So me using your own language is telling you to f off? Interesting. Perhaps you should pick your words more carefully in the future then, MVP.
additionally my entire point in my first post and in my response is that a position of envy is hardly to best place to be grousing about how the rules force you to ride against someone who is better than you so the rules should be changed. That’s nonsense.
But that is not what the USEF does. Their original name was the American Horse Shows Association and horse shows remain their focus. They say, “Here is what we offer. Here are the rules. Join or not, as you wish.”
And, once again for the OP, hunters are judged on the horse. Put LM on a poor stylist and she’s not going to win, either.
I am wondering what sort of amateur rules people are envisioning to enforce the concept of fair play. Separate divisions for horses based on their purchase price? Based on rider income? Based on past winnings? Based on previous experience? It seems as if the pie would end up being sliced into a million tiny pieces. And then what happens at a smaller show, when there are not enough exhibitors to run all those different amateur sections? They would all end up being combined and showing together anyway.
I know someone who was a very successful rider, and won a lot in her day. She is 82 years old now. Should she still have to show in the open divisions because she has had too much past success to be an amateur?
I think the problem is less that all amateurs (income bracket, experience etc as you mention) have to show together. As I said earlier - this is the big leagues and it should be. The problem is that the amateur rules as they stand exponentially increase the problem that you must be rich to ride and win.
The amateur rules take an already unfair sport and then make a division where you explicitly not allowed to horse show unless you’ve purchased the horse you are riding, paid all your show bills yourself, didn’t do a single barn chore to offset training fees (or have never accepted an extra ride from your trainer - you may pick your poison here), and you have never once accepted any money for riding someone’s rehab case at a walk or teaching a neighbor’s kid how to post the trot. So the rich are relatively unbothered because they have plenty of horses to ride but the less wealthy have to navigate a web of rules regarding who’s horses, when, and under what circumstances they are allowed to ride. If you cannot afford this route you cannot show in the amateurs. Period. You may be able to borrow a horse to show in the adults and cut some costs, but you are actually explicitly told that you are not wealthy enough to be allowed in the AO ring.
That’s the problem.
I agree that is not what USEF does. This is a USHJA responsibility. I truly believe they need to work on their value proposition for the amateur rider if they want to keep their membership numbers and prevent attrition. USHJA is aware that they need to consider the needs of the amateur riders, but the question is, what are they planning to do about it? What if the amateur riders started bailing? I don’t think “join or not, as you wish” is a great strategy for growth or for future success when the biggest piece of the pie is the amateur rider.
"During a state of the association speech USHJA president Mary Babick asked a simple question: Who are we serving in our association? She flipped to the next slide to illustrate the answer, showing a bar graph that demonstrated that 17,236 members identify as amateurs, 12,182 as juniors and 7,561 as professionals.
“We’re mostly serving amateurs,” she pointed out. "And they’re our most underserved group of members. Juniors are in the middle, our second largest group. And we need more juniors to get more amateurs, of course. Our smallest group is the professionals.
“We have to start considering the needs of our amateurs, and if we don’t I think we’re super foolish,” she continued.
"
And that particular issue has, interestingly enough, been resolved differently in jumpers than hunters — there’s now “amateur jumper” divisions at the same heights as the AOs, and at least at some shows I’ve been to, they end up combined anyway. You still have the “why in the world should the horse’s financing mechanism determine what division you show in” issue, but at least there’s not a ceiling to how high you can jump if you don’t own your horse. Any idea why there’s not a similar approach in the hunter ring? It’s the same governing body, after all…
USHJA is a subset of USEF. They can do nothing on their own.
I think it’s a fair question about whether the amateur rules and divisions serve the sport or not, and if they can be better written, but I also think it’s okay that you have to be amazing to win at WEF, the most prestigious circuit on the continent. And no question having money and no real life job, and for that matter no kids, makes it way easier to do well on that circuit. I’m fine with that.
Having smaller, local circuits where the less moneyed and less single-minded of us can ride horses safely and get a sense of accomplishment is really fine. Truth is, even if I were competitive, and even if I had the funds, I cannot leave my home for a month or more and go to Florida. Or heck, even merely to Thermal. Props to those of you who have lives that allow that, from where you chose to live to your personal finances. But changing the definition of Amateur (or say having Maiden, Novice, and Limit classes) wouldn’t really make it more accessible.
