Spin off for Paying an Adult Amatuer

[Scribbler]

[QUOTE=poltroon;8582059]
Certainly lots of people do, especially in the hunter/jumper discipline, where it matters more, and used to matter more than it does now. You have to be an amateur to ride equitation, and when I turned 18, there simply weren’t 3’ classes open to pros that were interesting to show in if you were an amateur with an amateur horse - mostly just the pre-green classes that were huge and won by very very fancy horses. So for example one of my friends had to choose between continuing to show at all and teaching up-down lessons.

Now there are more choices.

In dressage and eventing, amateur/pro doesn’t matter all that much in terms of your ability to participate in the sport, or how you are scored, so people are more casual about losing amateur status. It does give you more opportunity for certain awards, mostly.[/QUOTE]

Interesting! Yes, this is the kind of difference in discipline and region I was wondering about. In my area, there’s a lot of shows, but almost all low-level: up to 3 foot 6 hunter/jumper, and dressage shows with almost no-one competing above first level (though when I’ve gone to watch there aren’t many entrants above 2 foot 9). These all have ammie and open categories. Yes, I just double-checked: we have 2 foot 3 open jumpers

There are some national/international pros based here, but they travel a lot to compete. We do have one venue that does high-profile pro jumping in the summer, and most of the people who compete there are not local.

So I think that changes the dynamic a bit. I think it must be much harder for an aspiring pro to move up to a higher-level “pro” level unless they have made connections in one of the few high-end barns, working student or protege. It isn’t clear to me how people make that transition. I do see instructors who are capable of competing in the 4 feet jumps, who earn their living taking kiddies to the two foot sixes. That might also be a choice, they may not want to compete that much, but I’m also not sure how they would get there from here, even if they did.

So it’s interesting to know that there is more of “career progression” in other places.

[Scribbler]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8581842]
This is the email exchange I had with USEF, and with all due respect to people on COTH, I am going with their interpretation of the rules.

Initial email:

First response:

My response:

Their response:[/QUOTE]

Interesting. So you can pay cash to take a lesson on your coach’s horse. You can pay cash to lease your coach’s horse or to do practice rides. But you cannot barter services to do the same thing.

I don’t follow the logic of the USEF here. Let’s say you were a total newbie, adult beginner, short of cash, wanting to take lessons on a lesson string horse owned by coach. If you wanted to barter services for lessons, or barn work for lessons, would you be considered a pro before you even had a chance to learn to ride?

[Beentheredonethat]

I can explain why. I was pro for a long time and certainly probably have a lot more experience than even many pros despite my lack of money or time spent taking lessons.

I decided I did not want horses to be my money making thing as it takes all of the fun out of it. I like to help people for fun, but only on my time. I switched back to ammy for a few reasons.

Like Mystic said, at championships it makes it somewhat fairer not to have to compete against Olympians, which happens all of the time. (It does NOT help with competing against ammies who have all access to money, horses and pros. I think Akiko is a really great person for this industry, but it is NOT fair I had to ride after her million dollar horse at the championships last year. :)) I used to be in the same classes all of the time with my Appy with Hilda, Guenter, Steffen, Kathleen, Leslie (Webb and Morse), Jan, and on and on and on.

Also, in CA they have AA championships they started, which gives me the option to do that if I want to. Additionally, for year end awards, it allows me to be in a category separate.

At the big shows (which I rarely attend for cost, but now there are a few a year I can trailer in for one day and afford it) the classes can be huge, and it allows me to separate into a class I have a chance of being more competitive in. (And, ironically, it’s in Akiko’s area, so I often still end up competing against her. I need to be at a different level! )

So, in the end, it really doesn’t matter too much, but it gives me more options on showing, championships, and year end awards.

[wonderhorseguy]

[QUOTE=Scribbler;8582716]
Interesting. So you can pay cash to take a lesson on your coach’s horse. You can pay cash to lease your coach’s horse or to do practice rides. But you cannot barter services to do the same thing.

I don’t follow the logic of the USEF here. Let’s say you were a total newbie, adult beginner, short of cash, wanting to take lessons on a lesson string horse owned by coach. If you wanted to barter services for lessons, or barn work for lessons, would you be considered a pro before you even had a chance to learn to ride?[/QUOTE]

Yes you would be considered a pro. Pro status has nothing to do with ability, only remuneration.

