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.

 

London 2012 Olympics: no legacy for equestrian from pre-training camps either

While no-one has ever pretended there will be physical legacy for equestrianism from the £40 million-odd temporary build at Greenwich, prospects for an improvement in existing facilities through secondary Olympic spend have taken a hit.

First, Greenwich council has still not given the green light to the new riding school at nearby Shooters Hill due to have started next year, with opponents saying the site is a protected communal space.

And now, with only 12 months to go, it has emerged that not one of Britain’s 60 Locog-approved Pre-Games Training Camps has been booked by an overseas equestrian team.

Back in 2008 there was optimism that the much-vaunted PGTC scheme might at least lead to an upgrade in facilities at existing venues through lucrative deals with long-stay visitors. Several made capital improvements, such as putting a roof on their outdoor arena. These have benefitted their year-round clientele but would never have been considered but for the Olympic “link” in a niche industry that struggles day-to-day with the high cost of business rates and animal feedstuffs.

Some equestrian venues were components of county council consortium PGTC bids that have spent tens, maybe hundreds of thousands trying to grab a slice of the Olympic action.  But now, it seems, equestrian spend has gone in one, irrecoverable direction – through overtures to overseas teams that were never considering UK PGTCs in the first place.

Bookings are relatively  buoyant in non-equestrian sports, with 93 across 540 PGTCs and Locog are rightly hopeful things will accelerate.

However, as equestrianism is Euro-centric, elite overseas riders have had permanent bases in Britain and the Low Countries for decades. Demand for PGTCs was negligible, even before the application process began.  The International Equestrian Federation readily acknowledged this scenario when I asked them this week.

In fairness Locog warned applicants that they proceeded with any capital improvements at their own risk, by why “approve” so many?  The 60 equestrian PGTCs represent 10% of the total across all  29 Olympic sports, and many were remote from the prep events.

The Paralympics have provided two bookings, though one is to a venue with existing para links and the other to an internationally renowned centre that hardly needed further citation.

All 60 understandably trumpeted their 2012 “endorsements” in spring 2008. Now there is disenchantment. I helped Horse & Hound magazine to research this week’s study.  Kevin Butchart, proprietor of Woodredon Equestrian Centre near Epping Forest, echoed many, saying PGTCs were “primarily a paper exercise to tick boxes, with no plan to achieve.”

Now that another door on physical legacy has shut, there will be all the more pressure on Greenwich to deliver a different sort of boost.  Unfortunately, the international community is about to see two examples of what a mere £15 million could have done for existing equestrian sites – at Rotterdam, which unveils its shiny new grandstand at next week’s European dressage championships , and Luhmuehlen  - Germany’s principal horse trials site – that has enjoyed a state-aided transformation for the European eventing.

The late Douglas Bunn effectively subsidised Britain’s international show jumping venue for 50 years at Hickstead. Now his children are doing the same, last winter finding £750,000 to resurface Hickstead’s main arena and thereby ensure we still have a site competent to host a five-star (top tier) Nations Cup.

If London 2012 does, as is hoped, generate more interest in riding, the obligation to deliver this intangible legacy will still fall on Hickstead and the hundreds of other devoted proprietors that have provided the supporting calendar from their own earned income for generations. They  will forever be taken for granted.