Trainers’ Non Owner AA Amateur Riders

[Moneypitt]

Is it common to have trainers use non customer adult amateur riders to show their horses? A very skilled rider, who shows for various trainers, at numerous shows annually? Different trainers at different shows.

Usually, one-two hunters and sometimes one jumper per show. That’s within the AA rules, right? Say maybe the AA shows for 5-6 different trainers in the show year. Maybe shows 10-12 different horses. Lots of shows in the zone. Shows are never more than 1000 miles round trip from AA riders home.

According to my understanding of the rules, the AA pays their travel/lodging expenses to all of these shows? Do you think these trainers with the non owner, non customer AA rider, is allowed to keep a portion of prize money won?

Trying to understand how this works? Besides the AA having lots of nice horses to show they don’t own or lease. Seems the travel would be expensive.

[OnDeck]

AA has to pay everything. Travel, hotel, braiding, entries. AA cannot take any amount of prize money. Some will argue that AA must also pay training but I find that to be a little bit of a weak argument.

It’s possible the rider you are describing is within the rules. It’s very possible and somewhat likely that s/he’s not.

[Peggy]

Amateur Rule states the following in section 1306.3.i under permitted activities: “Accept reimbursement for any bona fide expenses directly related to the horse (i.e. farrier/vet bills, entries). Travel, hotel, equipment, and room and board are not considered bona fide expenses.” So you can be reimbursed for entries and presumably stabling at the show, but training is left up in the air.

This is from Chapter 13 of the USEF Rule Book.

[OnDeck]

I had never noticed that line in the rules. For years I’ve always heard and believed amateurs must pay their entries. I reread the rule and right under the line you quoted I found this.

“ j. Entries for non-under saddle classes in amateur sections at hunter, jumper or hunter/jumper competitions, must be paid either (i) directly to the competition by the Amateur or by the Amateur’s family or (ii) by someone whom the Amateur or the Amateur’s family reimburses within 90 days of the last day of the competition for which entries were paid.”

We really do need an amateur rule overhaul. This is a direct contradiction within two lines of each other. I guess the intent is that pro can reimburse AA for classes on the horse’s bill that AA did not show in?

[Peggy]

@OnDeck My understanding has been that amateur has to pay for the entries but can then be reimbursed. But that wouldn’t make sense with rule 1306.3.j that you quoted because why have the amateur or family reimburse whoever paid the entries, only to get re-reimbursed. Maybe the difference is that rule 1306.3.j refers specifically to amateur sections, whereas rule 1306.3.i does not, meaning that the amateur could get reimbursed for non-amateur classes, but not for amateur classes??? Confusing and definitely needs an overhaul.

[Moneypitt]

Are there USEF rules against amateurs getting prize money won at shows? I’m not aware of this? It makes me wonder if all of those sanctioned division classes offering money for amateur hunters, derby’s and jumpers go against these rules?

Thanks

[blondewithchrome]

Yes, actually. Unless they are the owner of the horse, the amateur rules state they cannot accept prize money.

Amateurs may:
“3D. Accept prize money as the owner of a horse in any class other than equitation or showmanship classes. Accept prize money in Dressage”

Below, the rules state you are a professional if you:
“e. Accepts prize money unless permitted in paragraph 3d or 3e above.”
Note that 3e says amateurs can accept a non monetary gift of $300 or less. So, a $250 bridle as a prize in the derby would work. A $1200 saddle would not.

[LilRanger]

@OnDeck

Entries for non-under saddle classes in amateur sections

The italics are mine, but this seems to only exclude in-hand classes from reimbursement. So that doesn’t seem to contradict the other rule, just modify it.

[dags]

@LilRanger

@OnDeck

Entries for non-under saddle classes in amateur sections

The italics are mine, but this seems to only exclude in-hand classes from reimbursement. So that doesn’t seem to contradict the other rule, just modify it.

Oh, now see, I read that entirely differently, and assumed it distinguished between hacks & O/F, cause owners can only hack one horse at a time & often need a second jockey & obviously would cover that jock’s entry fees.

Honestly, half of what USEF needs is just someone with a professional command of the language.

[Janet]

Rather than replying to individual posts, I will combine here.

First, prize money goes to the OWNER of the horse, not the trainer or rider. If the owner gives part of the prize money to the rider, that would make the rider a professional.

Second, in (and ONLY in) the Hunter and Jumper disciplines the RIDER must pay the entries for the jumping classes (That is what “non under saddle” means. “Hunter Under Saddle” is a non-jumping class).

