Spin off for Paying an Adult Amatuer

[Highflyer]

[QUOTE=Manni01;8583640]
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…[/QUOTE]

Not really that tricky. If someone takes money, they’re not an amateur. If someone offers to ride your horse, or you ask someone to ride your horse, just clarify up front by saying, “How much do you charge per ride?” Then they will either say, “I charge $x.”, and you can decide whether it’s worth it to you to pay $x, OR they will say, “I’m an amateur, so no need to pay me.” If you’re really deeply concerned about it, you could even say, “I would like to pay you for your time if you’re not an amateur.”

If you pay them and then see that they are actively competing as an amateur, you can report them to USEF at that point, but you don’t need to preemptively police them.

[netg]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8581717]
I am a faux pro because no one, in ten years of asking, has been able to convince me amateur status is worth it.

I am not a professional rider or trainer. I don’t ride like a professional rider or trainer. Anyone watching me for two minutes can tell that.

But, bonus points, I can feed at my barn and hop on someone else’s horse for a lesson.

Or trade website work for lessons.

Or any of the other many ways to cut costs and get some saddle time on a variety of horses that are not open to people who want to keep amateur status.

I have never felt so relaxed, and free, and able to pursue any riding opportunity I want to as I have since giving up on the “you must be an amateur because everyone is an amateur” mentality.

Being a faux pro is the best.[/QUOTE]

I love this. I would give up amateur status if there were a situation like yours, despite most definitely NOT being worthy of being paid as a trainer.

[QUOTE=sheltona01;8583334]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.[/QUOTE]

The only exception would be if you got into being paid for saddle fitting, then riding someone’s horse. My trimmer takes lesson’s on my trainer’s horses sometimes, or on another student’s horse who he also gets paid to trim. Despite the fact he’s NOT a pro dressage rider, that would take away his eligibility. He doesn’t show, so it doesn’t matter, but it falls into the grey area of his job itself doesn’t make him a pro, but the fact he rides horses he’s paid to work on crosses too far into the grey area.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=netg;8584932]
I love this. I would give up amateur status if there were a situation like yours, despite most definitely NOT being worthy of being paid as a trainer.

The only exception would be if you got into being paid for saddle fitting, then riding someone’s horse. My trimmer takes lesson’s on my trainer’s horses sometimes, or on another student’s horse who he also gets paid to trim. Despite the fact he’s NOT a pro dressage rider, that would take away his eligibility. He doesn’t show, so it doesn’t matter, but it falls into the grey area of his job itself doesn’t make him a pro, but the fact he rides horses he’s paid to work on crosses too far into the grey area.[/QUOTE]

I gave up my ammy status, too, despite not having been all the way to Grand Prix and whatever else it takes to be credible in someone’s eyes.

I quote these folks/posts because it speaks to the nature of valuing riding/training and/or teaching expertise in our wildly-unregulated industry.

1. I can see why the USEF doesn’t consider a saddle fitter a riding professional. I’d also think that a farrier, vet or chiropractor’s deep expertise with horses doesn’t automatically give them the riding expertise involved. And, at bottom, distinguishing those who have more- and less- access to saddle time is what the ammy/pro rule is about. It was always intended to make horse showing attractive to amateurs who would agree to spend their money competing so long as they have a level playing field it which to do that. Back in the 1950s or 1960s when this was begun, it worked nicely for all involved: Ammies got a place to play that was attractive because it was fair and horse trainers got clients willing to spend in order to do that.

But no one ever said anything about what qualifies one to take people’s money and train their horse or them. And here in the US we still don’t want to regulate this industry… for better and for worse.

That said, I think the value of the horse trainer who lacks the show résumé can be immense. (BTW, I find netg’s posts in particular to represent someone with lots of education. I’d pay her to help me. And I’m fussy… see my above regret that horse training isn’t regulated here.) Lots of Grand Prix dressage riders don’t or won’t, say, work with a young horse who is rude on the ground, or who will go 'round in a dressage court, but won’t load calmly and reliably into a horse trailer. I watched some “official” (and good) professionals at a fancy clinic not be willing or able to kick their horses up into a hand gallop when the clinician asked. Having ridden hunters forever, I can do that with more skill than these pros who are much more educated and experienced in making dressage horses than I.

None of this is to defend one trainer at the expense of another. It is to say that, honest to God, you might need one kind of trainer for one horse (or one horse at one time in his career) and another for another. Same goes for teaching: Not all students’ and teachers’ styles will match.

