A top rider who was retroactively eliminated from a major class as his hat came undone during his round has had his appeal quashed by the FEI Tribunal.

French Olympic and world team medal-winning showjumper Simon Delestre jumped clear in the GCL (Global Champions League) Super Cup quarter final at the Global Champions Playoffs in Prague last November. But after the class finished, officials told him he had been eliminated because his helmet’s harness had come unfastened at some point during his round. Under FEI rules, riders’ hats must be fully fastened.

This meant the team Simon was competing for, the Istanbul Warriors, were knocked out of the rest of the competition.

He appealed the decision with the ground jury at the show, who dismissed it.

“To date, I am one of the few riders to have experienced such a firm and definitive interpretation of this FEI rule,” said Simon at the time. “I find this decision unfair and inappropriate. Why do other riders, in the same circumstances as me, have their scores upheld, while I am disqualified?”

The GCL and Prague Playoffs Organisation said at the time it believed it “should not influence the rider’s result or carry any implication to the team results”. A spokesperson added: “While we respect that we are not the FEI or the official judges who are responsible for rule enforcement, we must express our disappointment with the decisions which also have a significant impact on the wider event.”

Simon took the matter to FEI Tribunal.

He argued that the decision “violates the FEI’s own regulatory framework and fundamental principles of fair play” and is also “grossly disproportionate in light of an unintentional equipment failure that was neither observed nor sanctioned in the field of play”.

Simon also argued that it was not a real-time sporting judgement made on the field of play, but rather he was eliminated after the competition “had fully concluded, after the official results had been published” and following a video seen after the class.

He argued that it was not a “decision arising from the field of play”, but the FEI countered this with a statement that “the ‘field of play’ definition concerns the nature of the decision, and not the timing”.

The point about whether something is a field of play decision or not is critical, as the FEI Tribunal views such decisions as binding and non-appealable.

“The fact the elimination was retroactive does not strip it of its ‘field of play’ status,” stated the FEI’s submission.

“Many FEI officials’ decisions pertaining to matters occurring in the field of play are actually taken after the athlete’s round. For example, blood on a horse is assessed at the boot and bandage control that can take place both pre- and post-competition.”

The FEI Tribunal ruled that determining whether the rider’s helmet was unfastened at some point during the class “is unequivocally a ‘field of play’ decision” and that the appeal is “non admissible”.

“The fact that the GJ [ground jury] decided on the matter after the class, and after the results were published, does not render it an outside the field of play decision,” it added. “Quite to the contrary [the rules] specifically allow for the use of video to assist the FEI officials in carrying out their responsibilities, which is to be understood, in the present matter, as taking decisions related to the field of play.”

H&H has contacted Simon for comment and to ask if he plans to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

• To stay up to date with all the breaking news from major shows throughout the year, subscribe to the Horse & Hound website

You may also be interested in:

‘We’re delighted to bring loyal readers this benefit’: H&H magazine subscribers get free website access

The race to be leading rider ends in a three-way tie: three titles each at the Winter Dressage Championships

‘He’s phenomenal’: watch as horse and rider jump classic Range Rover with ease

Top judge with extensive CV reveals what she’s looking for – and hoping not to see – in the ring

In this exclusive H&H article, equestrian journalist Pippa Cuckson interrogates the FEI tribunal case of Andrew McConnon and considers whether the current process of holding sport horse abusers to account is fit for purpose

The eventing community was shocked by the apparently lenient treatment of Andrew McConnon, the US five-star rider who in October was suspended just 20 months for horse abuse.

Prior to the outcome of the FEI’s case and subsequent release of the 120-page Tribunal document on McConnon’s allegedly abusive practices, individuals had previously tried – unsuccessfully – to report him to US equestrian authorities.

Eventually, the FEI legal department thought it had a cast iron case, with eight witnesses testifying to the 39-year-old’s behaviour over many years. It sought a lifetime ban. Yet the independent FEI Tribunal found no proof of long-term abuse, and regarded the FEI’s witnesses as less convincing than the 10 people speaking to McConnon’s general character, irrespective of whether they were present when alleged incidents took place.

McConnon was sanctioned solely for three single incidents he admitted to, claiming he was under personal stress. These were all from February and March 2024, backed up with pictures from an employee who made a concerted effort to obtain usable evidence. Even though McConnon was guilty of some abuse, and of bringing equestrianism into disrepute, FEI Tribunal denied the FEI’s costs claim because it had wasted “too much time” with insufficient evidence.