[Scribbler]

[QUOTE=wonderhorseguy;8582773]
Yes you would be considered a pro. Pro status has nothing to do with ability, only remuneration.[/QUOTE]

This doesn’t seem right, somehow. The person is not being paid to ride a horse. The person is paying to ride a horse. If the person paid cash for a lesson on a schoolie, she would be an ammie. If the person barters non horse related work for a lesson on a schoolie, she would be a pro? What if she did some task not related to the horse business: cleaned the coach’s house, fixed her car, babysat her children?

If the person did a website for the coach, was paid at a fair rate for web developers, and then purchased lessons on a schoolie with that cash, would the person be considered a pro?

If the person mucked stalls for the coach, was paid for that, and bought lessons on a schoolie, would that make her a pro?

Of course the question is a bit moot, as this hypothetical adult beginner isn’t about to get an FEI passport any time soon.

But could someone jump up at her first schooling show and say “hey, she mucked stalls in exchange for lessons on that old horse, so she can’t ride as an ammie?”

I get that this rule exists to avoid laundering payments to ammies who are really acting as pros. But does it mean that no lesson program can do any barters with its students, or they risk not being able to get amatuer status when they finally learn how to ride well enough to show?

[Ajierene]

[QUOTE=Manni01;8581924]
Thank you for your answers, I really appreciate it and I see the point. I guess the sentence which was really bothering me was this one…

"I very much appreciate her time and feel that she has helped my horse. Do I feel that she has helped so much that she should charge me what a professional does? No, I do not. "

That really made me feel like Amateurs are kind of abused.
This situation was about a non-showing Amateur who improved the horse, but it was thought he deserved no money for his work because he was an amateur…

I can see the insurance issue, but obviously the owner had no problems with that as long as he was not paying…

I guess the problem was that both parties did not talk about money before the Ammy started to ride the horse. But maybe the Ammy wanted to prove first that he would ride the horse well…
Anyhow this thread got me into thinking about the status somebody should have…[/QUOTE]

I do not know where this quote came from, so just deconstructing the sentence given:

"I very much appreciate her time and feel that she has helped my horse. Do I feel that she has helped so much that she should charge me what a professional does? No, I do not. "

This individual is not stating that the rider should not get paid, just that the rider should not get paid what a professional would get paid.

I am great with green horses and can take a horse to 1st level dressage/Novice level eventing (3’) reasonably well. I do not do it for a living and consistently jumping 3’ is helpful for me and my personal goals. I charge $30/ride. My trainer has ridden Grand Prix and at least Prelim eventing (though it’s been a while). She would charge say $60 for the same training that I would do. She would give a MORE correct ride to the horse.

Phillip Dutton is an Olympic level eventer. He would charge say $100/ride for the same training.

So, for someone to say, “I think Ajierene did a great job on my young horse. Do I think she is worth $100 per ride? No, I do not, but I am still pleased with the results.”

That statement would not hurt my feelings at all. I do not have the skill or experience of Dutton, so why would I charge that?

@Scribbler;8582780

This doesn’t seem right, somehow. The person is not being paid to ride a horse. The person is paying to ride a horse. If the person paid cash for a lesson on a schoolie, she would be an ammie. If the person barters non horse related work for a lesson on a schoolie, she would be a pro? What if she did some task not related to the horse business: cleaned the coach’s house, fixed her car, babysat her children?

Everyone understands how it doesn’t seem right. The problem is some people stated things like “nono, this person just does bookkeeping and rides my horse on the side” When in reality that person was training horses and retaining amateur status. So, the rules changed because of a few bad apples taking advantage of the loophole. Is it fair? Not really, but also it is not tightly governed.

In other words, no one is going to look at someone in a 2’ class, Beginner Novice eventing, trotting down the center line in a training level dressage test and think, “Man, I wonder if that person is listed as a pro or ammy, better check!” It was designed to stop the people who were at 4th level, jumping 3’6", cleaning up in amateur classes that weren’t really amateurs.

[Manni01]

[QUOTE=Ajierene;8582816]
I do not know where this quote came from, so just deconstructing the sentence given:

"I very much appreciate her time and feel that she has helped my horse. Do I feel that she has helped so much that she should charge me what a professional does? No, I do not. "

This individual is not stating that the rider should not get paid, just that the rider should not get paid what a professional would get paid.

I am great with green horses and can take a horse to 1st level dressage/Novice level eventing (3’) reasonably well. I do not do it for a living and consistently jumping 3’ is helpful for me and my personal goals. I charge $30/ride. My trainer has ridden Grand Prix and at least Prelim eventing (though it’s been a while). She would charge say $60 for the same training that I would do. She would give a MORE correct ride to the horse.