This is a great point - regardless of the definition, the people who are wealthy and can compete with the top will still compete with the best of the best and still do quite well! Even if the “rules changed” someone will ALWAYS be right on the fringe of “too good,” like the kid who is just one point away from qualifying, or the kid who has 5/6 blues on the flat but none O/F so can still show in Maiden and beat the pants off the other kids. Or, my personal favorite, the NCAA scholarship riders who come home for the summer and show in adult classes against us regular sacks of potatoes in the adult medals (LOL!!) which creates a challenge of accessibility for any of us who find ourselves in the middle of the pack.
Rules are rules, and competition is competition. When this unnamed A/O doesn’t ride anymore, there will be another. It is what keeps competition interesting and IMHO makes striving to be better all the more fun!
My guess is there is more of a need to prove hunters as amateur or junior safe. Hunters are very difficult to market to average amateurs or juniors without some ammy/jr experience on their record. I guess it opens the door for illegitimate amateurs showing in the interest of the owners more so than in the jumpers. Still, it could go either way in either ring.
There was some discussion about this division at the recent USHJA meeting in Tampa. Apparently there are some amateurs who have gotten a little casual about whether they actually own the horses they show when they do the AO classes. So now the question is how to determine if they really own the horses, or just “own” the horses on paper.
And so, the rule book keeps getting thicker.
Making classes available to riders who don’t own their horses opens up opportunities for fancy riders to take catch rides that are to benefit the horse or the horse’s owner, but IMHO it’s much more important that they open up opportunities to take catch rides, or lease rides, or pity/friendship rides, that benefit the rider.
When I aged out, back in the dark ages, there were really no opportunities for non-amateur adults to ride in classes below 3’6" even on our local circuits, other than throwaway classes like Warm-Up Hunters. It’s wonderful IMHO that that has changed. By contrast, in eventing and dressage Amateur status is really just icing for certain awards and championships… adults mostly all compete together and/or we have the Rider restriction for eventing that is meant to be an experience marker.
@poltroon Mostly I want to say that I respect most everything you have to say. Even in those instances where I don’t entirely agree, I think you’re very considerate and informed. So - Thank you!
IMHO, you are completely correct to note that we’re talking about the most competitive circuit in the hunter world - WEF. The OP is considering showing at WEF against the very best of the best. It’s not “sandbagging” (as another comment brilliantly said) if you’re doing it against the best. This isn’t an example of the best amateur hunter rider showing up at some minor show to pad points. This is the best competing against the best, and I for one think it’s awesome that other riders have a chance to see where they stack up in this field. Not everyone can qualify for Devon or indoors so having these top circuits gives everyone a chance (even for one weekend) to do their best against the best. That’s a very cool thing about our world. Now, I wish WEF was more affordable and easier for the everyday amateur to trailer into for a weekend, but if you can overcome the logistics than it really is a remarkable opportunity. I think the OP should give it a chance and report back on the experience. I bet he/she feels diff about the fairness issue after seeing how hard it is to win at WEF. Instead of complaining or resenting LM they might end up respecting how hard it is to do what she’s doing.
@MHM Yikes - the thought of a thicker rule book has me reaching a Scotch! (And I stopped drinking years ago!)
I’ve said this before, but my mother showed in her youth, which was quite a while ago. The rule book in those days was tiny. Hardly more than a pamphlet. But people kept thinking up new loopholes, and the rule book kept getting thicker as a result, until it turned into the honking big thing that lands in the mailbox every year like an oversized salt block.
I will add that my grandfather was the one who came up with the idea of marking the rule changes in the new rule book each year. Before that, if you wanted to know which rules had changed, you had to do a line by line comparison between the previous and current rule book. Now it’s much easier to see what’s different. Thanks, Grandpa!! 
The flip side of the issue is the shamatuer who would not accept a cent for riding/training/teaching but would ride evey horse in the barn that was for sale. It happens now in the adults. That’s why they added the rule for only showing one horse that didn’t belong to the amateur if you’re in the a/o a few years ago. Many a/o riders would ride their own horse in the division, and then ride other horses that didn’t belong to them on behalf of their owners. Open up amateur divisions to non owned horses and you have a new set of complaints.
Actually you can do barn chores a plenty and still be an amateur. Clean stalls, barn manage, medicate, wrap to your heart’s content. And get paid to do so. Just don’t swing your leg over any horse that is boarded at said barn. It’s not that hard.
Where would you draw the line at riding and teaching? It’s fuzzy enough as it is with the camp counselor rule, which is completely abused. Number of lessons per month? Speed at which you’re riding? It becomes impossible to manage.
