*Exclusive* How horse abuse is penalised in sport – and the challenges of bringing a case before the FEI Tribunal

In this exclusive article for H&H subscribers, equestrian journalist Pippa Cuckson attempts to unravel the disciplinary procedures that apply to horse abuse in equestrian sport and answer some of the most common questions that fans ask

Why was Charlotte Dujardin promptly suspended for the lunge-whipping video when other riders under investigation for horse abuse continue to compete? Why do some riders merely receive a yellow warning card when others are banned for years? Why does the international equestrian federation (FEI) appear to do nothing when people send in complaints? These questions appear on social media – and in journalists’ mailboxes – with increasing frequency as the challenge to equestrianism’s social licence grows.

The handling of horse abuse by equestrian regulatory bodies is complex; even media who follow the tribunal system closely find it baffling. In this article we attempt to unravel the disciplinary procedures that apply to horse abuse in sport.

FEI General Regulations (GRs) apply to all FEI-regulated sports. Each has bespoke rules but must follow GR Article 142, which defines horse abuse as “an action or omission which causes or is likely to cause pain or unnecessary discomfort to a Horse.

“This includes, but is not limited to any of the following: To whip or beat a Horse excessively; To subject a Horse to any kind of electric shock device; To use spurs excessively or persistently; To jab the Horse in the mouth with the bit or any other device; To compete using an exhausted, lame or injured Horse; To rap a Horse; To abnormally sensitise or desensitise any part of a Horse; To leave a Horse without adequate food, drink or exercise; To use any device or equipment which causes excessive pain to the Horse upon knocking down an obstacle.”

The absence of hyperflexion

Rollkür, aka hyperflexion, (to be discussed in a future H&H subscriber feature), is not mentioned in Article 142, and so far is unsanctioned in FEI dressage, despite being a banned technique and one of the sport’s hottest topics.

Yellow cards for hyperflexion have been handed down twice in two months in eventing dressage warm-ups, including at the Paris Olympic Games where the FEI said British-based Brazilian Carlos Parro caused his horse “unnecessary discomfort.”

Does “unnecessary discomfort” imply that some discomfort is “necessary”? A FEI spokesperson said Article 142 may be re-worded next year. It is also worth noting that the FEI Tribunal has previously decided that pain need not be proved in order for abuse to have occured.

How international riders can be penalised

The FEI encourages national federations to handle their own riders’ abuse cases where they have adequate powers, especially when language is an issue. Any resulting rider suspension is mirrored by the FEI.

There are three main ways that abuse is penalised in FEI sport.

At a competition – usually referred to in legal documents as the “field of play” – the ground jury and other officials can give a yellow warning card as a minimum, most commonly due to excessive use of the whip or spurs in the jumping disciplines. In FEI endurance, a yellow card for abuse is coupled with automatic disqualification. In all other disciplines, a yellow-carded rider may remain in the competition. Two yellow cards for any reason in 12 months trigger an automatic two-month suspension.

A yellow card cannot be refused because the judges’ decision is final, even if later found to be wrong. The inviolability of the ground jury is a key principle of sport law, upheld many times by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) – the court of last resort.

How yellow cards are used in different horse sports

FEI sports have varying approaches to warning cards, which can add to the confusion.

Eventing, for instance, regards some but not all instances of blood as abuse and will give riders yellow cards accordingly. It hands down more yellow cards and the lower category recorded warnings than all other FEI sports combined – partly to address incidents such as “dangerous riding”, which is not penalised through the scoring system. In simple terms, the lengthier athletic effort of eventing and permission to carry whips creates more opportunities for incidents to escalate into abuse. Eventing also has a bespoke, automatic two-month ban for any rider receiving three warnings in 24 months.

Dressage, at the other extreme, has issued only six yellow cards in 12 months – two for non-specified abuse. But unlike eventing and jumping, dressage does not list its other warned riders on a public platform. FEI chief vet Goran Akerstrom has informally confirmed that several were warned over “blue tongues” at Paris, but they remain un-named.

