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

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;8371090]
Will you get off me already? You have a problem with me, I get it. You need to get over it. [/QUOTE]

I have no problem with you. “I have no doubt [you’re a] perfectly nice [person] and good horse[wo]man. I’m just legitimately curious to know…” why you are so quick to accuse someone of cheating based on erroneous assumptions without any facts?

ETA: Uncomfortable with being called out? Imagine how the Lohman’s must feel about your unfounded accusations.

@Tha Ridge;8371090

The way the article was written was misleading as to the actual truth of the situation.

It doesn’t matter what the article says. The article doesn’t say that the Lohmans “received remuneration.” Take responsibility for your own speculation beyond that.

@Tha Ridge;8371090

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.

So take a stand. Make a difference. File your protest(s) to stop such travesties. But do so with more than mere assumption and speculation.

[NCRider]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8371122]
I have no problem with you. “I have no doubt [you’re a] perfectly nice [person] and good horse[wo]man. I’m just legitimately curious to know…” why you are so quick to accuse someone of cheating based on erroneous assumptions without any facts?

It doesn’t matter what the article says. The article doesn’t say that the Lohmans “received remuneration.” Take responsibility for your own speculation beyond that.

So take a stand. Make a difference. File your protest(s) to stop such travesties. But do so with more than mere assumption and speculation.[/QUOTE]

So I have a question. Let’s say that the client did like the horse and decided to keep it. Would there have been board charged for the period that the horse was in the barn before the decision was made? Would the commission charged by L have included the cost of board for the trial period?

Question for barn owners/trainers. When clients bring in horse’s on trial, are they usually charged board? Does it matter whether or not they decide to keep the horse? Does it matter whether or not the barn owner will get a commission on the sale?

Unrelated clarification question, a barn owner cannot ride his boarders horses without being a professional because there’s no way to distinguish board from training fees in that case. Does that disqualify the barn owner’s family too? I.e. can the spouse of the barn owner ride the boarder’s horses without being a pro?
What’s industry standard on that.

[Janet]

[QUOTE=alter0001;8370996]
I still don’t think you’re making sense/understanding what I’m saying…[/QUOTE]
OK, NOW I understand that you are complaining about the “Owner” part of the Amateur Owner (Discipline abd Division specific) rules.

You are not complaining about the (all Discipline) Amateur rules.

The Owner aspect is not something that I, personally, care much about. My interest is in the Amateur rules.

[Janet]

[QUOTE=NCRider;8371178]

Unrelated clarification question, a barn owner cannot ride his boarders horses without being a professional because there’s no way to distinguish board from training fees in that case. Does that disqualify the barn owner’s family too? I.e. can the spouse of the barn owner ride the boarder’s horses without being a pro?
What’s industry standard on that.[/QUOTE]

To repeat, for the umpteenth time.

If you ride a horse for which a family member is receiving remuneration for BOARDING or training (etc- see the rule for the full list) then you are not an amateur.

it does not matter if the person receiving the board is a Pro or not.

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=Renn/aissance;8370894]
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.[/QUOTE]

Bit to get that impression you are starting with the assumption that there is cheating occurring.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8371015]
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?[/QUOTE]

Please show me where I said anything LIKE THAT. Please.

F8 said it would take a chart to explain the relationships. I pointed out that it was really very simple and could have been explained in a simple sentence.

I never said the reporter HAD to do anything. I pointed out that explaining the relationships could have easily been done in the article and that doing so would have given credit where credit was due.

But if you like kicking strawmen, have at it. I didn’t say anything even remotely close to what you’re claiming I said.

[ynl063w]

D

[QUOTE=roseymare;8371263]
Bit to get that impression you are starting with the assumption that there is cheating occurring.[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt that anyone read the title of the article and thought,“wow, I’ll bet there was cheating going on here. I’m going to read the article to prove I’m right”.

A much more likely scenario is that the OP and others read the article and thought,“hmmm, that reads as though rules weren’t being followed”. In this case, the assumption was based on the evidence that was presented in the article.

I would hope the take home message for COTH is that they should be more careful about how they word things when they write articles about amateurs. Surely they all know that the amateur rules and whether or not people are following them is a contentious subject in the hunter world, so I think they might want to be sure that they are reporting in a way that is accurate and will avoid situations like this one.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=Janet;8371213]
To repeat, for the umpteenth time.