The wealthy will always be wealthy. 1% of our country owns 90% of our weath. Solving That problem would better solve the amateur problem than anything else. But given who is in charge, no one but the top 1% matter. I digress with politics, but it’s true.
I had to laugh. When I read this post, the ad that popped up below it was for a jewelry store set up at WEF. Very apropos. :lol:
Very true. And, if instigated, how much is it going to cost to police the records and monitor the in gates to insure rider is in the correct division? USEF is a hobby club, not law enforcement or the IRS scruitinizing tax records, they have no jurisdiction and members are not willing to pay more for PIs or even additional stewards to keep those that are " too good" out of the ring.
The sport is very accessible now. Winning, not so much, that will always be the best in the opinion of the judge with no background check, audit or resume required. Pro activity can and should be reported, of course.
Far as NCAA scholarship riders in Adult medals? USEF does not regulate many of those even if held at USEF rated shows. You could contact those organizers and see if they would be willing to restrict them for the very few of those riders doing that…but be careful what you wish for as that would likely trickle down to any taking advantage of any college assistance in return for riding regardless of level.
BTW, never went to WEF, was asked by trainer to consider it for a month, likely competitive in the pastel ranges with a terrific trip. Priced it out, had the money that year but chose not to dump it for a pink ribbon or two and a month of back and forth travel every week. Never regretted it, went down to spectate every few years instead. Probably did more to elevate my riding then chasing the pink ribbon.
Ah but here’s the problem with your first scenario. That individual is NOT a shamateur. She’s a legitimate amateur as per our lovely set of rules. Unless you meant to say her entries are paid at the horse show but she could just be riding for free at home which means she has enough money to pay her entries on the weekend. Completely allowed.
Yes, you can do barn chores. But it becomes much harder to turn down rides when you can’t afford your own horse and you would love to ride anything. Even more so if you ride well enough that the offers come often. Is it fair to tell that amateur that she can’t progress and learn? Only the rich can get extra saddle time?
Riding and teaching is definitely hard. Putting the line somewhere in the grey area is impossible to enforce. But think about the actual basis definition of professional vs amateur. Professionals make their living riding and teaching, amateurs make their living elsewhere. That’s overly simplified and there’s plenty of people who do both - but at it’s core that is what the definition is. By our current rules an individual who spends 40 hours a week in an office, teaches some up-down lessons, but is a very untalented rider herself is a professional. She’s not allowed to show in the amateurs because that wouldn’t be fair to the REAL amateurs who ride multiple horses a day, 6 days a week are actively involved in buying and selling their own horses, could be showing in the grand prixs/hunter derbies etc. I mean come on. The consequences of the amateur rule is so far from the actual purpose behind it that it’s laughable. Yes, those are extreme circumstances but less glaring examples of this happen every day. The difference between amateur and pro is the difference between showing on a Saturday or a Wednesday… the difference between showing and not showing for anyone who works a day job (which would be anyone who falls in the amateur category by the simplified definition of “where do you make your living?”)
I don’t know what the solution is but I do know that our current set of rules only makes sense to the 1%. I totally agree with your last thought!
I hear this argument a lot, but don’t think it’s as big a hindrance as many people say it is. The truth is that barn work pays about the same as any number of hourly wage jobs, and there’s absolutely nothing to stop you from earning your extra pocket money outside of the horse industry if you wish to compete as an amateur, instead of accepting it to teach your neighbor’s kid how to trot. I feel like this is essentially an argument for allowing people who wish to be professionals in the horse industry to compete in the amateur divisions.
I of course get that the up-down lesson-giver may not be a world beating competitor. But, as long as we’re going to have a definition of amateurism based on where you earn your income, it really is not that hard to separate your hobby from your income-generating activities. It’s not like barn work is so much more remunerative than any other option that it’s the only way to make money.
If you never accept money for doing work related to horses, the rules are infinitely easier to navigate, and do allow quite a lot of catch-riding of various sorts. If you want to work in the horse industry–as a bookkeeper, as a groom, as a braider–then I think it is reasonable to make it more difficult for you to compete as an amateur. And, even if you do those sorts of jobs, you can still compete, if you jump through the appropriate hoops.
The arguments around the existence of the A/O divisions are, of course, different and interesting.
Mary Babick’s commentary reminded me of nothing so much as a person yelling FIRE while Nero (aka USHJA/USEF) fiddled away…
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
