Unlimited access >

USE Webinar on changing the AA rule

I concur.

Discussing it here on the BB is all well and good. But if you are USEF members, now would be the time to send your input to the powers that be ahead of the webinar.

1 Like

That is missing the point of my post. FWIW, my scores weren’t bad (low 60s with a 59 here and there), but I knew something was missing so I did go back to my training and took two years off showing, and you’re right that was part of it. But also for every show I went to I plugged my scores into where I would have placed in the AA division, and I would have placed higher almost every time, plus the scores for qualifying are softer for AAs.

Just making the point that in order to keep Doing the Thing (and affording that training) I stayed a pro and accepted my lower placings, but you can bet if I could have stayed an AA, I would have chosen that.

2 Likes

Cob yes you touch on a point. I scribed a TON. I remember , clearly, that one judge I sat with was hugely preoccupied, in an open class, if a rider was a pro or not.

I could not honestly tell her as many of the people were not well known to me.

1 Like

Yes, I was making two separate points in the above post and speaking about the general you, not entirely about your experience.

@hoopoe Do you remember why the judge needed to know if a rider was pro in the open division? Is this information judges are given upfront? I honestly do not know.

I had no idea what her preoccupation was. I cannot remember if the day sheets showed classification of the rider. It would have been fox village so I think they did.

My assumed take away is that she was holding pros to a different criteria standard.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. How in the heck do you address that?

And is it fair to make someone who legitimately works a full-time corporate or professional or other type of non-horsey job state her income just so she can show at say, PSG? And how would it keep Susie Whomever who works as a pediatric dentist (for example), from having to compete against someone like Jorst who has MILLIONS of $$$ at her disposal and doesn’t really have to work? (And no, I am not picking on Jorst, but her name is one that keeps coming to the fore when these topics get discussed.)

I am not sure it is going to be very easy to come up with a solution that makes everyone happy but I am glad they are at least going to try to figure something out.

1 Like

I really think the best solution is not to find a new arbitrary line to draw between pro and amateur, but instead to separate classes, qualifications, etc by criteria that have nothing to do with your income source.

The CBLM Championships split divisions by whether the rider has competed two levels above or not. For example: “Training Level and First Level Finals for Senior/YR riders will consist of two divisions: a) riders who have not competed at or above Third Level at an USEF licensed show, and b) riders who have competed at or above Third Level at an USEF licensed show.” (http://www.cblm.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/21CBLMRules.pdf).

In eventing, there is technically an amateur division but the more commonly used divisions (at least in Area II) are Horse, Rider, and Open. The Rider division is: “Open to competitors who have not completed an event above the next highest level in the 5 years preceding the date of the competition, e.g. a Novice Rider may have completed an event at Training level, but not Modified or Preliminary level or higher in the 5 years preceding the date of the competition.” Horse is similar but without the 5-year cut-off.

This would be so much simpler than policing people’s income sources (no loopholes possible–either your show record reveals you have competed at whatever higher level, or it doesn’t) and would allow for more accurate division between ability level / experience, which should be the whole point, right? I say this as an amateur who has competed up to Grand Prix, so I would not benefit from the new system but I still think it would be better.

22 Likes

That sounds much more reasonable that trying to police income sources with the assumption that everyone will be honest.

Heck, I am not telling any of them how much I make. They would laugh and then spend all day wondering how I afford to eat myself, let alone feed my horse.

10 Likes

I’m about to retire, so I would be in the same boat! Not that I show - or even ride anymore!

:laughing:

I don’t recall the subject of separating divisions by income has ever come up anywhere other than in places like this BB discussion.

2 Likes

Just in case there’s anyone here who does not know the history.

Some years back there was an “amateur” who was employed at a barn as a “bookkeeper.” Except that she actually spent all day riding and showing horses that did not belong to her. Maybe she also did the books at night, who knows? But her official job was doing the books, and she was getting paid for it, even though she spent all day on the horses.

When that situation came to light, it resulted in the much more convoluted rules about amateurs who cannot receive a paycheck from a barn in any capacity and still ride a horse there that does not belong to them.

2 Likes

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What about a blog that gets no compensation? How does that figure in the scenario?

1 Like

So what??? Did she beat millions of rich AAs who worked all day but never had the time to ride their expensive horses ??

Yes!! Thank you!!

I can’t see a way that it would, although I’m curious to know what you’re thinking. If having a non-monetized blog made you a pro, so would posting about your rides on other types of social media.

1 Like

As if amateurs weren’t disadvantaged enough, let’s make it tougher! I know a number of people who diary/blog their experiences

3 Likes

Whether she beat anyone else or not, she was still breaking the rule that said amateurs are not allowed to get paid to ride. She was getting paid to ride via subterfuge with a fake job title.

6 Likes

Why would that make you a pro? The line drawn is about compensation. Monetary or above a significant value.