Phillip Dutton is an Olympic level eventer. He would charge say $100/ride for the same training.

So, for someone to say, “I think Ajierene did a great job on my young horse. Do I think she is worth $100 per ride? No, I do not, but I am still pleased with the results.”

That statement would not hurt my feelings at all. I do not have the skill or experience of Dutton, so why would I charge that?

.[/QUOTE]

If you write it this way I agree completely!! And I think the problem was that the rider and the owner did not talk before the rides about the money… That would have avoided any confusion.
But I still think the wording puts down the riding of the Amateur, just because he is an Amateur. In this case we dont even know whether the professional was able to do the same work with the horse. Obviously he did delegate the rides to this Ammy… So he approved of the quality. And I also think the owner expected not to pay anything because the rider was an ammy, because thats why she started the thread in the first place… And thats the point which I dont like about it…

[baymarewithflair]

[QUOTE=Manni01;8582827]
If you write it this way I agree completely!! And I think the problem was that the rider and the owner did not talk before the rides about the money… That would have avoided any confusion.
But I still think the wording puts down the riding of the Amateur, just because he is an Amateur. In this case we dont even know whether the professional was able to do the same work with the horse. Obviously he did delegate the rides to this Ammy… So he approved of the quality. And I also think the owner expected not to pay anything because the rider was an ammy, because thats why she started the thread in the first place… And thats the point which I dont like about it…[/QUOTE]

This was my post and the quote you used was not complete. The next sentence of the statement said that I felt I SHOULD give her something. The quick version of this is I was told she wanted riding time, then was asking to be paid the same amount I pay my trainer. She isn’t a professional and doesn’t have insurance. Not saying she doesn’t provide anything valuable. The waters just get muddied, things get complicated and I put the question out wondering if things are done differently in the dressage world. Ajierene said more eloquently what I was trying to say.

[Manni01]

[QUOTE=baymarewithflair;8582865]
This was my post and the quote you used was not complete. The next sentence of the statement said that I felt I SHOULD give her something. The quick version of this is I was told she wanted riding time, then was asking to be paid the same amount I pay my trainer. She isn’t a professional and doesn’t have insurance. Not saying she doesn’t provide anything valuable. The waters just get muddied, things get complicated and I put the question out wondering if things are done differently in the dressage world. Ajierene said more eloquently what I was trying to say.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for answering. Yes it was from your thread “paying an ammy to school your horse” sorry that I did not cite it right. I should have included your name when I did it. By the way this is another quote from you from the thread.

My horse is young and big and has benefited from the dressage schooling. I’d actually love to take some dressage lessons and learn myself- right now we’re trying to get a friend’s dressage instructor come over to give some lessons. My hunter trainer is wonderful and fully supportive. I just wanted to throw out the above question to you guys to make sure there wasn’t a different school of thought about paying dressage ammies. As far as I know, this person has ridden for decades but does not compete. The ammie/pro status conversation has been had several times but doesn’t seem to resonate. It’s hard for me to say much more than I have without being rude, which was never my intent.

Maybe I misunderstood, but for me it really sounded that you were amazed that the ammy asked you for money, because you assumed she only wanted riding time. And only after thinking about it for a time you wanted to give her at least a little money. But you felt uncomfortable to pay an ammy. Maybe I misunderstood this. But thats how it sounded to me.

And as I said, I think the main problem was that the money issue was not discussed before she started to ride your horse. Because at that point you could have told her that you did not want to pay her.

For me, the general thought (not connected to your case), that even if an ammy does not compete, he should not get paid (or only a little amount) even if he is doing a good job, was confusing me.
I know professionals who are not doing a good job and still they get paid well.
For me I would have no problems paying for progress. I would not care whether a pro or an ammy produced the progress… I am very picky who I ride with and I try to be careful not to waste money for lessons which will not benefit me. Maybe thats why I felt so strong about this. I really think in your case it was an unfortunate misunderstanding which led to the problem. But its great that your horse was taught some useful things!!!

[Highflyer]

It’s questionable whether the person in that thread actually was ever an ammy (since baymarewithflair paid her, she is now a professional even if she wasn’t before). Having insurance is a great idea, but not an intrinsic requirement of being a pro.

But it’s fair to say that some pro riders’ time is worth more money than others. I’m good at producing quiet, sane, solid citizen type horses. Someone looking for a professional to produce an UL dressage horse would feel I was hugely overpriced at half the cost of the average dressage trainer, even though I am a pro who sometimes competes in dressage. They would be totally correct, too.