There is no hint that a one-size-fits-all policy will be introduced any time soon.

When stronger punishment is deemed necessary

The second method of penalising riders is the Administrative Disciplinary Procedure (ADP), mostly used when a FEI ground jury think a stronger punishment is required. The ADP is a type of fixed-penalty, handled by the FEI legal department in Lausanne, Switzerland, with fines up to 2,000 Swiss francs and/or a suspension of three months. This past year there have been eight ADP abuse cases – all from show jumping and endurance, which the FEI attributes to those sports having the most participants.

In anti-doping cases, the FEI is making increasing use of the “Consent Award”, a plea-bargain system offering a reduced suspension for prompt admission. This has yet to be utilised for horse abuse.

Which cases go to a tribunal?

The third tried and tested method is for the most egregious abuse, or when the rider wishes to be heard – referral to the FEI’s independent tribunal.

The tribunal is an elected panel of equestrians with distinguished legal backgrounds. Past and present members have included Christopher Hodson KC, former FEI vice president and Judge Advocate General of the New Zealand Armed Forces; and the dressage judge Cesar Torrente, a veteran arbitration lawyer in Colombia.

In the past two decades, tribunal has handled 20 serious horse abuse cases. Sometimes it decides via extensive written representations. When a rider requests an in-person hearing, it is conducted like a trial.

But the tribunal is where things get time-consuming. While a ground jury can yellow-card a rider on the spot, at the tribunal the process turns on its head and the “burden of proof” falls on the accuser.

What happens at tribunal?

When the FEI legal department prosecutes at tribunal, it must first conduct an investigation – limited in scope, because the FEI is not the police.

A spokesperson explained: “Horse abuse cases tend to be rather complex and usually involve the FEI in undertaking an initial investigation. In the absence of clear video/photographic evidence that confirms absolutely the abuse, witness evidence is important. Contacting witnesses, securing their agreement to come forward and obtaining witness statements can be a lengthy process for both the FEI and the defendant.”

The rider’s lawyers can also employ delaying tactics – although the FEI said it was not in its interests to give examples.

This “burden of proof” also falls on members of the public who protest abuse to the FEI. Even if a “whistleblower” does not fear reprisals, the paperwork and evidence-gathering involved can be a deterrent. I have undertaken a few past protests myself; while the FEI legal department gives support, it is a big “ask” to prepare evidence and even cross-examine a lawyered-up rider when you have no legal training.

Not surprisingly, only half a dozen individuals have attempted this in the past decade, though all “won”, with the accused riders suspended for up to two-and-a-half years.

Why so few cases go to tribunal

Though video clips of alleged abuse are shared online frequently, both the FEI and the British Equestrian Federation (BEF) receive considerably fewer complaints than those on social media platforms tend to assume. A BEF spokesperson said progress can be handicapped by “insufficient evidence, no clear video/photographs, insufficient witness statements and inability to build a strong case as a result, and complainants unwilling to go ‘on the record.’

“Sometimes it’s down to the reach of our member bodies’ jurisdiction. We have limited investigative powers outside of competition, and even more so where the parties are not members of any member body.”

It could also be said that the FEI is not great at communicating with protestors. The prominent anti-hyperflexion campaigner Dr Eva van Avermaet submitted several protests to the FEI for alleged abuse during the Paris Olympics, but received no acknowledgement for a month – and then only after Swedish newspaper Idraetsmonitor intervened. H&H is also in touch with the key witness in another case under long-term FEI investigation – she has not heard from the FEI since July.

Pauline van Drumpt of Clean Endurance is the only non-lawyer to have defended a rider’s appeal against suspension for horse abuse at CAS. She thinks the FEI could do more to encourage and assist complainants. She noted one solid case from an endurance race in France that was disregarded because the protestor’s initial presentation was insufficient.

“If the FEI came up with even a one-page instruction manual for submitting an abuse protest, people would have some framework to work with – it could include confirmation of the rider’s identity, [competitor] numbers, photographs, a clear description of what happened and names and contact details of any witnesses.

