Thursday, November 10, 2011

London 2012 Olympics: blood on the carpet as welfare rule splits dressage


Horseracing is still gripped by the very public fall-out about use of the whip. In some ways, racing should think itself lucky. At least jockeys, owners and trainers in both Flat and National Hunt agree about the issues, unlike dressage where horsemen are vehemently at odds over a new welfare proposal that the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) is due to decide on Monday.


At the 2010 world championships in Kentucky, Holland’s Adelinde Cornelissen, then the dressage world number two, was only a few movements into her six-minute Grand Prix test when a judge spotted blood on the mouth of her horse, Jerich Parzival. Under dressage's zero tolerance  ‘blood rule,’ Parzival was instantly eliminated from the entire contest, with no procedure for a vet to check for any minor scratch that could inform the judges’ decision, and no right of appeal.


As humans know, biting the inside of your mouth produces an inordinate amount of blood for a few minutes. It looks all the more dramatic when diluted by the proverbial frothing of the horse’s mouth and so spectators might well be concerned. Public relations is increasingly emphasised in this arena-based discipline, as cameras are moving ever closer and more personal when delivering horse sport to households that are divorced from the practicalities of animal husbandry.


A photo was released showing a small nick on Parzival’s tongue. The media sympathised with the impossible positions of both Adelinde and the head judge but everyone agreed that although draconian, it was the ‘rule’.


Assessment of surface lacerations is complicated, because of the horse disciplines’ diversity. Dressage is not about sudden exertion. In dressage, the welfare issue is when an over-active jaw might indicate stress. But equally, relaxed horses can catch their tongue; the blood could even come from a swallowed horsefly. All possibilities – however remote – should surely be weighed up in the spirit of fair play.


Then in January, I discovered the blood rule did not exist; for years global dressage had uncomplainingly gone along with a career-defining convention that had never been enshrined in type. Initially the sport fell back on other general rules but in June the FEI decided to align dressage with other disciplines that allow a vet to decide if the stopped horse can re-commence.


If passed, the new rule is effective from January 1. But at a late stage the influential German federation has said it will vote against. There is now a ‘say no to blood’ internet petition. Riders, officials and judges have come up with their own instant-elimination rule, alleging that the trainers drafted the FEI proposal without consulting them. Personality clashes are certainly clouding aspects of the debate, as is the FEI’s clumsy caveat that instant elimination still applies at the lower levels. In another procedural oversight, the FEI’s official advisor World Horse Welfare does not appear to have been consulted.


Laura Bechstolsheimer is among notables to have signed the petition, and one has to respect the riders’ willingness to subject themselves to this lottery for their belief in the greater good.


But  the apparent selflessness of the instant elimination rule is not quite what it seems. The alternative wording condones bleeding in the warm-up ring, provided it can stopped or wiped clean before the horse enters the field of play, and there is no in-hindsight elimination if bleeding is spotted once the horse has finished and out of sight! I’m right behind any move to demonstrate the highest standards of horse-care to spectators but, please, let’s not make fools of them in the next breath.


At the Olympics, there are only three horses per national squad, with all scores counting. So an eventer may win a medal after being re-started with a scrape, but two days later, a dressage horse with a tongue-nick is eliminated and takes out his entire national team. The incredulity of public and press would be worth it if instant elimination improved the wellbeing of a single horse, but too much of this debate is about who controls the sport.


 



No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment

Comment