[Ted Shih]

As described below, people on this Board have come up with three broad categories for what constitutes an Amateur

1) A definition based on compensation
2) A definition based on the relationship between handler and dog
3) A definition based on competitive advantage


For example,

Group 1 Compensation based definition of Amateur

Craig - a person who trains and performs without searching for or accepting personal financial reward or material benefit in connection with his or her participation in retriever events.

Ed - a person who does something for the pleasure of it rather than for money.

Evan - a person who receives no remuneration for training and/or handling a dog

Ken - a person who does not receive compensation for a particular action, task, or activity. A person who does accept compensation for a particular action, task, or activity is a professional.

Shayne - a person with a full-time, non retriever related, job.


Group 2 Relationship based definition of Amateur

Miriam - a person who trains and runs their own dog. A person who is paid to train and run another person?s dog is a pro.


Group 3 Competitive advantage based definition of Amateur

John Fallon - a person who is not _______ (you fill in the blank) enough to compete with the Pros


Ted

 

[Franco]

I voted for 1.

Evan's is the best for defining an Amateur.

No offense Ed but, pleasure is too vague.

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

I think compensation should be the deciding factor. Now define compensation.

Selection #2 is too hard to pin down. Absolutely no way to know FOR SURE that the person listed as "owner" did the training/conditioning of the dog.

Selection # 3 is punitive: anybody good enough to compete with the Pros gets their Amateur status revoked. Might as well state it another way: nothing succeeds like failure. Those who remain Perpetual Novices get to keep their amateur status, run in Amateur stakes, and judge. Those who become students of the game, hone their skills, and maintain their focus on winning, get their Amateur status revoked and can no longer judge. Makes no sense, Sapphire.

Lisa

 

[Franco]

Now define compensation.

Lisa

Crunk, payola, juice, greenbacks, sho me some luv bro, cheese or dead presidents.

Of course, just putting monitary in front of compensation about covers it.

 

[john fallon]

Under the system I discribed on page 7 of Ted's sister poll.
No one looses their amateur status and their ability to judge unless they want to.
BTW under said system Pros would be allowed to judge FT's
To appreciate the context of #3 choice above I have taken the liberty to DRAG it over and post it below.

One solution to the Hidden Pro problem would be:
(a) the offering of prize money in all stakes except the Amateur , and
(b) let Pros as well as Amateurs judge.

In the Open , Derby , and Qual only Pros are eligible for the cash, Amateur must settle for just getting the Ribbon
Those who place in the Amateur Stake must again settle for just getting the Ribbon, and the bragging rights of course.

The original question's answer is quite simple,

In addition to the above, Keep the Amateur stake for the handlers not_______ (you fill in the blank)enough to compete with the Pros, but discontinue giving Titles to the Dog (or not if we must)and give them to the Handler.

Think about it,... isn't that the real distinction, since a dog winning enough points to get it's FC gets it's AFC by default, if handled by an Amateur while garnering the points.

For those for whom it is about The Dogs , The Money or Both run the Open, Qual, or the Derby.
For those who are about Themselves run the Amateur.

john

 

[drbobsd]

Check out what national cutting horse ass. does as far as Amat statis. We are talking lie detectors and $200,000 for 1rst in the national futurity. I feel dog stuff could easily be this big since almost everyone loves dogs. Horses are great but lot of people are afraid of them or don't like the smell.


http://www.nchacutting.com/ncha_application.shtml


http://www.nchacutting.com/futurity/photos.htm

 

[Ted Shih]

So that John Fallon does not feel neglected, I have added yet another option to the definition of Amateur ... This means that John gets 1/2 of the options

John explains his proposal as follows:

One solution to the Hidden Pro problem would be:
(a) the offering of prize money in all stakes except the Amateur , and
(b) let Pros as well as Amateurs judge.

In the Open , Derby , and Qual only Pros are eligible for the cash, Amateur must settle for just getting the Ribbon. Those who place in the Amateur Stake must again settle for just getting the Ribbon, and the bragging rights of course.

So, if you want prize money in all stakes - except the Am ... vote for option 4

Under John's proposal, you are an Amateur by declaration. That is, you announce that you will not accept money for a placement. If you announce you do want money for a placement, you are a Pro.

So, more choices .....

 

[Miriam Wade]

Ted-

I think Craig summed it up best, but I still view it as penalizing the owner/trainer/handler (in your words-relationship based) that by virtue of the fact they "do it all" and are successful, aren't eligible for any purse that is offered.

M

 

[thunderdan]

I voted compensation, because that was my first answer.... :wink: :lol:

 

[drbobsd]

I can live with this. I wonder if Shayne could? After he wins first two WRC's he's done. We may want to substitute dogs and dog trainers for the obvious. 8) 8)

The definition of an Amateur in this Association is:

Certain Non-Professionals within this Association may be classified as Amateurs. A member of this Association shall be disqualified from being classified as an Amateur under any one of the following circumstances:

(i) the member has ridden or trained horses or horse riders for remuneration, directly or indirectly;
(ii) the member has in the last ten years assisted in training horses or horse riders for remuneration, directly or indirectly;
(iii) the member is married or has been married in the last ten years to a person who is presently considered a professional by this association pursuant to Rule 9.3. ("a professional");
(iv) the member has resided in the last ten years with a person who is presently a professional;
(v) the member has in the last ten years resided with or on the premise with a parent, step-parent or foster parent of the member who was, during the time of the member's residency with the parent, a professional;
(vi) the member is directly or indirectly employed by a professional and performs the duties of employment on the premised or a horse training operation;
(vii) the member has been an apprentice trainer at any time;
(viii) the member has received more than $50,000 in eligibility lifetime earnings;

Hope fish are biting. Off to catch morning bite for those walleyes under the ice.

 

[Evan]

Perhaps I just have a narrow fundamentalist view of this, but it seems to me that we're heading toward eliminating any benefit from Amateur status. You can still judge if you are determined to be a pro under some of these proposals. That means you can run your dogs and someone else's - AND be compensated. You can do that on any scale you like - AND receive a purse for winning. Why would anyone still desire to be an amateur?

Worse yet, will there ever be another moderate-income beginner with a chance to be competitive?

Evan

 

[Ozpa]

Don't know if its been posted on another thread, but what about letting the dog determine AM or Open status instead of the handler?

The dog determines it for Derby and Qual. already.

Simple rules for applications:

1. Any professional trainer must list all dogs in his kennels,and the times they are in the kennel;

2. Any professional trainer must register with the AKC as such;

3. No dog may be handled in an AM by anyone other than its listed owner/s.

4. No dog owned by a pro may be entered in an AM.

5. No dog trained by a pro may enter an AM for X of months.

Todd

 

[john fallon]

Since it is unlikely that there will be many more votes.
Here is my SPIN on this POLL as it stands :lol: :wink:
The poll was posted on Fri. at 3:11 Pm
#1 & 2 got 100% of their votes in the first approx. 3.5 hrs.
A full three and one half hours later when #3 was put in the proper context and #4, which is actually part of #3, was added.
From then on, the 3+4 combination has received 100% of the available votes cast.
Since those who had already voted were unable to reconsider the reconfigured poll, the reliability of the results are questionable at best.
In light of the above you might want to carefully evaluate the information prior to drawing a conclusion.
john