In all the OTHER breeds and disciplines, someone else can pay the entries for both jumping and non-jumping classes.

I agree the wording could be clearer, but the intent was discussed extensively when the rule change was proposed.

[Moneypitt]

Thank you.

It just doesn’t make good sense to me then that a non owning, non leasing, non client ‘amateur rider’ is paying for all of those division classes at numerous shows and they are not being compensated. Just those costs and their travel expenses alone would equal thousands of dollars annually.

$275 does not begin to cover travel and hotel rooms costs, let alone entry fees for even one show.

I don’t get it? What’s in it for the rider?

Note: this is only observation and we are not competitors of the amateur, nor clients of the trainers. So no sour grapes. Just pure interest…

[GoodTimes]

What’s in it for the rider? Umm that they have a horse to show that they don’t have to own or lease.

[hoopoe]

@GoodTimes

What’s in it for the rider? Umm that they have a horse to show that they don’t have to own or lease.

plus the trainer gets a horse shown . A talented catch rider to show off sale horse to the ammy crowd perhaps.

I imagine there are those riders who have natural talent and busy lifestyle where weekend horse shows are their hobby without the work and expense of the other 5 days a week

[GoodTimes]

Exactly. Plus there are riders out there who own a retiree or a baby, or their horse was injured, but they would still like to show. Or they just sold their horse and still want to show while they’re shopping for the next one. Or they’re a University student or have a young family and don’t have the time or money to have a horse of their own at that level.

Or sometimes there are ammy’s who are chasing points but they can’t make it to a particular show so they ask a friend to ride for them, or they use their trainers trusted catch rider.

And there’s no denying that most people become better riders when they have the opportunity to sit their butts on different horses.
If the horse is nice enough there is usually a line up of people who would love the opportunity to show it.

[Moneypitt]

Is it within the AA rule guidelines to show three different hunter horse entires at the same show, if there are say two with the same trainer, both horses show in the same rated AA hunter division plus some other classes like hunter derbies and the third horse is with a different trainer, showing in non rated hunter divisions/classes? Think less than 20 classes all in. Looks like this was at a fairly recent AA rated show hundreds of miles from the riders home base.

[LilRanger]

See, I was wrong! Agreed that the language needs to be more clear.

[Scribbler]

I can’t see that distance matters.

I don’t think there is any rule that says you can’t ride multiple horses in one class.

The only thing here is that the ammie doesn’t own or lease the horse. You are wondering why the ammie would turn up to do the show completely on their own dime.

It’s true that most of us do not have the cash or free time to travel around the country and show. However, many ammies do, and incur the extra expense of owning or leasing, boarding, training the horse, tack, farrier, vet, and paying stall fees at the show, in addition to travel, hotel, and entry fees.

If the ammie can afford to show their own horse, they can certainly afford to show another horse. It’s perhaps unusual to have an ammie who has pro level skills, no interest in going pro, no horses of their own to campaign, and the cash and time to travel and show other horses. But I can’t see that they are breaking any rules.

I expect that the rider is well off financially and the costs are negligible to their budget. They don’t need an under the table refund from a trainer who is much much much poorer than them. They are having fun. It’s a hobby.

There could obviously be secret kickbacks. But if the rider is following the money rules then there is no problem.

[Moneypitt]

Thank you.

Distance only matters because of travel expenses.

Yes; I thought many of those same things wealthy, skilled rider adult, having some fun until I noticed the number of different trainers and numbers of horses involved. I don’t know?

I thought there is (or maybe there was) an AA rule about a limit on showing no more than two hunter horses and two jumper horses not owned by the AA exhibitor, at any show? Maybe no longer or may have been a zone rule?

[ghst13]

Are you thinking of the A/O Hunter rule? For AAs it wouldn’t apply unless there’s an additional Zone rule.

HU 137 Amateur Owner Hunter
2. An amateur who competes for a person outside of his/her family may not compete in a class restricted to Amateur Owners at the same competition. Exceptions:
a. Equitation classes,
b. Under Saddle classes,
c. and a maximum of one (1) horse not owned by the rider, or his/her family, in jumper sections and a maximum of one (1) horse not owned by the rider or his/her family in hunter sections, in classes not restricted to amateur owners. (For Amateur rules please see GR1306)

[Moneypitt]

Thank you.

It may have been a zone rule?

I recall another AA rider in the past who pretty much rode horses for one trainer, that may have exceeded the horses shown limit or something else and eventually declared themselves as professional.