Aside from the three incidents proved, McConnon said the other allegations “spiraled off” from videos that went viral on social media and were “demonstrably false”. While some video clips showed necessary “corrections” of horse behaviour, or rider actions to get the horse’s attention, they were not intended to cause pain and were not abuse.

As part of his lengthy final statement, McConnon said: “As a professional athlete and an upper-level competitor, it is my responsibility to set an example. However, in March 2024, I was extremely thankful to [witness name redacted] for kindly speaking with me after a difficult ride about what she had witnessed. That conversation helped me put my then current struggles into focus. I made the necessary changes that day and I was thankful for her forgiveness for my behaviour. This isn’t a case of I’m sorry I got caught. I’m genuinely sorry for my actions.” There was a lot of stress in his personal life at the time, but “being a private and independent person, I incorrectly tried to handle my struggles alone.”

How the Cesar Parra and Andrew McConnon cases differ

Only two months earlier a 15-year ban was handed to US-based dressage Olympian Cesar Parra, effectively ending his career at 65. Aside from the discussion still ongoing about McConnon, and the wider challenges of social licence, the McConnon decision is a huge setback for the FEI legal team. The FEI has, after all, declared zero tolerance for offenders, and encouraged whistleblowers to use its online reporting portal (which has only led to proceedings in four per cent of reported incidents so far.)

We have previously discussed the different ways FEI penalises horse abusers. Anything “on the field of play” is handled by the ground jury and the punishment is unappealable. But once the incident becomes “historic” or occurs away from competition, the emphasis shifts dramatically; it is now up to the whistleblower to prove the case. This is a very big “ask” for a non-lawyer, even when the FEI’s experienced litigators take the lead.

McConnon and Parra were charged with similarly egregious practices such as excessive use of whips and spurs (sometimes resulting in weals and blood), hyperflexion and other means of tying down a horse for prolonged spells, repeated jabbing of the horse in the mouth, working of horses known to be lame and withholding food and water as a punishment.

Two Tribunal members sat on both panels: Brian Ward, and Agustin Fattal Jaef. However, there were several distinct differences between the presentation which may explain some of the McConnon findings.

Against Parra, 29 videos and 25 photos clearly showed his involvement in incidents at issue. Some show prolonged abuse. The four witnesses took more of a complementary role to the extensive evidence that had been caught on camera. Only two of his claimed 54 supporters were actually prepared to speak up on the day. Parra also incriminated himself. While denying abuse (and not all allegations were proved) he clearly felt there was nothing unusual about his training methods. The Tribunal was “amazed to see how creative [he] has been in trying to find techniques and practices that would hurt horses, in perfect indifference to their suffering”.

By contrast, picture evidence against McConnon was limited, with videos lasting only a few seconds; in slow motion, one did not show what was described.

Moreover the rider gave alternative explanations for the picture content – which the Tribunal largely accepted. For example, he claimed a horse’s head was tied briefly to its forelegs to avoid use of sedation or twitch for mane-pulling; it was not a punishment.

He was also given considerable credit for fulsome expressions of remorse over the three 2024 incidents proved, which were hitting the horse seven times at the top of the neck, using the whip inappropriately on the shoulder and haunches, and using the reins “firmer than necessary” to ask the horse to bend and jabbing it in the mouth three times. He is only the second person in a Tribunal abuse case to say sorry; the first being Charlotte Dujardin in 2024. (Generally, riders vigorously defend their actions.)

The importance of witnesses in the Andrew McConnon case

Thus the McConnon case hung more on prosecution witnesses, much of whose testimony was disregarded due to ambiguities under cross-examination.

There will, to me, always be understandable memory gaps over historic events. It is no surprise that a groom who was only 17 at the time, and likely in awe of her employer, would stumble over exactly who was present 11 years ago for the alleged administration of anti-inflammatories to conceal abuse from a horse’s owner. This type of “wobble” when challenged by an experienced defence attorney can often negate the witness’s entire testimony, with no recognition that at least some of it occurred.

The same lack of weight was afforded to McConnon’s neighbour, who claimed to have watched a prolonged spate of abuse from her property. She said McConnon “unleashed” his whip on horse, getting it into such a state that it flailed around in a “drunken waltz”; but she later was found not to be able to see everything described from her vantage point. This undermined her account of the entire incident.

Horse abuse is defined under FEI General Regulations Art 142 as “an action or omission which causes or is likely to cause pain or unnecessary discomfort to a Horse.” It may be noted that the singular is used – “an action” – and that pain does not have to be proved.