If you ride a horse for which a family member is receiving remuneration for BOARDING or training (etc- see the rule for the full list) then you are not an amateur.

it does not matter if the person receiving the board is a Pro or not.[/QUOTE]

The last sentence means, then, that every BO/board collector is, by definition, a professional in the same sense that a horse trainer is a professional?

[Madaketmomma]

[QUOTE=mvp;8371470]
The last sentence means, then, that every BO/board collector is, by definition, a professional in the same sense that a horse trainer is a professional?[/QUOTE]

No, it means that the if you are related to the person collecting board and ride any of the horses that are boarded there then YOU are a pro. If the BO rides any of the horses that they board and do not own then they are a pro. If the BO boards horses, but only rides horses they own, then they are an amateur.

[Janet]

[QUOTE=mvp;8371470]
The last sentence means, then, that every BO/board collector is, by definition, a professional in the same sense that a horse trainer is a professional?[/QUOTE]
Nope.
the “person collecting board” can be an amateur as long as neither the “person collecting board”, nor any family member, RIDES or trains any boarded horse.

[Trixie]

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.

The weird part is that a number of them aren’t so subtle about it. It’s not generally the ones that randomly hack the wrong horse or something at home.

It’s stuff like sitting at the in-gate and hearing from another rider riding in the ammies that she rides and works for XYZ barn. Or competing against an ammy in the jumpers who, while on her own horse that day, makes her living riding and gets paid cash. Or work for a barn in one capacity and ride all their horses and still show as an ammy. It happens all the time. And it’s often not worth it to file a protest, even if you’re correct, because of that whole “burden of proof” thing.

I know there are people that go to the ends of the earth to ride as an ammy. As someone who legitimately makes my living elsewhere, it can be frustrating. However, there will always be cheaters. But as many as there are cheaters, there are also riders that are really careful to maintain their amateur status correctly, especially since they’re under such high scrutiny. I know a few people that are related to trainers that are highly careful about this. No one wants to reflect badly on their family’s program.

[mvp]

Thank you all for explaining.

The scenario that looked confusing to me:

Rich doesn’t-ride-any-more-ammy-mom owns the farm and boards. Her 18-35 daughter works in corporate America and wants to lease another boarder’s awesome horse for some showing fun one season. The corporate America person must became a pro because of where the horse lives?

[Soaponarope]

[QUOTE=Trixie;8371542]
The weird part is that a number of them aren’t so subtle about it. It’s not generally the ones that randomly hack the wrong horse or something at home.

It’s stuff like sitting at the in-gate and hearing from another rider riding in the ammies that she rides and works for XYZ barn. Or competing against an ammy in the jumpers who, while on her own horse that day, makes her living riding and gets paid cash. Or work for a barn in one capacity and ride all their horses and still show as an ammy. It happens all the time. And it’s often not worth it to file a protest, even if you’re correct, because of that whole “burden of proof” thing.

I know there are people that go to the ends of the earth to ride as an ammy. As someone who legitimately makes my living elsewhere, it can be frustrating. However, there will always be cheaters. But as many as there are cheaters, there are also riders that are really careful to maintain their amateur status correctly, especially since they’re under such high scrutiny. I know a few people that are related to trainers that are highly careful about this. No one wants to reflect badly on their family’s program.[/QUOTE]

I agree. To be honest the biggest problem with the AOs is there aren’t enough of them. You have to go to a very high profile show to get the division to make in my experience. Otherwise your jogging with the juniors. Oh yay, my favorite thing.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=mvp;8371573]
Thank you all for explaining.

The scenario that looked confusing to me:

Rich doesn’t-ride-any-more-ammy-mom owns the farm and boards. Her 18-35 daughter works in corporate America and wants to lease another boarder’s awesome horse for some showing fun one season. The corporate America person must became a pro because of where the horse lives?[/QUOTE]

Horse owner must STOP being mom’s client. Meaning HO must stop paying all bills to mom. Then daughter can lease the horse, all the while HO cannot pay a dime to mom. Horse can stay in the barn but HO can no longer pay a cent to mom for board, training, etc. for the horse.

