Printable View
The list I included in my post is straight from the USEF rulebook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Linny
"travel, hotel, room and board or equipment.
Horse board, prize money, partial support or objects of more than $300 are considered remuneration"
But 'Partial Support' is certainly vague and you make a good point about the value of a lesson package.
The USEF counts a $299 set of Pikeurs as "not remuneration" but, "here's $299, go get yourself that set of Pikeurs you've been eyeing as "yes, remuneration." Is it arbitrary? Sure, but they can define remuneration for USEF purposes how they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Linny
If anyone is going to call lessons "remuneration", then anytime you a on a horse receiving instruction for which ou have not paid, you are a pro. This would include, presumably, the fifteen minutes of coaching you get before riding someone's sale horse around the 3' adults. I mean, the other 3' adult rider from that barn riding her own horse has to pay show coaching for that same thing, and you are getting it for free. And it would be ridiculous to have catch riding coaching at a show not count as a lesson but riding the same horse at home be a lesson vis a vis "remuneration".
Unless you want to start on the slope of "what's a lesson?" and potentially have every catchriding Amy who receives one word of advice ringside be disqualified, the only internally consistent interpretation is just, "receiving instruction of any kind is not disqualifying."
Nothing "sadly" about it IMHOQuote:
Originally Posted by mvp
The "spirit of the rule' is to separate "those who pay" from "those who get paid". Nothing to do with "good enough to get paid".Quote:
So here's an opportunity to get deeper into the spirit of the law, which is the thing anyone needs to know in order to follow it.
If you go back to the time when the rule was written, it was mostly concerned with "those rich enough they don't need to get paid".
It has never been about "good enough" except in the eyes of those who finish second or less in an amateur restricted class.
There are clealy significant differences of opinion on "the rule's intention".Quote:
IMO, it's best to know the rule's intention and it's actual prose before any one of us starts trying to make deals regarding bartering with horse stuff.
It think it started off as "comprehensive", and was augmented in specifics based on particularly egregious cases that have come up (e.g., the "bookeeper case").Quote:
Originally Posted by Linny
The nature of the rule change process is that it is easier to add a new "specific" than to rewrite the whole rule- though it HAS been tried.
What "works" for one discipline may be a "deal breaker" for another discipline.
Can a groom who rides her own horse be paid in lessons and/or room/board by the trainer she works for in lieu of salary and still be considered an ammy? Assume that the groom never rides the trainer's or BO's horses or teaches lessons herself.
I feel like this board runs around in circles about ammy status all the time.
If you want to show in the ammys DON'T WORK IN THE HORSE INDUSTRY!!!!!!
:)
I have been teaching up down to beginner jumping lessons for 10 years. I am no where near as good as some of the people showing in AO. But rules are rules and if my horse and I ever get to the point of showing AOs and I want to do it I'll stop teaching lessons and go ammy. the end. I don't feel like the concept is that difficult to grasp- stupid maybe, but not difficult understand.
She would also need to not ride any horses belonging to boarders or clients. Or any other "non-amateur" activities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muggle Mom
But yes, if it would be "legit" with the BO paying money her for "other activities", it would still be "legit" with the the BO paying other forms of "remuneration" .
Thank you, Janet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Janet