There is nothing in Art 142 to suggest that abuse must be repeated or sustained to be an offence. Indeed, riders who whipped or violently kicked a horse in a single short outburst were handed significant sanctions in several cases before the pandemic. Some were cited in the McConnon decision. This included one case protested by me, against an endurance rider who whacked a horse twice at the top of the neck with a full plastic slosh bottle, with video evidence simply drawn from the official livestream of the race; he was banned for six months. None were deemed comparable to the McConnon allegations.

How Tribunal abuse decisions have shifted over time

Those reading all Tribunal abuse decisions chronologically may notice a few subtle shifts in its approach over time: we can speculate, albeit speciously, whether McConnon might have been suspended for longer if disciplined five or six years ago.

Tribunal seems more cautious nowadays, having accumulated a sizeable cache of “case law” (ie, precedent) on horse abuse since 2014. Before then, its work mostly related to doping, interpretation of sport rules or last-minute disputes over Olympic qualifications.

The Tribunal may also be more sensitive to potential appeals. In 2021 there was a devastating setback for the FEI when its record 20-year ban on an endurance rider was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Regarding McConnon, Tribunal said: “the more serious the allegation and its consequences, the higher certainty (level of proof) the Panel requires to be comfortably satisfied.” It also referenced CAS’s ruling that sanctions must be proportionate and “must not exceed what is reasonably required in the search of a justifiable aim”.

But are sport rules the correct way to handle the equine equivalent of assault on a human, that might even mean jail when prosecuted by law enforcement? The horse is a truly awkward fit in the gamut of sport law.

Separate animal protection laws barely figure in current discussions. In any event, they differ widely in FEI member countries. Even in the UK they are generally more focussed on the neglect or starvation of leisure horses and ponies. The notion that things may be badly wrong in an elite equestrian yard or racing stable is generally off the police or RSPCA radar; they too would need witness corroboration.

Notably, in Switzerland, equestrian authorities were relieved when police took up the abuse case against showjumper Paul Estermann; once convicted, this gave the Swiss equestrian federation irrefutable grounds to ban him immediately for seven years. But this happens rarely.

A “flawed” procedure for dealing with horse abuse

The Editor asked me to consider what might have been done better in the McConnon case. Having reported on FEI disciplinary proceedings over 40 years, and had direct involvement in bringing four abuse allegations to Tribunal, I have thought about this a lot. My conclusion is that the procedure itself is flawed.

For sure the FEI witnesses were not as robust as some. There was albeit understandable prior discussion between some of them, which fed the defence’s argument of collusion to bring McConnon down; more photographic evidence would have supported their case. But the alternative would have been concentrating on the three incidents from early 2024 – or dropping the case entirely. Doing nothing would have resulted in more reputational damage for equestrianism at this critical time.

The current system for disciplining out of competition abuse tries to shoehorn a criminal court-style legal process into the functions of a sporting regulatory body with limited resources to investigate anything, never mind what goes on behind closed doors. The FEI is not the police; it cannot enter private premises; it cannot sequester documents, CCTV footage, phones, devices, emails or social media accounts; it cannot compel anyone to testify.

Worse still, the victim – the horse – cannot speak and thus a third party must try on its behalf – often someone young and afraid to confront their boss. (In an alleged incident from 2019 in the McConnon case, an experienced vet decided not to report concerning whip marks, hoping someone else would do so.) Younger staff members may think abusive treatment is quite normal until discussing it much later with others.

It is hopelessly unrealistic to expect anyone to video riders at close quarters 24-7 in the expectation they will err, but this is in effect required for successful prosecution of out of competition abuse. (On the field of play, official livestream footage when available ticks the “authenticity” box and has generally sufficed.)

Those brave enough to try inevitably end up filming covertly, from long distance. Matters of identification then arise, and exactly what happened is difficult to pick out. Witnesses must also be prepared for tough interrogation from the rider’s defence team. I have been there; it is not for the faint-hearted!

What is the solution?

I do not know the solution – but one must be found. It may not help short term, but I believe anything related to welfare and horse abuse should be re-worked into a new and extended welfare and abuse section in FEI General Regulations, and applied uniformly on the field of play in all sports. Quentin Simonet, new president of the European Equestrian Federation recently proposed a similar move.

More effective jurisdiction over out of competition abuse may be a challenge too far. The FEI has asked all member federations to align their horse abuse rules and processes with the FEI’s by 1 January, 2027, which may mean handling more of these complex cases themselves instead of referring them to the FEI. How a modestly-resourced national governing body will fare remains to be seen.