[Highflyer]

It’s questionable whether the person in that thread actually was ever an ammy (since baymarewithflair paid her, she is now a professional even if she wasn’t before). Having insurance is a great idea, but not an intrinsic requirement of being a pro.

But it’s fair to say that some pro riders’ time is worth more money than others. I’m good at producing quiet, sane, solid citizen type horses. Someone looking for a professional to produce an UL dressage horse would feel I was hugely overpriced at half the cost of the average dressage trainer, even though I am a pro who sometimes competes in dressage. They would be totally correct, too.

[wonderhorseguy]

[QUOTE=Scribbler;8582780]
This doesn’t seem right, somehow. The person is not being paid to ride a horse. The person is paying to ride a horse. If the person paid cash for a lesson on a schoolie, she would be an ammie. If the person barters non horse related work for a lesson on a schoolie, she would be a pro? What if she did some task not related to the horse business: cleaned the coach’s house, fixed her car, babysat her children?

If the person did a website for the coach, was paid at a fair rate for web developers, and then purchased lessons on a schoolie with that cash, would the person be considered a pro?

If the person mucked stalls for the coach, was paid for that, and bought lessons on a schoolie, would that make her a pro?

Of course the question is a bit moot, as this hypothetical adult beginner isn’t about to get an FEI passport any time soon.

But could someone jump up at her first schooling show and say “hey, she mucked stalls in exchange for lessons on that old horse, so she can’t ride as an ammie?”

I get that this rule exists to avoid laundering payments to ammies who are really acting as pros. But does it mean that no lesson program can do any barters with its students, or they risk not being able to get amatuer status when they finally learn how to ride well enough to show?[/QUOTE]

Unless the student was a Junior, no they cannot barter for lessons on schooling horses. If the student is riding their own horse there is no problem with barter.

Of course since Amateur status can be regained after 3 years of not performing professional activities(I think it is 3 years, not certain), this helps alleviate the issue. They can barter away, then stop bartering and get Amateur status back. It is an expensive hobby.

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=Scribbler;8582716]
I don’t follow the logic of the USEF here. Let’s say you were a total newbie, adult beginner, short of cash, wanting to take lessons on a lesson string horse owned by coach. If you wanted to barter services for lessons, or barn work for lessons, would you be considered a pro before you even had a chance to learn to ride?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

When this has come up in the past, people largely dismiss this demographic. The comments are generally that they should go work at McDonald’s or similar to offset costs, which ignores the fact that after they commute to and from their job, plus their part time job, commuting to the barn for lessons? Not so much a priority.

But to be fair, these rules weren’t written because USEF was being capricious. People were using them to get around the amateur rules. And I’m not sure how you would write a rule that would serve both groups of people. It would be a nightmare to police–and USEF is simply not interested in splitting hairs and deciding Shamateur Sally is really a pro when she cleans stalls for $80/hour and rides horses for the trainer, while Struggling Sue really is making $10/hour for mucking stalls and then paying for lessons on school ponies.

Would YOU want to give USEF all your financials to prove your position?

So USEF doesn’t even go there. If you need to make extra money somehow to offset costs, you can’t do it in the barn you ride in. And if that means some people at the entry level ride less, or try to ride and drift away… well, all rules have a cost. This is the cost of tightening the screws to try and get rid of shamateurs.

[Scribbler]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8583038]
Yes.

When this has come up in the past, people largely dismiss this demographic. The comments are generally that they should go work at McDonald’s or similar to offset costs, which ignores the fact that after they commute to and from their job, plus their part time job, commuting to the barn for lessons? Not so much a priority.

But to be fair, these rules weren’t written because USEF was being capricious. People were using them to get around the amateur rules. And I’m not sure how you would write a rule that would serve both groups of people. It would be a nightmare to police–and USEF is simply not interested in splitting hairs and deciding Shamateur Sally is really a pro when she cleans stalls for $80/hour and rides horses for the trainer, while Struggling Sue really is making $10/hour for mucking stalls and then paying for lessons on school ponies.

Would YOU want to give USEF all your financials to prove your position?

So USEF doesn’t even go there. If you need to make extra money somehow to offset costs, you can’t do it in the barn you ride in. And if that means some people at the entry level ride less, or try to ride and drift away… well, all rules have a cost. This is the cost of tightening the screws to try and get rid of shamateurs.[/QUOTE]

OK, that is good and clear. Thanks!

[Manni01]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8583038]
Yes.