“For the average person, even if they know the rules, it’s very difficult to write a proper abuse protest. Ideally, people could contact the legal department with pictures and witness statements and the FEI would write it up for them. Horse abuse will be a bigger part of FEI activity – it’s time for them to step up.”

Which governing bodies can sanction what and where?

Abuse is the one thing the FEI can sanction out of competition – if the accused was registered with the FEI or a member national federation at the time. An allegation against an Olympian was once dismissed because he had recently retired from competing and, while still working in the industry, had not renewed his FEI credentials.

Very few national federations have out-of-competition powers, though the FEI is encouraging them where feasible and developing “model rules”.
Denmark already has them, so is handling the Carina Cassøe Krüth whipping case itself. The Cesar Parra allegations prompted the US Equestrian Federation to adopt them, from 1 December. These new provisions still rely on whistleblowers to report abuse, and stop short of allowing USEF officials to enter private premises unannounced. They also cannot be applied retroactively – so Parra and the more recent allegations against US eventer Andrew McConnon had to be referred to the FEI.

The BEF is keenly watching the US initiative. A spokesperson said: “We have a Code of Conduct and rules that apply where riders are registered to compete under the FEI. But the concept of ‘out of competition’ activity is not simple. The BEF is currently working on introducing a steering group to look at this key area and wider welfare and ethics considerations; we hope to release details very soon.”

What is a provisional suspension?

Charlotte Dujardin owned-up to an “error of judgement” in her public statement on 23 July, and agreed to an immediate “provisional suspension”. Contrary to popular belief, this is not Dujardin’s formal punishment – a provisional suspension means standing down a rider while the legal process takes its course. It can be credited as “time served” against any “period of ineligibility” – also confusingly known colloquially as a suspension – that Dujardin may receive when her sanction is finally decided.

But while the FEI prefers to impose immediate provisional suspensions upon receiving very serious abuse complaints, it is risky when the initial evidence is sketchy. Unlike Dujardin, other accused riders usually deny the abuse; two successfully appealed to CAS and got their provisional suspensions lifted while the process lumbers on.

Indeed, back in 2009 Tribunal found against the FEI, deciding that provisional suspensions did not exist within the legal framework for abuse. The FEI had sought a three-week provisional ban on German showjumper Marco Kutscher while he was investigated over the medication of Cornet Obolensky during the team competition at the 2008 Olympic Games. The horse was reported to have collapsed against his stable wall, after which Kutscher jumped him in the second round.

Why a rider might not be suspended pending investigation

Charles Trolliet, a veterinarian and former president of the Swiss Equestrian Federation, retains reservations over the validity of provisional suspensions. In 2017, the Swiss Olympian Paul Estermann was accused of violently whipping a horse at home. This dragged slowly through the Swiss courts before Estermann was finally convicted of animal cruelty in December 2022, after which the Swiss federation banned him for seven years.

“All the while, we were asked why we hadn’t suspended him,” said Dr Trolliet. “The answer was clear: if we suspended him, it would mean we had judged without evidence and, for a professional rider, that would be tantamount to a ban on practising his profession. And if, in the end, he was found not guilty he could claim damages. Given that the legal proceedings lasted four-and-a-half years, you can imagine how much that could be!

“As he was finally found guilty and sentenced by the courts, our national federation was able to take internal measures and suspend him – but only after the final criminal judgement.”

Like the Swiss, the FEI will pause a case if criminal or civil courts become involved. A FEI spokesperson added: “The fact that a criminal proceeding does not result in a case/conviction does not necessarily mean the FEI would not go ahead with its own case. The standard of proof in criminal cases (beyond reasonable doubt) is higher than under the FEI’s rules (comfortable satisfaction). The conduct might not have breached any criminal law but might still be a breach of a FEI rule.”

How does the FEI Tribunal decide how long a rider will be suspended?