How to report horse abuse

Under FEI rules, there is no statute of limitations in reporting abuse, though the sooner the better. The FEI has a new abuse online portal, the FEI Reporting Hub, but you can still email the FEI secretary-general with allegations and evidence.

Anything witnessed at an FEI event, at a national show or away from competition involving a FEI registered person: report to FEI and copy to the national federation as back-up, ie British Equestrian (BEF.)

Anything witnessed at a national show or away from competition involving a non-FEI registered person: report to that national governing body and copy to BEF.

Express concerns to officials on the day, but don’t assume they will follow up; go ahead with written complaints as above. Even if you want to think about reporting an incident for a few days, write down your detailed account while it is fresh; more weight is given to contemporaneous notes.

Include:

• Your full contact details, and those of other potential witnesses.

• Detailed written account of what happened in exact order, giving dates, time and locations. If you know your sport rules, cite those allegedly breached, and explain why this constitutes abuse.

• Some cases stall due to difficulty confirming identity. Don’t leave it to the governing body to do this. Supply the rider’s registration number if you can find it (FEI database is publicly available) and include (if at a show) a running order to prove they were present.

• Video and still images from any device are acceptable to FEI. They like extracts from official livestreams where feasible. Video back-up with still images from the same incident in high resolution are the ideal. An interrupted sequence of still photos with no corresponding video may be interpreted as a “moment in time” or met with accusations of photoshopping.

• Imagery must clearly show the accused rider actually committing the offence. Separate images of the horse showing injuries or other aftermath, are important – but as stand-alone items, they are not evidence. Neither are images shot from behind, or with the rider’s face or any other identifying features pixilated. Capturing the number worn by horse/rider is also useful.

• Ensure date and time are encrypted in digital images.

• Resist the temptation to post on social media.

• You may request anonymity – but be aware that a FEI Tribunal case may ultimately rely on your willingness to testify in person.

• To stay up to date with all the breaking equestrian news throughout the year, subscribe to the Horse & Hound website

You may also be interested in:

Rider guilty of horse abuse shows ‘sincere remorse’ as much evidence against him discredited

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

Cesar Parra was ‘indifferent to horses’ suffering’ – full report on banned Olympic rider who abused horses for years

Former Olympic rider Cesar Parra suspended for 15 years in ‘deeply unsettling’ horse abuse case

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

Five-star event rider Andrew McConnon showed “sincere remorse” for his actions that constituted horse abuse, the FEI Tribunal found – and was not guilty of most of the allegations made against him.

H&H reported that the US rider had been suspended for 20 months. The full FEI Tribunal report into his hearing has now been published.

The Tribunal panel disregarded most of the evidence from the FEI’s multiple witnesses, as the FEI sought to prove Andrew had committed abuse, including preventing horses from breathing and riding in hyperflexion.

It found that he had “slapped Horse A on the top of his neck seven times”, that his use of the reins on the same horse was “firmer than necessary” to keep his head to the right and that he “jabbed Horse A in the mouth three times by crossing the rein over Horse A’s midline”.

“There was no evidence to suggest that the pain or discomfort was long-lasting or resulted in any enduring harm,” the Tribunal report states.

The panel did not find that Andrew had intentionally left horses without enough food or drink, or used spurs excessively.

Much of the FEI’s video and photographic evidence was also discredited by the panel, including footage the FEI said showed him hitting a horse with a whip but in which, the panel noted, he was not carrying a whip.

Witness statements

The FEI submitted eight witness statements, including former employees, neighbours and a vet, as well as video and photos. The witnesses claimed to have seen the rider engage in multiple abusive behaviours, but the Tribunal cited issues including inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence.

In his testimony, before he described videos that had been posted online, Andrew said: “I’m absolutely willing to explain what happened. I just want to be clear that in my explanation, this isn’t justifying my actions. You’ll hear throughout my testimony and in my thoughts at the end that it’s absolutely unacceptable.”

He acknowledged that slapping Horse C was also “absolutely unacceptable”.

He said he believed some of the submitted photos had been edited; he believed he had been cut out of one that would have showed him washing a horse down, and that another had been Photoshopped to add marks.

“The owners of Horse A communicated that they were having financial difficulties and were unable to fulfill past due payments of tens of thousands of dollars, creating a significant financial strain,” the report states. “Furthermore, in February 2024 [Andrew] learned that his father had been diagnosed with cancer.

“These challenges compounded around February 2024, and while [Andrew] did not realise it at the time, the emotional impact of this difficult period began to have a palpable effect on him, both inside and outside of the barn.”

