USE Webinar on changing the AA rule

[conniemary]

@Knights_Mom

Allow amateurs to show via video rides they can do at home and submit. This hugely eliminates a huge proportion of expenses and it’s better for the horses. They could put caps on it if they wanted to if they are worried about it.

Aside from the re-filming and drug issues, online competition doesn’t level the playing field because you need access to an appropriate dressage arena.

[Knights_Mom]

@conniemary

@Knights_Mom

Allow amateurs to show via video rides they can do at home and submit. This hugely eliminates a huge proportion of expenses and it’s better for the horses. They could put caps on it if they wanted to if they are worried about it.

Aside from the re-filming and drug issues, online competition doesn’t level the playing field because you need access to an appropriate dressage arena.

Lower level tests are done in a short court. It does level the playing field because even if you have to trailer to a nearby place to video it still is faster and cheaper than hauling to a show.

[BigMama1]

@Mersidoats

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).

These all sound very reasonable

[MHM]

@Mersidoats

Biggest proposed changes: allow amateurs to do barn duties (non-riding)

That isn’t really much of a change, is it? Amateurs could already do barn work and groom and remain amateurs as long as they did not teach lessons or ride horses they don’t own.

I believe the only difference in that part of the new rule change proposal is it would allow amateurs to lunge horses they don’t own.

[Peggy]

@MHM

@Mersidoats

Biggest proposed changes: allow amateurs to do barn duties (non-riding)

That isn’t really much of a change, is it? Amateurs could already do barn work and groom and remain amateurs as long as they did not teach lessons or ride horses they don’t own.

I believe the only difference in that part of the new rule change proposal is it would allow amateurs to lunge horses they don’t own.

The trick is that you couldn’t groom, etc. and get paid if you ever intended to sit on a horse that the person paying you owned (even a lesson horse) or was paid to train (hacking a friend’s horse who rides with the same trainer).

[Peggy]

Here’s a link to the USEF webpage with links to the webinar—PDF of PPT, and video: https://www.usef.org/network/coverage/2020webinar/

What I haven’t found us a link to the survey they referred to during the webinar.

[Cowgirl]

I listened to it too. One of the things it does is remove the $300 cap on amateur horse related work. There is not going to be monitoring of the 20 hours of pro sponsored teaching. There is not going to be monitoring of amateurs being brand ambassadors vs. sponsored. They are going to define family (regarding the situation of those who have family members who have amateurs ride horses). They are going to review whether certain officials (like judges) can be amateurs (probably, yes). I don’t fundamentally have problems with these things, just with the assumptions that the reasons that their amateur members are shrinking is because amateurs need to work in the horse show industry in order to afford to show and that amateurs need to earn livings as social media influencers and brand ambassadors to bring new people into the sport. I don’t really think these rules are a solution to that. I personally think the amateur/open distinction is part of a broken system and they need to get rid of it and start all over again to try and level the playing field for people. I can only imaging that expanding the definition of an amateur will legitimize the “shamateurs” and cause more true amateurs to leave the sport. So I don’t see this as an answer and I don’t understand the rush to push these 5 rule changes through. This isn’t going to bring more paying members into the sport.

I predict that this will cause a number of people to seek to get their amateur status restored. I wonder if they have any numbers to share that would validate why we need these emergency rule changes–how many members have we lost over the last few years? What work has been done to determine the cause of this membership loss? How much money will the pros make off of supervising these teaching amateurs and what will they be required to do to supervise? Will these amateurs be allowed to ride their beginner student’s horses, or does the pro have to do the riding? What about the tax aspect? Is the amateur an employee of the pro because of the supervision aspect? Does the pro then have to issue a 990 (for income over $600 per year) to the amateur working for them? If the pro is supervising, truly, are they then liable for the amateur? What is the incentive for the pro to supervise the amateur if they don’t gain anything from it?

At what point then does the amateur become a pro?

[Manni01]

Reading this it turned out exactly as exspected…. Amazing improvement!!!

[Manni01]

@Cowgirl

I listened to it too. One of the things it does is remove the $300 cap on amateur horse related work. There is not going to be monitoring of the 20 hours of pro sponsored teaching. There is not going to be monitoring of amateurs being brand ambassadors vs. sponsored. They are going to define family (regarding the situation of those who have family members who have amateurs ride horses). They are going to review whether certain officials (like judges) can be amateurs (probably, yes). I don’t fundamentally have problems with these things, just with the assumptions that the reasons that their amateur members are shrinking is because amateurs need to work in the horse show industry in order to afford to show and that amateurs need to earn livings as social media influencers and brand ambassadors to bring new people into the sport. I don’t really think these rules are a solution to that. I personally think the amateur/open distinction is part of a broken system and they need to get rid of it and start all over again to try and level the playing field for people. I can only imaging that expanding the definition of an amateur will legitimize the “shamateurs” and cause more true amateurs to leave the sport. So I don’t see this as an answer and I don’t understand the rush to push these 5 rule changes through. This isn’t going to bring more paying members into the sport.

I predict that this will cause a number of people to seek to get their amateur status restored. I wonder if they have any numbers to share that would validate why we need these emergency rule changes–how many members have we lost over the last few years? What work has been done to determine the cause of this membership loss? How much money will the pros make off of supervising these teaching amateurs and what will they be required to do to supervise? Will these amateurs be allowed to ride their beginner student’s horses, or does the pro have to do the riding? What about the tax aspect? Is the amateur an employee of the pro because of the supervision aspect? Does the pro then have to issue a 990 (for income over $600 per year) to the amateur working for them? If the pro is supervising, truly, are they then liable for the amateur? What is the incentive for the pro to supervise the amateur if they don’t gain anything from it?