My points are two:

1. Pick the right rider/trainer for the job, and pay them what it’s worth. I read the OP’s comment about paying an ammy less… merely because she was an ammy and not because she was less of a rider, or less of the perfect rider for that horse at that time, as misguided at best.

2. If you do want to ride other people’s horses-- for money or for free-- IMO, you must treat it like a job and bring your A-game. Ammy or not, ride as though you are doing this for money. If you don’t want to do that— you want to ride like “an amateur” where you do what you feel like rather than what you think will improve the horse, as any one of us expects from a professional, then that’s fair; that’s what an amateur ride is. And this means that plenty of those ammies who get on a horse with the intention of improving it each ride-- I think those guys are performing the services of a professional.

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=mvp;8585012]
And, at bottom, distinguishing those who have more- and less- access to saddle time is what the ammy/pro rule is about. [/QUOTE]

No. It’s about money. Period. Not accomplishments or skills, which are the offshoot of time in the saddle. Money.

Even the rules are clear about this (bolding mine):

GR1306 Professional/Amateur Status

1. Amateur. Regardless of one’s equestrian skills and/or accomplishments, a person is an amateur if after his 18th birthday, as defined in GR101, he has not engaged in any of the activities identified in paragraph 4 below.
   […]

2. 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:

a. Accepts remuneration AND […]

b. Accepts remuneration AND […]

c. Accepts remuneration AND acts as an employee in a position such as a groom, farrier, bookkeeper, veterinarian or barn manager AND instructs, rides, drives, shows, trains or schools horses that are owned, boarded or trained by his employer, any member of his employer’s family, or a business in which his employer has an ownership interest.

d. Accepts remuneration AND […]

e. Accepts prize money unless permitted in paragraph 3d or 3e above.

f. Rides, drives or shows any horse that a cohabitant or family member or a cohabitant or family member’s business receives remuneration […]

g. Gives instruction to any person or rides, drives, or shows any horse, for which activity his cohabitant or another person in his family or business in which his cohabitant or a family member controls will receive remuneration […]

h. Accepts remuneration AND […]

i. Advertises one’s equestrian services such as training or instruction.

j. Accepts remuneration AND […]

k. Accepts remuneration […]

l. Accepts remuneration […]

I left in the full text of © since that is the one that specifically addresses vets/farriers/etc. They are not exempt from the “don’t get paid in a barn in which you ride horses you do not own” rule.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8585104]
No. It’s about money. Period. Not accomplishments or skills, which are the offshoot of time in the saddle. Money.

Even the rules are clear about this (bolding mine):

I left in the full text of © since that is the one that specifically addresses vets/farriers/etc. They are not exempt from the “don’t get paid in a barn in which you ride horses you do not own” rule.[/QUOTE]

I get that the rule uses money earned riding (and similar) as the sorting criterion. But IMO, that’s just because it’s a cleaner one than any other the AHSA thought it could find.

In terms of intent, I still think my original description holds. And that was the point of including the discussion of the USEF’s logic in this discussion. Here, I think the original discussion (or where it went) was about the relative value of a “good ammy” vs. a pro.

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=mvp;8585116]
In terms of intent, I still think my original description holds. And that was the point of including the discussion of the USEF’s logic in this discussion. [/QUOTE]

I wish Janet would chime in, because she’s commented on that history a few times before. IIRC, it was for the benefit of the non-working, very wealthy amateurs who had the most access to saddle time and not to protect the working amateurs with limited access to saddle time.

But yes, a lot of people have this idea that professional = good rider and amateur = less good rider. And they shouldn’t, because that has never been what the rules meant by professional vs. amateur. And it still isn’t.

