Zero Tolerance

Unfortunately, I have to remind everyone of what transpired at Fair Hill, and that is, that a horse ran the majority of a cross-country course with a visibly bloody mouth.

Whether or not this was handled within the rules, while important, is not the defining characteristic of this incident. Hiding behind vaguely-worded rules doesn’t exempt you from scrutiny, doesn’t absolve you of a moral obligation to protect a horse’s welfare. A horse’s welfare should be paramount. I understand that yes, sometimes a horse bites its tongue, or sustains a small nick that doesn’t affect performance or bother the horse much. I also understand that a zero tolerance policy would mean elimination or disqualification for some in this category, but it would also mean elimination or disqualification for more questionable instances, more severe injuries. Whether the FEI will act remains to be seen as far as clarifying the eventing blood rule to address bloody-mouthed horses more consistently.

Honestly, I was not surprised that there were both defenders AND detractors of how this situation at Fair Hill was handled (seems like far more detractors, but my social media experience is biased toward me being friends with and following people I like, admire, agree with, etc.). What struck me most was a few commenters on social media had alarmingly casual attitudes toward a horse biting its tongue, even repeatedly. Sure, accidents happen. But seriously, what are you even doing if you have multiple horses “bite their tongues” on multiple occasions during competition in the space of only a year? I have been riding avidly for 30 years, competing across disciplines the majority of that time albeit at the lower levels, and not once have I seen anything like that much blood drain from a horse’s mouth for that long from a bitten tongue at any level, not without a rider being stopped. (I also think saying things like, “no big deal, racehorses do it all the time” does not further your argument for supporting the leniency that has been afforded one event rider in particular over the past year. Racehorses also deserve better.)

Out of a desire to hear honest answers from riders, in hopes of restoring my faith in the idea that most horse people do, in fact, put their horses first, I hastily crafted an admittedly poorly-worded poll for people to share their thoughts. I probably shouldn’t have tried to word answers to fit all disciplines, because I think that means the hypothetical situations fell short of reality. However, I did get some answers, and for the most part people would not want to compete on a horse bleeding from the mouth. Not exactly earth-shattering, but then why can’t the rules reflect this? Why must we put officials in precarious positions of deciding whether a horse and rider continues or doesn’t based solely on their best judgment in a high-pressure moment? That’s a LOT of pressure and responsibility. Why not offer more guidance, and clarity, in the rules? Allow the officials to shoulder the responsibility with a little more help from what’s on paper? Both the FEI dressage and jumper blood rules have more specificity of wording and additional guidance toward application. Eventing could follow suit easily enough, right? Why is the idea that furthering horse welfare at the expense of riders involved in a few minor incidents in order to catch the truly egregious ones so untenable to some people? Is less regulation really better if it means horses compete while injured, bleeding, or unquestionably in pain? There is no bright line now in eventing. I wish there were, for the sake of all competing horses and the integrity of the sport. I am sure zero tolerance is not the right answer for eventing, due to the nature of the sport, running cross-country in particular. But turning a blind eye and hiding behind a rule with a cavernous grey area falls abysmally short of holding horse welfare as the highest priority.

The poll itself does not supply a large enough data set to be useful beyond satisfying my own curiosity, but it does show proof of concept–ask people!–that some riders have their own zero tolerance policies regardless of an organization’s rules, and maybe wouldn’t hesitate to compete under such a rule. The poll, complete results, and complete comments are here. The IP addresses are visible under the individual responses tab, but no other identifying information is available. I hope this poll gave people a chance to voice their opinions in a less volatile environment than Facebook, and gave people an opportunity to voice opinions they might not otherwise have shared.

pollq1This poll has significant failings. I tried to make a one-size-fits-all-poll applicable to a variety of disciplines, and that was stupid, as some of the answer choices of the first question were worded in such as way as to be unlikely to happen for certain disciplines. The choices are most definitely skewed toward hunter/jumper situations, as that is what I have the most experience with and my recollection is not so expansive as to remember otherwise. More than one participant in the poll pointed this out, which I appreciate. I probably should have asked eventers and dressage riders (because that’s who I know) to review the questions first before posting for relevancy. I also could have asked people which discipline they compete, to see if that has any bearing on their answers. Live and learn. Perhaps a better poll could be developed out of this concept.

