Do you class yourself as a professional?

B

burtie

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 October 2003
Messages
4,335
Location
New Forest
Visit site
A show centre near me has recently restricted it's championship to amatuers only and have defined what they mean by this, now as I charge people to excerise/school their horses and do a bit of freelance teaching I suppose I am classed as a professional even though I don't really come under the list of things defined on the schudule.

So would you define youerself as a professional and why or why not?
 
I would not because my primary income is not made through horses. Actually non of my income is - it is just spent on them!!
I think that people should only be classed as pro's if their income is made through the competing of horses (or as a result of competing horses ie sponsership), not just working with them. For example, I find it mean when it is suggested that grooms, staff at livery yards, owners at livery yards etc should be classed as pro because yes, they make their living through horses but these are all jobs which do not necessarily have any baring on the standard of their riding.
 
Here is the defination for this particluar series:

AMATEUR STATUS


A rider is an amateur for the purpose of the qualifying classes for the XXXXXX Dressage Championship 2007/08 if he or she does not during period from 1 May 2007 to 30 April 2008:-

1. Engage in livery, buying, selling, dealing or hiring horses as a means of livelihood.

2. Receive remuneration for employment (whether monetary or goods in kind) in connection with horses competing in dressage, eventing or showing classes; or in a livery stable or riding school (instruction at Pony Club and Riding Club excepted).

3. Compete a horse owned or sponsored by a company or a commercial firm, or a horse for which his or her immediate family accepts livery or training charges from a person outside the immediate family concerned.

4. A rider is not eligible to qualify on a horse which has been ridden by a professional rider in dressage, eventing or showing classes, during the specified period, unless the horse has subsequently been re-registered under new ownership.


It's the second paragraph which I think would cover what I do, even though I don't really make much money at it! I think it also covers grooms and anybody who works with horses!

I wonder how many true amateurs they will get?
 
Thats all rather odd!!

as u say how many true amateurs will they get ...... that would count me out as i work for an event way and my boss has competed one of my horses .... but i wouldnt class myself as professional at all!
 
dear god those rules make me a proper professional
i teach, buy and sell horses and compete a horse for an owner.


im a pro and i didnt know it!!!
confused.gif
grin.gif
tongue.gif
 
No, and for the same reasons as Jem1. They arent what I do to make a living, they are just a very expensive hobby.
I think that the word professional is hard to put into words.
 
According to the rules I'm not a pro, I would say that you were covered by number 3.

There must be certain people that they are trying to exclude and have written the rules to cover them. Since when does a family relative being successful make you any good?
 
I am not a professional, as my job is nothng to do with horses, I do not get paid for any horse related things, my horses are not sponsored or owned by anyone else.

Cant see how working for a suplement firm would prevent Amatuer status, unless they sponsor you or the horse?
 
[ QUOTE ]

3. Compete a horse owned or sponsored by a company or a commercial firm, or a horse for which his or her immediate family accepts livery or training charges from a person outside the immediate family concerned.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think that one is a joke!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

3. Compete a horse owned or sponsored by a company or a commercial firm, or a horse for which his or her immediate family accepts livery or training charges from a person outside the immediate family concerned.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think that one is a joke!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why??

It is saying if you are sponsored by a firm or ride a horse which is being financed in some part (by way of livery or training costs) by someone who is not a relative (in otherwords sponsorship from an inidividual not a company) then you are a professional.

I think that is fair personally If you are receiving funds to compete a horse from someone you are not related to it is sponsorship and therefore income, and I'm sorry but going by the rest of the rules and the level of rider they are basing it at then it is completly in line with the rest, and to be honest I struggle to think of 'true' amatuer riders who have sponsorship from outside their family, they are few and far between!
 
Um, do you guys not have amateur status here? The above (first 3 anyway) is pretty much word for word the Amateur rule in the US and Canada. (Technically it's the "professional rule" since it defines a pro and there is no specific definition of an amateur only a "non-pro" but whatever) If you train/teach/ride AT ALL for remuneration (not just money) then you're a pro. The buying and selling is a bit trickier but since almost anyone who does that in great numbers also does one of the other things on the list it doesn't amount to much of a problem. The riding a horse not owned by family rule is because the perception is you are effectively riding the horse as a business. Otherwise why would the sponsor invest? (They MIGHT be your best friend and just want to see their nice horse go 'round but more likely it has to do with advertising or investment.)

I can't say, obviously, but the trend in North America has for amateur/professional class splits to become more and more the done thing. Ten years ago dressage shows and events never split their divisions, now it's very common.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top