When this has come up in the past, people largely dismiss this demographic. The comments are generally that they should go work at McDonald’s or similar to offset costs, which ignores the fact that after they commute to and from their job, plus their part time job, commuting to the barn for lessons? Not so much a priority.

But to be fair, these rules weren’t written because USEF was being capricious. People were using them to get around the amateur rules. And I’m not sure how you would write a rule that would serve both groups of people. It would be a nightmare to police–and USEF is simply not interested in splitting hairs and deciding Shamateur Sally is really a pro when she cleans stalls for $80/hour and rides horses for the trainer, while Struggling Sue really is making $10/hour for mucking stalls and then paying for lessons on school ponies.

Would YOU want to give USEF all your financials to prove your position?

So USEF doesn’t even go there. If you need to make extra money somehow to offset costs, you can’t do it in the barn you ride in. And if that means some people at the entry level ride less, or try to ride and drift away… well, all rules have a cost. This is the cost of tightening the screws to try and get rid of shamateurs.[/QUOTE]

This is something I really never thought about, but I agree with it. Thank you for your posts!!

[supershorty628]

[QUOTE=wonderhorseguy;8582973]

Of course since Amateur status can be regained after 3 years of not performing professional activities(I think it is 3 years, not certain), this helps alleviate the issue. They can barter away, then stop bartering and get Amateur status back. It is an expensive hobby.[/QUOTE]

It’s 1 year. Went through this process pretty recently.

[sheltona01]

This is an interesting thread for me.

When I emailed the USEF to ask if I was considered a Pro, they said as I saddle fitter I am not.

[MyssMyst]

[QUOTE=Manni01;8582933]
Thank you for answering. Yes it was from your thread “paying an ammy to school your horse” sorry that I did not cite it right. I should have included your name when I did it. By the way this is another quote from you from the thread.

Maybe I misunderstood, but for me it really sounded that you were amazed that the ammy asked you for money, because you assumed she only wanted riding time. And only after thinking about it for a time you wanted to give her at least a little money. But you felt uncomfortable to pay an ammy. Maybe I misunderstood this. But thats how it sounded to me.

And as I said, I think the main problem was that the money issue was not discussed before she started to ride your horse. Because at that point you could have told her that you did not want to pay her.

For me, the general thought (not connected to your case), that even if an ammy does not compete, he should not get paid (or only a little amount) even if he is doing a good job, was confusing me.
I know professionals who are not doing a good job and still they get paid well.
For me I would have no problems paying for progress. I would not care whether a pro or an ammy produced the progress… I am very picky who I ride with and I try to be careful not to waste money for lessons which will not benefit me. Maybe thats why I felt so strong about this. I really think in your case it was an unfortunate misunderstanding which led to the problem. But its great that your horse was taught some useful things!!![/QUOTE]

I’d be amazed if an ammy asked for money, too! They are an AMMY. If they asked for money, I would ask if they planned on retaining their ammy status, or if they were going pro. They absolutely can NOT get paid and retain their ammy status. She’s not saying the rider isn’t worth any money, the question revolves around the word AMATEUR. Which, by definition, can NOT get paid. If someone is showing amateur, or wanting to maintain ammy status, it is perfectly reasonable to assume they’re looking for extra saddle time and not to get paid. The second you get paid, you are a pro. Unless you’re a junior. But the original thread in question said ammy, rather than junior. If the person doesn’t plan on competing, retaining ammy status may not be a big deal.

[Manni01]

[QUOTE=MyssMyst;8583548]
I’d be amazed if an ammy asked for money, too! They are an AMMY. If they asked for money, I would ask if they planned on retaining their ammy status, or if they were going pro. They absolutely can NOT get paid and retain their ammy status. She’s not saying the rider isn’t worth any money, the question revolves around the word AMATEUR. Which, by definition, can NOT get paid. If someone is showing amateur, or wanting to maintain ammy status, it is perfectly reasonable to assume they’re looking for extra saddle time and not to get paid. The second you get paid, you are a pro. Unless you’re a junior. But the original thread in question said ammy, rather than junior. If the person doesn’t plan on competing, retaining ammy status may not be a big deal.[/QUOTE]

I start to think that the problem here might also be a definition thing… What exactly is an ammy??? I think its easy to define if the person is showing, but if the person is not showing, as in this case, it gets really tricky…

[SendenHorse]

The rider in question was teaching dressage to a hunter, to me that speaks to the intent of it being a training ride.
Leased horses tend to provide education and saddle time to the rider, so the person pays the owner for the privilege.
Yes, I’ve leased horses and improved it, then I asked if I was better served just buying my own.