Regardless, I am gratified to see that many people–the majority in this tiny sample–would most definitely not want to compete on a horse that might be injured, and would determine the horse’s health status first. I think reading the individual responses is well worth the time, as many participants made excellent points about various factors, such as the nature of the injury or a trainer’s influence. I was surprised that no one selected to contest an official decision–perhaps the wording of the question didn’t adequately express the type of situation I was thinking of (I didn’t mean argue with the officials on the spot, if that’s how anyone took it.). Show jumping rider Bertram Allen contested a disqualification, although the FEI stood by the officials’ decision. My personal take on that situation was that that spur mark, although unintentional, warranted a disqualification, and you can bet I was angry at myself for agreeing, because Bertram Allen seems like a good guy and is unquestionably a great rider and he would have won the class otherwise. The FEI developed additional guidance for how to apply the jumper blood rule as a result of this disqualification. It’s a high stakes game at the upper levels, and sometimes putting the horse’s welfare first means losing money. It’s not without precedent. The rules can’t be written to make exceptions for unintentional injuries in the case of blood in the mouth or spur marks; that would not solve the problems we’re looking at here, and my hope is that such injuries are always unintentional anyway. But I don’t think contesting a call is necessarily a bad thing. However, when there is no call, what is there to contest, right? Officials must make these calls for the sake of the horses.

The takeaway from this whole situation–the competition, the reaction on social media, Hillary’s petition, blog posts from Shelby, Amanda, and others, my faulty poll–is that we can do better. We, meaning all of us involved in horses and competing with horses. Should we not all hold ourselves to a slightly higher standard, hold ourselves more accountable for the sake of our horses’ welfare? I think we can, and we should.



15 thoughts on “Zero Tolerance

  1. I have not delved into the details of the Fair Hill incident nor have I ever evented, but when officials at the Olympics this year eliminated Nicola Philippaerts and Ludger Beerbaum I felt they sent a pretty strong message of no tolerance for excessive discipline of the horse as well as visible blood or spur marks from said excessive discipline. Which I thought was great. All horse sports must have zero tolerance and sometimes that is going to eliminate horses who did just bite their tongue or something small like that. And as an honest, ethical rider you are going to take it in stride and acknowledge that it is better for the sport overall if it prevents riders using forceful methods on an ongoing basis. Like you, I’ve ridden my entire life and have seen a horse bleeding from the mouth only a small handful of times. At least one was due to force, but most were just the horse biting its tongue or one brilliant youngster who ate a thorn! A rider who repeatedly has horses bleeding from the mouth is cause for concern, regardless of discipline. We are under scrutiny unlike ever before as general society gets farther and farther away from being around horses in their daily lives. If we don’t hold ourselves accountable we are opening our sport(s) up for input from outside influencers who may not (most likely do not) understand horses.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “And as an honest, ethical rider you are going to take it in stride and acknowledge that it is better for the sport overall if it prevents riders using forceful methods on an ongoing basis.” THIS. I am generally suspicious of people who balk at zero tolerance, but I also understand that eventing has a lot to sort out first–if they don’t even try, it’s going to look really, really bad to outsiders.


  2. I truly believe everyone in the blogging community loves their horse and wants their welfare first. Your poll answers reflect this imo, especially in the written comments about the warm up ring.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. My hope is that this tiny snapshot is a reflection of the horse community at large. I know there are horse people who DGAF, and are even criminal, but I hope those people are in the minority, and that the minority is small.


  3. I think some of the shenanigans that go on at the top levels of the sport push good people, real horsemen, out, whilst keeping, promoting, and encouraging some that should not be shining pillars of our sport. This particular incident is yet another. Not the first and not the last. It saddens me. Too often poor horsemanship, overly aggressive ‘winning’ techniques, and selfish agendas are rewarded.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Selfish agendas are part of any sport, but they are particularly problematic in horse sports where many of the athletes–the horses–don’t have a say and aren’t really in it voluntarily. We MUST put their welfare above all else because of that.


  4. I feel like this poll must capture mostly people that support such rules. And if not then I don’t understand why people won’t ride a horse with a bloody mouth but are so adamantly opposed to a rule that outlines an immediate inspection of such. I have kind of changed my position on zero tolerance blood but I do feel like there should be a rule that the horses are immediately pulled up for inspection and that a yellow card system would be beneficial in encouraging riders with repeat offenses to figure out wtf is wrong with their set up that their horses bleed from the mouth so regularly. Thanks for sharing the results! And my poll.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You make a really good point–I have a hard time imagining people who don’t support a rule change even bothering to take a poll about it. I tried to word the answers neutrally, but my own bias no doubt affected that, too.


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s
