The main advantage I see is that the orgs (USEF, USDA, etc.) could rake in more $$$ with little effort.
2 Likes
This is fine. It gives folks options. I’m sure in time technology will permit drug testing with DNA testing to overcome this.
And with everyone allowed to send in their best tests you at least judge to full capability. I had a friend do this in western dressage and you’d be surprised that things still go wrong LOL
Besides, does it really matter at training or 1st level if a gimpy horse isn’t gimpy that day?
Are you serious? Of course it does. Competing a lame horse is shameful. This is the problem with no drug testing, a problem that also raises its ugly head with schooling shows. No oversight to protect the horses. Maybe you’re being facetious; I hope so.
6 Likes
I’ve been to many training level classes and not once was my horse tested. Nor at 1st or 2nd.
That is what I was referring to, not competing a horse with a broken leg for Pete’s sake.
I’ve never competed an unsound horse but folks do all the time. I don’t think that’s an issue here for low level online classes.
I am being facetious but we also all know horses who have minor issues and get supplements for that issue but a rainy day makes things not as smooth.
With online entries the rider can film on a dry, warm, feet feeling good day.
First of all, it is not the “AA rule” (AA (Adult Amateur) is a discipline specific class name used (differently) in Dressage and Hunter/Jumper). The rule that is the subject of the webinar is the Amateur Rule (GR1306), which applies to ALL disciplines.
Second, the Amateur rule (or the Dressage AA Class specification) DOES NOT exclude “people with less money” from attending shows. (The COST OF COMPETING excludes “people with less money” from COMPETING at shows).
The Amateur rule MAY make it harder for SOME people (with less money) from competing AS AMATEURS.
The supposition is that there are a large number of people that CAN (only) afford to compete with supplemental riding related income that makes them “not an amateur”.
I think it is actually a rather small number of people. I think there are a largish number of people who can only afford to compete with supplemental income from non-horse-related source (they can compete as Amateurs)
There is a MUCH LARGER number of people who would like to compete, but can’t afford it even with supplemental income (whether or not horse-related).
I think that MOST people who use horse-related supplemental income to afford to compete could find supplemental income that was NOT horse-related instead.
The third point is " why does Amateur status matter"? I am primarily an eventer and, at least around here (I am in Area II which is basically the mid-Atlantic), separate Amateur divisions/classes for Eventing are rarely offered. There is a separate Amateur Leaderboard (but I do not compete often enough for the leader board to matter, even if I pinned every time out), and separate Amateur divisions at the AECs (American Eventing Championships).
It is the structures built by the individual discipline that make Amateur status more or less important.
If you want that to change, you need to work with the discipline committee and Affiliate to change the way Amateur status is used. In this case, Dressage, you need to work with the USDF and the USEF Dressage committee.to change the way USEF Amateur status is used in DRESSAGE. That will have much more impact on most of your concerns than changes to GR1306.
10 Likes
I’ve been to a show with a friend riding 2 horses at 1st and 2nd, and both of them got tested. If you’re not selected for testing, you might not even notice the testers.
3 Likes
I apologize 
. I misunderstood the title of the thread… I wasn’t aware that the expectation was who argues best why changes are not possible…
sorry for the unwanted interruption…… and congratulation for all your great arguments!!!
I did an online (unrecognized of course, but useful feedback) test. You definitely have the advantage of riding at home and having do overs (I did not do this because I didn’t want to obsess over perfection 
). I didn’t even think of the drug testing stuff, which is a fair point, I think.
The thing that we sometimes forget too is that riding is a luxury. We aren’t entitled to riding or competitions. I’d love it, as a sport, to be more affordable, I’m just not sure how to get that done. Especially in the US. I haven’t competed there in ages because I haven’t lived on that side of the pond for quite some time now. So I am a bit out of touch I’m sure.
If the Amatuer thing was gone out of dressage, would it really be that much better?
1 Like
No, the people who want to b!tch and moan would just find something else to b*tch and moan about. It’s always the same people complaining…
9 Likes
I think there is some truth to this. When the Amatuer stuff goes away, then there is a whole new set of stuff to bitch about. 
It’s like, just show up, do your best, and be proud of your horse. Maybe I’m not competitive enough if my horse and I perform well, and win or get a placement, then that’s just a bonus. Otherwise it’s just another learning experience for me. A lot of money to spend, but it’s not a necessity and I made a choice to spend my money going around in a sandbox.
2 Likes
Just need to add a correction-the divisions are not AA and “Pro”. It’s AA and Open. AA is a sub set of all riders. All riders can compete in Open classes.
It’s not about being a professional rider. It’s about accepting remuneration in exchange for your work (as that work affects the equine world…. )
7 Likes
They only call you a cheater if you are breaking the rules and competing AA rather than in Open classes.
2 Likes
Wrong, in some cases people get called cheater even if they didn’t break the rules….
I doubt it, as it’s a recurring theme for this poster. Nobody is saying that if you choose to earn money from your hobby you can’t compete; you just can’t compete as an amateur.
In Canada about 25 years ago we briefly had a “non-pro” division, designed to keep those of us who led trail rides and taught a couple of weekly up down lessons out of the amateur division without making us compete against true professionals who made their primary living teaching and training. It added layers of complexity with little benefit and was quickly dropped. We went back to essentially the same definition of AA / pro as the USEF.
While I agree that it’s silly to lump people who strictly do admin work for a barn or stall mucking in with the pros, in general I think the current set up isn’t unreasonable, especially in a sport like dressage where your score is your score, regardless of how good or bad other people’s tests are.
But perhaps for some people it really is all about the placings / ribbons. So if they score a 65 and come first in a class of mediocre horses and riders, they feel successful, but if the same 65 puts them last in a class of excellent horses and riders they feel unsuccessful. To me it’s the same test and the same score either way.
2 Likes
they are NOT pros. Doing clerical work of barn work does not make you a pro, never has never will.
Being called a bookkeeper and then being given rides on 6 horses that your employer is paid to train, is where the rule kicks in. There were a long line of bookkeepers nannies, cooks, tutors and housekeepers who showed a lot of ammy horses for their employers
if the ammy rule is dumped, the hunter and jumper group will loose most of their division characteristics. They will have to come up with age and experience level sections.
Use to be you would see novice and limit classes which helped weed out some of the more experienced riders. I believe the definitions are still in the rule book and that some disciplines may still find it a valid way to divide participants.
6 Likes
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. Yes, I knew that. I meant lumping those who legitimately do just mucking or admin work in with pros doesn’t make sense, even if the intent is to prevent the situation you describe above.
I think the vast majority of those showing as AAs are genuine amateurs and the few shamateurs generally get reported pretty quickly. Not sure what rule change would prevent cheaters from cheating, unfortunately
I joined the webinar on my drive home. It was informative. Biggest proposed changes: allow amateurs to do barn duties (non-riding), teach introductory lessons at their home barn and supervised by the head trainer (up to 20 hours a week), and act as social media influencers or brand ambassadors (differentiated from sponsored athletes). They made some good arguments for this: let’s amateurs subsidize their showing and horse keeping costs/keeps them involved/allows barns to bring in new riders and grow the sport without over taxing the professionals.
Also proposed: shorter window for young adults (25 and under) to switch to amateur status, juniors age out after 21 regardless of discipline or breed (not 18).
14 Likes
I also listened and even took notes, but @Mersidoats hit all the important points. They also said that the webinar will be available on-demand shortly and that there will be a survey up shortly.
IMHO it all makes sense.
4 Likes
