Lol I’m level 10 on figuring that stuff out decades ago, it’s the annoying back and forth, back and forth while trying to find the rules that are relevant to my interests. I’ll just wait until I drag my laptop out of the suitcase after my recent trip
1 Like
I would have zero problems competing with rich riders. I already do. This is a nonsense rule which just makes AAs look like whiny crybabies. In every single competition ring I’ve ever been in there are people richer, often way way way richer than I as I was a working class rider. It’s OK. I’ll gladly compete against Jorst and she being so kind will invite me to lunch afterwards.
17 Likes
Yes 68 is arbitrary - or at least there is no explanation as to why that particular number. But that is true in all of the score requirements we have: what you need to qualify for regionals. what you need to qualify for bronze/silver/gold medals. what you need to be able to ride a freestyle at any particular level.
1 Like
The freestyle rule I get - a 6 means satisfactory. If you’re satisfying the requirements of the compulsory tests and getting 6/6.5 consistently for all movements, it makes sense that you are able to compile those elements into a freestyle.
If they want to make it hard and fast, it should be that as soon as you have an FEI ranking as an adult, you have to show open.
but the score required (1st thru 4th) is 63… Why not 64 or 62?
This was my thought. Why all the hubbub? “Elite AAs” are few and far between Now, do I think the likes of Alice Tarjan should be showing in Amateur classes at the lower levels? No I don’t. She can if she wants, but really, why wouldn’t she show in the Open division? It doesn’t hurt her AA status and does level the playing field. If I were an ammy and showing at the FEI international level, I would just ride in the Open classes at the local shows. YMMV
5 Likes
Well it makes me wonder if there is a link here to the other conversation about what is killing recognized showing. Horses have become so expensive to keep, to train and to show that people ARE making decisions not to compete if they don’t have a chance at winning and particularly if they already have their medal(s). And please hold the lectures about just “competing against yourself”–when it gets really expensive and you have no chance to win, your better buy is a ride-a-test in front of a local recognized judge (or a lesson for that matter) rather than a horse show. Didn’t they also just add a “fan” category of membership (or is that something proposed) too? I am reading into some recent proposed rule changes (and may be totally off base), including the posting one, that there are some trying to keep people included without fundamentally changing anything important.
4 Likes
The fan membership has existed for several years for USEF at least. It gave them a way to cover the livestreaming and replay of events they were hosting.
1 Like
For FEI events there is an App where you have to enter temps 2x daily for horses competing starting 3 days prior to arrival on the grounds and continue through the competition. It can be checked by officials and vets (and the FEI will fine you if you don’t put the temps in). Something like that wouldn’t be hard to create. The rider, owner, or groom can put in the temps for the horse. Is it a pain in the butt? A little bit…but it’s totally manageable to use…says someone who’s an FEI groom and just got the AM temp to put into the app for an event this coming week 
1 Like
So that means you are required to have a smartphone?
Oh, you can certainly have an app on the phone or a card on the stall all day long.
I see what you did there. 
4 Likes
Yes. It will be the smallest expense you ever had when it comes to showing horses.
8 Likes
Except for carrots. Lol.
1 Like
Speak for yourself. My carrot bill is enormous…
1 Like
Maybe the rich (or, rather, well-horsed and enjoying the possibility of riding 40 hours/week) person looks like the douche because they want to reserve the right to take ribbons from the Proletariate just by showing up. I mean, is anyone really fighting to keep an unfair advantage that they happen to have at present? How is that a good look for anyone?
I don’t think you can/should shame either side into accepting a rule that isn’t scrupulously fair to all. And if you are good sportsman and competitor, you will want the playing field to be as level as possible so that your win means something legitimate.
Also, on the proposition that this is “punishing” the very-able “professional amateur.” I wouldn’t see this rule in terms of taking away an advantage of this group or that one. Rather, look at this as a change that might need to be made in order to keep horse shows large enough to stay solvent and running. We just had a whole thread about what is killing recognized shows. Lots and lots of people make the (economically-rational) point that they can find other things to do with their time and money than to devote a weekend to competing where scores or ribbons (less so) are out of reach for them because of the horse they rode in on. That’s not healthy for a sport.
1 Like
Just wondering what this separate division some of you clammed for will do to local shows. Another division means more ribbons and prizes out of the budget. So many of you seem to forget that the rider awards don’t care who you rode against or even if you got a ribbon. Neither do breed awards.
Sounds like some of you want a division for “ladies over 50 riding non-warmbloods” and the like.
Shall we become like the Arabs with their many many different divisions?
I ride against some of those talented and rich AAs. One local woman has a stable of about 5 quality horses and it seems a trainer on retainer. Oh well. . My last PSG was something around 56%…… Bravo was not interested in playing the game. My new horse (18 months ago) seems so anxious I do not know if we will ever get into the arena successfully. (Schooling show 3rd level resulted in a 48. Sold to me as a GP horse. He knows the tricks. But……)
Onward.
And no, I do not support the proposal.
2 Likes
And cell phone service at the venue, which is not always the case.
5 Likes
This AA rule is so so much more vague than the current USEF one. I suspect the FEI is setting guideposts for the NF’s to make their own amateur rules and licenses. I believe in most of the world, the AA category is a foreign concept and not something there is a big infrastructure or existing rules for.
I also hate that (as I read it) Susie Q Public School Teacher or Nurse can only earn say $40k in the horse world before losing her amateur status (‘most’ of her income from the horses) while other lawyer/doctor/international jewelry brand owner AAs could earn $100k++ buying and selling horses provided they were earning more at another job? What about if you get more funding from generational wealth/trust fund than you make from horse selling?
I also noticed that they included breeding as something that could lose amateur status, as well as buying and selling horses (regardless of who owns them, from the sound of it?)
I’ve long thought we need to do away with the AA division and make ‘rider’ divisions like eventing has - you can compete in the ‘rider’ division if you haven’t shown more than one level above (or don’t have X medal?) in the last 5 years. Objective measurement, no grey area, and allowing good AAs to teach a few lessons or ride a few horses on the side could greatly increase the availability of affordable entry level lessons, and allow middle class people more options to fund their horse journey.
17 Likes