At what point then does the amateur become a pro?

This the best post in this Thread IMO

[MHM]

@Peggy

The trick is that you couldn’t groom, etc. and get paid if you ever intended to sit on a horse that the person paying you owned (even a lesson horse) or was paid to train (hacking a friend’s horse who rides with the same trainer).

But did they actually say that aspect would change during the webinar? Here’s the relevant slide they showed during that portion.

The only explicit change I see is that now lunging is included on the list of things an amateur is allowed to do for pay.

[endlessclimb]

@Mersidoats

teach introductory lessons at their home barn and supervised by the head trainer (up to 20 hours a week)

I’d love to teach up-downs on my old man horse (and have been asked by many if I would and I always decline), but we don’t have a “head trainer”. I have my trainer come to my barn, but it’s not her “headquarters”. I wonder how that situation would apply.

[Mersidoats]

They are basically saying that anyone who would do this needs to track their hours and have someone sign off - barn owner, trainer, etc - someone who can vouch that you only taught up-downs and only at your home barn. Maybe in your case, the barn owner could sign off on your hours. Or the manager. That way if someone challenges your status with USEF, you have a witness and documentation to back it up.

Regarding a question above, the are going to leave the issues of payment and defining “introductory lessons” to the individual barns based on discipline. So if the barn wants to pay you under the table, that’s their problem, not USEF. My guess is that whenever you go beyond 20 hours and start teaching more intermediate skills (I dunno, a cross rail lesson, or anything beyond intro level in dressage), coaching at shows, or being paid to train a horse: then you are a pro. This will let the amateurs teach summer camps, baby beginners, etc - the things many trainers don’t really want to do. A lot of these type of lessons get farmed out to teenagers or college kids - I’d rather have an adult with fully developed frontal lobes in these situations.

Removing the $300 cap would be awesome. I work three jobs, two of which I hate, in order to afford my horses. If I could dump a couple and substitute that income with horsey income, I’d be thrilled.

[trubandloki]

@Mersidoats

They are basically saying that anyone who would do this needs to track their hours and have someone sign off - barn owner, trainer, etc - someone who can vouch that you only taught up-downs and only at your home barn. Maybe in your case, the barn owner could sign off on your hours. Or the manager. That way if someone challenges your status with USEF, you have a witness and documentation to back it up.

What if you are the barn owner?

Does this allow a barn owner to start an up-down program and still be an ammy?

[Mersidoats]

I think the distinction will be that you are not the barn owner. They don’t want ammies starting programs and buying farms and hanging shingles. They are okay with them participating in an established program supervised by someone. Again - they said this is still under development.

[trubandloki]

@Mersidoats

I think the distinction will be that you are not the barn owner. They don’t want ammies starting programs and buying farms and hanging shingles. They are okay with them participating in an established program supervised by someone. Again - they said this is still under development.

But does the new rule say this?
And why not the barn owner? You can be a barn owner and still be an ammy now. If doing up - down lessons allows you to be an ammy then why does doing something else that allows you to be an ammy in combination make it not OK?

Or how about those that board at a barn (so they are not the barn owner) that does not have any lesson program at all and they do some up - down level lessons for other boarders?

[CobJockey]

@trubandloki

But does the new rule say this?
And why not the barn owner? You can be a barn owner and still be an ammy now. If doing up - down lessons allows you to be an ammy then why does doing something else that allows you to be an ammy in combination make it not OK?

Or how about those that board at a barn (so they are not the barn owner) that does not have any lesson program at all and they do some up - down level lessons for other boarders?

It doesn’t say anything about buying farms. It does say you have to be supervised, so that would likely exclude the boarder in your last example (there would be no pro there to supervise).

[MHM]

@CobJockey

It does say you have to be supervised, so that would likely exclude the boarder in your last example (there would be no pro there to supervise).

I got the impression that the idea of being supervised was so that there would be someone to verify that the amateur was not going over the 20 hour a week cap.

The whole idea seems pretty problematic to me, really. The trainers who are already either letting or helping their shamateurs break the rules are certainly not going to worry about the 20 hour a week limit.

[Mersidoats]

They go over this distinction in the webinar.

[Janet]

@trubandloki

But does the new rule say this?

They didn’t present the actual proposed wording of the rule (which they probably haven’t even agreed on yet), just the general concept.

As always, the devil will be in the details and the wording.

[Peggy]

They did not explicitly state that performing the listed items and getting paid for them while riding horses without pay would be allowed under the new rule, but I assumed it from the context and the fact that the slides weren’t the actual wording of the rules. But I could be wrong.

The current rule’s use of “AND” in caps has always meant to be that you could not do these things and get paid if you also wanted to hack even the very occasional horse for free. But I could be wrong. The screen shot below is on the list of things that make you a pro.

Grooming is on the list of things you can currently do while remaining an amateur, but you can’t get paid if you also act as a trainer or instructor. Again, that coupled with the above rule, is what has meant you can’t be paid to groom if you also ride or teach. The screen shot below is on the list of things that keep you an amateur.

But it would definitely be worth clarifying all this.