|
Post by Better on Jul 30, 2007 11:40:02 GMT
Interested to see that a horse which had been ridden by a Pro to qualify for the open small hack class at RIHS, was placed in the Amateur Hacks. I thought this was against the rules?? The horse hasn't changed owners.
Can anyone confirm the rule - I thought that you couldn't do amateur classes if a professional had ridden your horse in RIHS or HOYS qualifiers that season - unless a change of ownership?
Really hope I am wrong as these classes really should be taken in the spirit in which they are intended.
|
|
|
Post by ferret on Jul 30, 2007 11:44:14 GMT
i think it is amature owner/ rider rules ( could be wrong )...eg if you own the horse and say rob Walker quals it and rides it in the open then as an amateur owner you can ride it in the amateurs . Home produced rules are different and allow completely home produced horses to compete together . Can anyone more up to date with British show horse rules ( not done the classes for a few years ) clarify this ?
|
|
|
Post by smallbutmighty on Jul 30, 2007 11:50:43 GMT
The rules are published on the BSHA website.
|
|
|
Post by Better on Jul 30, 2007 12:11:37 GMT
Thanks smallbutmighty.
I have just checked them and I appear to be right.
Why do people have to break the rules when it comes to amateur classes? It is beyond me!
|
|
|
Post by Question on Jul 30, 2007 12:40:22 GMT
what place did the horse in question come in the amateur hacks at RI?
|
|
|
Post by Better on Jul 30, 2007 12:48:37 GMT
I think it came 4th.
|
|
|
Post by fmm nli on Jul 30, 2007 15:33:46 GMT
Pros can ride a horse providing it is not in a HOYS or RIHS qualifier. So if the horse was ridden in a RIHS or HOYS qualifier by a pro then it would disqualify the owner from doing amateur classes. However, if the horse was ridden in an intermediate qualifier class by a pro, it would still be an amateur as far as the BSHA is concerned.
Also, are you sure that the pro is a true pro. Some people get round the rules by the professional still retaining amateur status themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Better on Jul 30, 2007 15:43:44 GMT
I think we can safely call Rob Walker a pro! I'm sure he rode it to qualify at Leicester.
|
|
|
Post by fmm nli on Jul 30, 2007 16:25:03 GMT
I had assumed that Ferret was using Rob as an example, not as the pro that had been riding the horse. If you read Ferret's post it is not saying that Rob had been riding an amateur's horse.
|
|
|
Post by Better on Jul 30, 2007 16:27:02 GMT
If you read my post, you will see that I say Rob Walker rode it to qualify at Leicester!!
|
|
|
Post by fmm nli on Jul 30, 2007 16:27:45 GMT
Looking at the results (hadn't bothered before) I see that it is Rob you are referring to. I know he rode the horse last year - has he definitely shown it this year as well?
|
|
|
Post by smallbutmighty on Jul 30, 2007 16:31:04 GMT
If you mean Burfordly Valentino (4th Amateur Hack at RIHS?), the owner's name in the Leics County results is different to the owner's name in the RIHS results.
|
|
|
Post by Better on Jul 30, 2007 16:40:44 GMT
Definitely owned by the same people now that owned it all of last season and beginning of this!
Surely people can't be that sneaky to re-register ownership for certain shows.....
|
|
|
Post by fmm nli on Jul 30, 2007 16:42:43 GMT
If you read my post, you will see that I say Rob Walker rode it to qualify at Leicester!! I really can't find that information in your post on this thread! However, I have just had a birthday and am definitely getting older so perhaps I am just being stupid
|
|
|
Post by Confirm on Jul 30, 2007 19:23:06 GMT
Said horse certainly was ridden by Rob at Leicester and he did win and said horse is still owned by the same people who owned it then. Rules do state that a horse cannot compete in Amateur classes if it has been ridden in a qualifier by a Pro. Horse is not on his yard anymore but the rule should still stand.
|
|
|
Post by ferret on Jul 30, 2007 20:04:45 GMT
I had assumed that Ferret was using Rob as an example, not as the pro that had been riding the horse. If you read Ferret's post it is not saying that Rob had been riding an amateur's horse. thanks for clarifying that Fmm ... was only using Rob as an example . After looking at rules i was wrong and was getting confused with amature owner rider hunter classes ...all the cava at RIHS has pickled my brain i think !
|
|
|
Post by smallbutmighty on Jul 30, 2007 20:34:33 GMT
Said horse certainly was ridden by Rob at Leicester and he did win and said horse is still owned by the same people who owned it then. Rules do state that a horse cannot compete in Amateur classes if it has been ridden in a qualifier by a Pro. Horse is not on his yard anymore but the rule should still stand. Well if you're so certain about this then make an objection instead of whining on here? The results for the two shows give completely different names. I don't know the horse, the rider or the owners but I say put up or shut up.... NB The horse didn't win at Leicester so you're wrong on that for a start - Take Silk did!
|
|
Get your facts straight
Guest
|
Post by Get your facts straight on Jul 30, 2007 21:42:07 GMT
Take Silk may did indeed win at Leicester - but had already qualified at BSPA Keysoe. Therefore Rob Walker's hack did get the ticket - I saw it with my own eyes!