[Manni01]

Thanks for the interesting discussion!! I think Highflyer (post 30) mentioned a very good point. he said, the Ammy wasnt an Ammy because he was taking money… And he was right. It was a non showing professional (because she was taking money for the rides) who just did not market herself properly… She should have refused to be called Ammy because at that point her riding would have been valued by everybody more… (This is supposed to be ironical, but I still think in a way it seems to be true…)

[AQHAEventer]

I personally think the current status quo of the pro vs. ammy relationship is outdated and does not do a whole lot to even the playing field (does it help some? Of course, but not as much as it could IMO). I very much wish that as opposed to a remuneration based system people were classified by their level of accomplishment in the show ring. That way, the very best riders would compete against the very best riders and those who are not able to show as much, or who are not quite as accomplished, would also show against their peers. Would there still be those people who were excellent riders in the lower level? Yes, but I feel that the number of people who fall in that group would be greatly reduced over time. It would allow the person who only starts colts to try their hand at showing without having to go against people who show full time. It would allow the competent (current amatuer) to give the occasional up and down or 4-h lesson to help bring in a couple of extra dollars. It would also give a sort of ranking system to “trainers”. Do they compete and score well enough to be an “A Class” rider? Of course the logistics of what exactly the line between “A class” and “B class” (or whatever you wanted to call the delineation) would have to be hashed out, but it would be much easier to keep track of and verify as opposed to the current method which relies mainly on people being honest.

[SendenHorse]

[QUOTE=AQHAEventer;8585334]
I personally think the current status quo of the pro vs. ammy relationship is outdated and does not do a whole lot to even the playing field (does it help some? Of course, but not as much as it could IMO). I very much wish that as opposed to a remuneration based system people were classified by their level of accomplishment in the show ring. That way, the very best riders would compete against the very best riders and those who are not able to show as much, or who are not quite as accomplished, would also show against their peers. Would there still be those people who were excellent riders in the lower level? Yes, but I feel that the number of people who fall in that group would be greatly reduced over time. It would allow the person who only starts colts to try their hand at showing without having to go against people who show full time. It would allow the competent (current amatuer) to give the occasional up and down or 4-h lesson to help bring in a couple of extra dollars. It would also give a sort of ranking system to “trainers”. Do they compete and score well enough to be an “A Class” rider? Of course the logistics of what exactly the line between “A class” and “B class” (or whatever you wanted to call the delineation) would have to be hashed out, but it would be much easier to keep track of and verify as opposed to the current method which relies mainly on people being honest.[/QUOTE]

Didn’t centerline scores do something like this? I remember people being very offended at it.
You can’t win!

[mvp]

[QUOTE=AQHAEventer;8585334]
I personally think the current status quo of the pro vs. ammy relationship is outdated and does not do a whole lot to even the playing field (does it help some? Of course, but not as much as it could IMO). I very much wish that as opposed to a remuneration based system people were classified by their level of accomplishment in the show ring. That way, the very best riders would compete against the very best riders and those who are not able to show as much, or who are not quite as accomplished, would also show against their peers. Would there still be those people who were excellent riders in the lower level? Yes, but I feel that the number of people who fall in that group would be greatly reduced over time. It would allow the person who only starts colts to try their hand at showing without having to go against people who show full time. It would allow the competent (current amatuer) to give the occasional up and down or 4-h lesson to help bring in a couple of extra dollars. It would also give a sort of ranking system to “trainers”. Do they compete and score well enough to be an “A Class” rider? Of course the logistics of what exactly the line between “A class” and “B class” (or whatever you wanted to call the delineation) would have to be hashed out, but it would be much easier to keep track of and verify as opposed to the current method which relies mainly on people being honest.[/QUOTE]

I agree. And in AQHA world, I believe they have figured out an accomplishment-based system for horses and for riders. Schooling shows do this a bit with their Maiden and Limit classes. Too bad we can’t look around and import systems that seem to work in other disciplines.

[DownYonder]

I don’t show, so this is a moot question - but I occasionally watch a friend school her young horse. If the trainer isn’t there, my friend sometimes asks me what I see. I might say something like - “Your outside leg is really far back and your toes are turned out, so you are hitting him with your spur every side.” Or, “you are not sitting evenly - you are stretched down more on the left side than the right side”. Or, if she is working on leg yield, etc. - “Be sure to not clamp your outside leg on him, or gig him with your outside spur. He needs space to move into.”

She usually brings the wine when we are at shows together. If I have a glass or two, is that considered payment? Would it make me a professional in the eyes of USEF?

[D_BaldStockings]

Amateur has never been about accomplished or average it has only ever been about remuneration.

If you are remunerated then you are professional.

The origin was in the Victorian era when sporting events were a pastime for the wealthy of independent means; to keep the ‘common laborer’ who was paid for his expertise from competing with his ‘betters’.

It has been a quaintly antiquated system ever since the Olympics permitted professional athletes to compete beginning 1986.

Amateurs may be as good as professionals; and professionals may be reinstated as amateurs just by choosing to not take remuneration.