[IPEsq]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8371596]
Horse owner must STOP being mom’s client. Meaning HO must stop paying all bills to mom. Then daughter can lease the horse, all the while HO cannot pay a dime to mom. Horse can stay in the barn but HO can no longer pay a cent to mom for board, training, etc. for the horse.[/QUOTE]

This specific scenario is not clear under the rules because it says you can’t just lease your way out of the situation. Most full leases mean that the HO (provided HO doesn’t own other horses) is not the one paying the bills–lessee takes over.

So, how is it you can’t lease a client horse but client could otherwise extract him/herself from the client relationship before ammy family member holds the reins?

[Trixie]

The truth is the amateur rules are never going to work fairly for everyone. The reason that they’ve been so darn convoluted is to try to keep out the shammies.

This mean’s that sometimes, a trainer’s kid who works in corporate America can get screwed. Or you can be a person like me, who once housesat for a friend for free so that if I rode while I was there, I didn’t break the rules, even though I was mostly getting paid to feed the dogs and cats, but there were a barnful of horses that needed work. Or a rider who works for the barn to cover some board bills and winds up breaking the rules because she took a lesson on another boarder’s horse.

It’s to some degree personal integrity, it’s also to some degree that people have exploited the loopholes for so long and so blatantly that the USEF wrote rules that are highly convoluted in order to try to keep the division fair-ish.

In terms of the A/Os, I wanted to compete my horse at 3’6" for quite some time before I actually owned him. Not to say that we’d have been competitive, but I was a legitimate amateur on a legitimate leased horse, and ergo, we were ineligible for the 3’6" against my peers because I didn’t have the money to purchase a horse. When the A/O’s don’t fill, I kind of consider that to be a self-inflicted problem, because it IS a very restrictive division.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=IPEsq;8371659]
This specific scenario is not clear under the rules because it says you can’t just lease your way out of the situation. Most full leases mean that the HO (provided HO doesn’t own other horses) is not the one paying the bills–lessee takes over.

So, how is it you can’t lease a client horse but client could otherwise extract him/herself from the client relationship before ammy family member holds the reins?[/QUOTE]

<<<4. Professional based on one’s own activities. Unless expressly permitted above, a person is a professional if after his 18th birthday he does any of the following:

[…]

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. >>>

I think that part of the rules could be worded better but I don’t actually think it’s ambigious. I read it to mean that you cannot otherwise absolve yourself of the amateur rule problem by leasing a horse. So… if client A owns horse, daughter leases him but client A still pays board/training to mom-- that’s not kosher. The lease cannot absolve the daughter of the consequences of her riding a horse owner by mom’s client.

BUT

If client A owns horse, terminates entirely financial relationship with mom, now daughter can ride horse whether she’s leased the horse or not. The horse is no longer owned by a person with a financial relationship to mom, so it’s ok. In other words, if your family member is a trainer and you lease a horse, you’d better be paying all the expenses for it. If someone else is paying any of the expenses to your family member, you riding makes you a pro.

Admittedly that part of the rule isn’t that clearly written but given the specific language, grammar, and location of where that language falls at the END of the rule-- I read it to simply be saying that everything previously said in the rule still applies even if the daughter is formally leasing the horse. Leasing, in essence, doesn’t change the analysis. The analysis turns on whether the horse owner is a client of trainer mom, regardless of whether the horse is leased or not.

Look at the language closely, the language about how leases work is specific about there being a horse OWNED BY A CLIENT OF THE TRAINER. If the horse owner stops being a client of the trainer, than you don’t have any ammy rule problems anymore when the daughter rides that horse. I guess people thought if they did a lease it somehow was an end run and USEF was just being clear that leases don’t override the default rule which is that you cannot ride a horse that is a client of your professional family member and remain an amateur.

[roamingnome]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8371596]
Horse owner must STOP being mom’s client. Meaning HO must stop paying all bills to mom. Then daughter can lease the horse, all the while HO cannot pay a dime to mom. Horse can stay in the barn but HO can no longer pay a cent to mom for board, training, etc. for the horse.[/QUOTE]

But daughter could lease horse 1, and client could still pay board/train with Mom on horse 2, correct?

[IPEsq]

[QUOTE=roamingnome;8371852]
But daughter could lease horse 1, and client could still pay board/train with Mom on horse 2, correct?[/QUOTE]

No.

[findeight]

Owner still owns horse #1 and #2 and pays Mom for horse #2 so, still a paying client of Mom. Owner can move horse #2 elsewhere and become a non client or daughter could buy horse #1. Then it would be fine.