’t think you’re making sense/understanding what I’m saying. According to your logic, I fall into the second category as a recently aged out junior whose parents support my horses (I have 2 but one is a pony, not AO horse). I have no issue with the people who go out and spend tons of money to buy fancy horses as long as they are true amateurs. Not people who are in reality “leasing” their AO horse. Or people who are riding a trainer’s horse put in their name. I can think of four people off the top of my head who do this in my area.

One is a good-riding older amateur who does not own the horse but it is in her name-- she rides it for the breeder. Horse lives with breeder and breeder is the one with the authority to sell/breed/do whatever with horse. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out when you see them at shows.

Another is an amateur who recently “bought” an AO horse. Trainer who “sold” her the horse let it slip that the horse is being leased… to me… who she knows competes in the same division.

And then there are the trainers kids riding AO horses and the issue or whether or not they are riding clients horses at home. But who knows. No way to enforce this.

I know you can tell me to protest this all you want. But who wants to stir the pot and spend the money? Wouldn’t it just be easier for everyone to follow the rules…

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8370939]
The article didn’t need a chart. All it needed (which would have been nice for the ACTUAL trainer, to give her some credit) is to insert the phrase “who had been trained by Noble-Strong” into the article and explain the relationship. That’s it. Then it would have been clear that the horse was sent by DN-S to AL’s barn. And then the trainer who helped make this horse so nice as to become an immediate barn favorite would have been recognized.[/QUOTE]

So now all reporters covering horse events need to be USEF rule experts and gather additional facts solely to avoid confusion among the railbirds? You’re kidding, right?

How about a simpler solution? How about the railbirds stop looking at every amateur as a cheater? In order for there to be a rule violation, the Lohmans must have “received remuneration” for the horse. No where does the article state that Alan received remuneration. Blaming the article for creating confusion is a red herring. Any “conclusions” drawn from the article are merely speculation on part of the reader which fall far short of a “blatant violation.” End of story.

Frankly, what the article says about the horse, the owner, the rider, the trainer, the barn, the client, the “favorite,” etc., is irrelevant because at the end of the day, an amateur can ride any horse that:

1. the pro spouse boards without “receiving remuneration”
2. the pro spouse has in his barn without “receiving remuneration”
3. the pro spouse trains without “receiving remuneration”
4. the pro spouse rides without “receiving remuneration”
5. the pro spouse trains while the amateur rides without “receiving remuneration”
6. is owned by a client from whom the pro spouse does not “receive remuneration.”

[findeight]

[QUOTE=alter0001;8370996]
…

One is a good-riding older amateur who does not own the horse but it is in her name-- she rides it for the breeder. Horse lives with breeder and breeder is the one with the authority to sell/breed/do whatever with horse. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out when you see them at shows…

I know you can tell me to protest this all you want. But who wants to stir the pot and spend the money? Wouldn’t it just be easier for everyone to follow the rules…[/QUOTE]

Ahhhh… if it’s in the riders name and there is a bill of sale? Nothing wrong there under the rules. After all, your parents have the same authority over your horse since they support it.

[Tha_Ridge]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8370802]
The problem I continue to have with your original post and now again here: you start from the perspective that “the amateurs MUST be cheating.” Your original post wasn’t a simple question about the rules. You outright condemned the Lohmans for cheating, just like now you’re condemning most amateurs with pro connections. Yet, YOU HAVE NO FACTS other than “assumptions” and “you’re sure.” You were sure that the Lohmans were cheating and you were DEAD WRONG.

If your original post(s) was as innocent as you now claim, you wouldn’t be so quick to condemn another group of people based on nothing.[/QUOTE]

Will you get off me already? You have a problem with me, I get it. You need to get over it.

I’ve said—multiple times—that I don’t know the Lohmans and have no bone to pick with them personally. The way the article was written was misleading as to the actual truth of the situation.

And, yes, I do know MANY “amateurs” who shouldn’t be. Like, you know, have seen the money exchange hands with my own two eyes, or have seen pro’s amateur kids ride horses at home. Those aren’t assumptions.