Punishment for horse abuse can vary widely, depending on the Tribunal’s assessment of severity, whether it was a “one-off”, and whether to make an example of a role model. Historically, Tribunal has been unimpressed by whistleblower-shaming, absence of remorse, and bizarre excuses – in 2021 it admonished Leandro da Silva who said he manhandled his daughter’s tiny pony because it bit her.

The FEI legal team will recommend sanctions, but the Tribunal need not comply. FEI legal initially suggested a three-year ban for US showjumper Andrew Kocher, who used electric shock spurs on several horses over at least two seasons. However, Tribunal gave him 10 years – upheld on appeal by CAS.

The longest ever ban was 18 years, to an endurance rider. He said he was giving up anyway, but then appealed to CAS who overturned the entire decision, a huge setback for the FEI. This case centred on alleged desensitisation, but failed evidentially and because CAS decided the horse’s fatal fracture during the race was unforseeable, underlining the necessity for a watertight case.

For guidance, the FEI has a range of sanctions from “low end” to “maximum,” the latter allowing for a life ban – as yet never handed down. Pauline van Drumpt finds this wording clumsy and wishes the FEI would revisit. “From a marketing and communications perspective, you can’t talk about low level abuse,” she said. “Horse abuse is horse abuse.”

What happens when an allegation is “historic?”

Horse abuse is the only offence not time-limited under FEI rules, as provided in GRs Article 157. The oldest evidence accepted to date by Tribunal went back three years. This could make Dujardin’s case, from 2020, the most “historic” to date.

Another unusual facet is that Dujardin’s legal counsel, Dutch equine lawyer Luc Schelstraete, and Stephan Wensing for the whistleblower have already floated strategies in public.

Mr Schelstraete points to the contradiction to FEI GR 157 – abuse must be reported “without delay” under Article 161.

“When the complaining client finds animal welfare so important, it is incomprehensible why they wait so long to file complaints. Moreover, they are also required to promptly report alleged cases of Horse Abuse,” he said.

“This obligation to file a protest ‘without delay’ is precisely aimed at preventing animal suffering. Failure by the complaining client to comply …. in a timely manner may result in the alleged complaint of horse abuse against Charlotte Dujardin being declared inadmissible or the sanctions to be imposed remaining limited.”

Previously, Tribunal has interpreted “without delay” as meaning the moment the whistleblower became aware of the alleged abuse – not necessarily the date it occurred. However, Mr Wensing has already briefed media that his client held the incriminating video for some while before reporting it on the eve of Paris, feeling it inappropriate Dujardin could win more medals.

The Tribunal’s reaction to those statements may affect any future whistleblower’s decision to hoard evidence. The FEI legal department, not surprisingly, declined to comment on these aspects while the Dujardin case is ongoing.

Why context of videos is key

H&H columnist Richard Davison is equine adviser to several law firms and currently studying for a Masters in sport law and practice. As a Trustee of World Horse Welfare, if asked he will offer basic advice to riders accused of abuse, but then directs them to a lawyer.

He told H&H: “Contrary to what people believe, it is not always an advantage to have an aggressive advocate. We have all read those Tribunal decisions where a lawyer has run a highly implausible defense and that probably has not helped when it comes to the Disciplinary Panel’s choice of sanctions.

“Where a rider’s conduct is genuinely out of character, it is important to explore genuine mitigations which could have accounted for their action and to not rush into making a public personal statement.”

He has a solid grasp of the disconnect between what critics believe regulators should do, and what regulators can do.

“It is probably time for more transparency and clarity as to what determines abuse,” he said. “For example, I saw some videos alleging rider abuse during two transitions from canter to walk during a jumping session. In the first the horse clearly overreacted and it was too abrupt; the second was better. But no other parts of the training session were provided on video, so it’s impossible to know how it progressed and the causality of the first abrupt transition.

“That’s why disciplinary procedures involve evidence gathering and statements from witnesses of fact. There are some prima facie cases of abuse that stand on their own. But there is an ever-increasing amount of finger-pointing, which is not supported by evidence and would not meet the FEI’s standard of proof of reaching the threshold of the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.”