|
|
|
Post by smallbutmighty on Jul 30, 2007 22:08:11 GMT
Take Silk may did indeed win at Leicester - but had already qualified at BSPA Keysoe. Therefore Rob Walker's hack did get the ticket - I saw it with my own eyes! Yes but the issue is not who qualified, in what position, as it is apparently the riding of the animal in a qualifier, regardless of placing/qualifying that the rule covers. 'Confirm' (is that you as well?) posted that Rob Walker WON - he didn't. I'ts not me who can't get facts right.
|
|
|
Post by Win or not win on Jul 31, 2007 7:46:29 GMT
It does not really matter whether he won or was second, the fact of it is that it was ridden in the ring by a pro in a qualifying class this therefore means it cannot go in the Amateur classes this season.
|
|
|
Post by FMM nli on Jul 31, 2007 8:09:07 GMT
I agree that IF he has ridden the horse in the ring for the same owners, then the horse should not be in the amateur class. However, as the OP (and others on the thread) have already said the horse won the class (whereas the horse was apparently second) so perhaps they are not quite as au fait with the situation as they may think. Would it not be possible for the horse to be sold to someone else within the family?
The amateur ruling was only changed last season, so it could also be possible that the owners were not aware of it. Up until last year, providing the professional did not ride the horse in the ring on the same day as the amateur rider, then it was OK for the pro and the amateur to share the ride throughout the year.
|
|
|
Post by Jo Jenkins on Jul 31, 2007 8:15:29 GMT
I know you buy horses or 'legs in them' from your sister but thses other people 'selling' a horse to a family member in order to get round the amateur rule is pathetic (if that is what they did) how desperate are they for a rossette? Hardly in the spirit of things is it?
|
|
|
Post by fmm nli on Jul 31, 2007 9:35:36 GMT
I know you buy horses or 'legs in them' from your sister Only way I can afford to keep the d**n things
|
|
|
Post by Owners on Jul 31, 2007 10:06:10 GMT
The hack was owned when on Robs yard by Bickenson and McHendy, when it did rather well and won the novice champ at the Nat Champs, and also qualified for HOYS. Sally Anne Cowley (Bikensons wife) bought the McHendys out after Leicester. Cowleys sister Liz Cheffins rides the hack. The hack was on Robs yard and ridden by Rob in RIHS qualifiers up until Leicester. So yes Rob did ride the horse in an RIHS qualifier this year but technically with different owners as it were. How morally right that is, you decide.
Apologies for spellings ... has that clarified the situation or made things worse??
|
|
|
Post by owners on Jul 31, 2007 10:36:15 GMT
Talking of bending the rules to the limit, what about Dallas Gazumpa being judged by Sue Rawdings the owner of its sire, in the RH class. No Sue Rawdings didn't breed it, but she did financially gain from its breeding from a stallion stud fee. Too close a connection and morally incorrect for my likeing.
A very thin line whether this was a rule break or not, but you are never telling me that Mrs Rawdings is not going to favour a horse that soo looks like her (late) stallion Dallas, especially not when she has some Dallas stock for sale this week.
I was surprised (but not) that Dallas Gazumpa took reserve Champ, thought that definitely belonged to the small RH, and no I have no connection with the small just thought it was a proper RH.
FMM - its taken me 10 mins to work out your starred out word - how slow am I today
|
|
|
Post by Change on Jul 31, 2007 10:54:10 GMT
So they managed to get round the rules that way but still seems very strange as it still has the same owners if you know what I mean!! With regard to the RH debate, I am not sure how I feel about Dallas Gazumpa going under Sue Rawding but it certainly did deserve the reserve championship, it went amazingly in the main arena and the two smalls did not own the ring in comparison to the two larges!
|
|
|
Post by Better on Jul 31, 2007 11:10:51 GMT
Talking of bending the rules to the limit, what about Dallas Gazumpa being judged by Sue Rawdings the owner of its sire, in the RH class. No Sue Rawdings didn't breed it, but she did financially gain from its breeding from a stallion stud fee. Too close a connection and morally incorrect for my likeing. A very thin line whether this was a rule break or not, but you are never telling me that Mrs Rawdings is not going to favour a horse that soo looks like her (late) stallion Dallas, especially not when she has some Dallas stock for sale this week. I was surprised (but not) that Dallas Gazumpa took reserve Champ, thought that definitely belonged to the small RH, and no I have no connection with the small just thought it was a proper RH. FMM - its taken me 10 mins to work out your starred out word - how slow am I today I couldn't agree more about Dallas Gazumpa - appallingly close to the line with regards to rules. How could a judge not place a horse that is by their well-known stallion? It really does enhance the stallion's reputation by placing DG so high. So true that the small RH was robbed for Reserve - OK, its not Doulton, but what a proper small and knocked socks off Gazumpa.
|
|
|
Post by No change then on Jul 31, 2007 11:32:46 GMT
Have read all this with interest regarding the amateur status etc. - this only confirms my believe that when it comes to showing horses you wait your turn in line till the pro's have got their tickets, and the 'faces' will always be at the top no matter how their horses go. Yes I know Take Silk etc. and Keens are amateurs but you still have to be 'in the know'. I reckon you either just accept it and get on with it or get out! Does make me smile however when the BSHA go on about wanting to encourage younger riders to move up to the adult ranks!!! This does nothing to encourage them.
|
|
|
Post by agree on Jul 31, 2007 11:35:00 GMT
Nikki Hall is now a pro - taking horses to be produced this year.
|
|
|
Post by bumblebee on Jul 31, 2007 12:12:27 GMT
yes i heard nikki hall is now producing is she still doing amateur classes.
|
|