This is why an amateur asking money for riding: is. just. impossible.

[Manni01]

Ok now its even clearer DownYonder is a professional and the name of the thread was wrong, because it was not about paying an ammy for riding the hunterhorse, because the ammy was really a professional as well…

[Jeannette_formerly_ponygyrl]

[QUOTE=DownYonder;8585363]

She usually brings the wine when we are at shows together. If I have a glass or two, is that considered payment? Would it make me a professional in the eyes of USEF? ;)[/QUOTE]

I'd call that a token of appreciation, and also note that it sounds like you swallow the evidence. If it's Chateau Lafite Rothschild wine, no longer a token, but I'll come sit by you at shows!!

[exploding_pony]

I have to just jump in on the AQHA reference.

If you happen to show your AQHA in dressage, good luck. The awards are completely separate from USDF/USEF shows. You have to get a show manager to pay a fee for AQHA show approval for your scores to count for AQHA. And then they don’t count half points. I could go on.

Last year I won the USDF AQHA All Breeds but did not win AQHA High Point … because even though my scores were the highest, not all the USDF/USEF shows I participated in were AQHA approved, so I came in like 3rd. Even with the highest %.

Sorry to go off topic, but it’s a sore spot with me!

[whichchick]

My board arrangement includes me starting two “don’t ride at all” horses under saddle every year. When I get 'em they lead (kinda) and tie (mostly). When I’m done (project horses are worked 2x a week all summer), they have good ground manners, trailer well, handle all over, and ride out by themselves at w/t/c on a loose rein. They also have solid experience with the obstacles and wildlife typically found in the woods, fields, and country roads in my area of Greater Rednecklandia. My project horses are still pretty green when I’m done with them, but doing even this relatively low-level stuff in exchange for significantly-reduced board makes me a “pro”. Whatevs.

Money’s tight in Greater Rednecklandia – If I can reduce a bill by way of reasonably straightforward labor on my part? I’m on it. Ammie status is clearly intended for people who are not me.

[Beentheredonethat]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8585360]
Didn’t centerline scores do something like this? I remember people being very offended at it.
You can’t win![/QUOTE]

I was talking with them at their booth at the championships about this. They are trying to figure out a way to differentiate people who have competed and gotten scores on horses versus people who have actually ridden and trained the horses up the levels.

It would be great to have some kind of handicapping system of getting paid and how much versus experience versus how much money you have, etc. THAT would sure make it a lot fairer in who you’re competing against. Of course it would be way to complicated and it’s never going to happen.

[Scribbler]

[QUOTE=whichchick;8585459]
My board arrangement includes me starting two “don’t ride at all” horses under saddle every year. When I get 'em they lead (kinda) and tie (mostly). When I’m done (project horses are worked 2x a week all summer), they have good ground manners, trailer well, handle all over, and ride out by themselves at w/t/c on a loose rein. They also have solid experience with the obstacles and wildlife typically found in the woods, fields, and country roads in my area of Greater Rednecklandia. My project horses are still pretty green when I’m done with them, but doing even this relatively low-level stuff in exchange for significantly-reduced board makes me a “pro”. Whatevs.

Money’s tight in Greater Rednecklandia – If I can reduce a bill by way of reasonably straightforward labor on my part? I’m on it. Ammie status is clearly intended for people who are not me.[/QUOTE]

You are better at your job than a lot of low-level pros I know! Lots of people wouldn’t dream of starting a colt. Don’t undersell yourself!

[atr]

Small but important distinction which seems to have been lost in the discussion here. We show Ammy or “Open”, not “Pro.”

I think this distinction is very deliberate. As in whichchick’s case above, she doesn’t regard herself as an ammy, but she isn’t a pro, earning her living from the sport, either. Thus the “Open” designation. It covers a far wider range of riders than a strictly “pro” status would.

But when we persist in this ammy vs. pro speak, we will always have people who feel that they aren’t really earning a living from horses so shouldn’t be counted as professionals… so therefore they must be amateurs, right?

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=atr;8587291]
Small but important distinction which seems to have been lost in the discussion here. We show Ammy or “Open”, not “Pro.”[/QUOTE]

But your USEF status is either Ammy or Pro, so you still have to pick which set of rules you want abide by and show under.

The “Open” designation just means Juniors and Ammies can also show in that class; it doesn’t give non-Amateur adults any extra leeway in defining their status.