Rumours spread

The report states that Andrew became aware of the FEI investigation “from rumours spread by FEI Witness 1 that she wanted to end [Andrew’s] career”.

In a final statement to the panel, Andrew said he wanted to apologise.

“In the beginning of last year, I acted out of character with my values as a horseman,” he said. “As a professional athlete and an upper-level competitor, it is my responsibility to set an example.

“However, in March 2024, I was extremely thankful to [FEI Witness 1] for kindly speaking with me after a difficult ride about what she had witnessed. That conversation helped me put my then current struggles into focus. I made the necessary changes that day and I was thankful for her forgiveness for my behaviour.

“This isn’t a case of I’m sorry I got caught. I’m genuinely sorry for my actions. Being a private and independent person, I incorrectly tried to handle my struggles alone. Because of the overwhelming things that were going on in my personal life, I inappropriately allowed it to carry over into my work and what I need, what I needed, was help.”

Andrew said he sought professional help and cited his sanction- and warning-free career.

“My reputation has been destroyed. My income has been halted, and my future in the sport I love has been threatened,” he said. “I have learned from my mistakes and I still believe that I can be a valuable and contributing member of the FEI community. My passion is to produce horses, compete and to give back to the sport, and help mentor junior and young riders.

“I’ve dedicated myself to horses and the sport. It has been my entire life.

“I can’t undo what has happened, but I wish to be a positive influence moving forward. I hope you accept my apology and admission of wrongdoing. I will never repeat these behaviours.”

Social media targeting

The Tribunal heard from witnesses including former staff, friends, a clinical social worker – from whom Andrew had sought help – and a vet, who had never witnessed abuse or signs of it and praised Andrew’s patience, integrity and horsemanship.

“Respondent Witness 8 wrote about a ‘pack of horse women’ who have used social media to target the respondent,” the report states. “Respondent Witness 8 described their ‘cancel culture vengeance’ as ‘alarming, biased and truly destructive’.” The panel assigned “high to full weight” to Andrew’s evidence and moderate to full to all his witnesses.

The FEI had sought a life ban, but the panel found this “not warranted”.

“The panel finds that his acknowledgment of wrongdoing, proactive steps to address his behaviour, and demonstrated understanding of the responsibilities of a professional athlete reflect a genuine effort to learn from the incident and mitigate future risk,” the report states. “The panel considers these factors as indicative of sincere remorse, which is relevant to the assessment of the respondent’s overall character and conduct.”

• To stay up to date with all the breaking news from major shows throughout 2025, subscribe to the Horse & Hound website

You may also be interested in:

‘We owe our horses better than this’: top rider speaks out as five-star eventer suspended for horse abuse

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

Five-star rider Andrew McConnon provisionally suspended over horse abuse allegations

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

Five-star US event rider Andrew McConnon has been suspended for 20 months for abusing horses – as a fellow top rider said: “We owe our horses better than this”.

The FEI Tribunal has ruled on the case of the eventer, who had been provisionally suspended since January. H&H reported last September that an anonymous report had been made to US Equestrian (USEF) in summer 2024 and that “materials showing abusive behaviours” were sent to USEF shortly afterwards. The news came shortly after Andrew had competed at Burghley for the first time, coming 27th with Wakita 54.

USEF passed information to the FEI, which announced an investigation, and Andrew was suspended this year.

“In its decision of 24 November 2025, the FEI Tribunal found Andrew McConnon to have engaged in abuse of horse as well as in a conduct that has brought the FEI and equestrian sport into disrepute,” an FEI spokesperson said.

“McConnon was further found to have breached the FEI code of conduct on the welfare of the horse by those same actions.”

The rider was fined CHF 2,500 (£2,344). His suspension, taking into account that already served, will end on 8 September next year.

Since January, fellow top US eventer Tamie Smith has been caring for two horses previously ridden by Andrew.

Open letter

In an open letter to the horse world and its governing bodies, she said she had had a text saying: “We have no hope in this sport if 20 months is all you get for abusing horses.”

“That sentence has sat heavily with me — not because it is dramatic, but because it is painfully true,” she said.

“I want to begin by acknowledging that I have immense sympathy for everyone involved, including Andrew McConnon. I believe that no one wakes up choosing to abuse a horse. People are shaped by their experiences, their education, their pressures, and sometimes their pain. Many of us, if honest, can reflect on moments in our early horsemanship where we reacted poorly out of fear or confusion – when we did not yet understand how horses think.

“But there is a line that must never be crossed: losing control, lashing out, or harming a horse out of anger is never acceptable.”

Tamie said her knowledge of what had happened came via the two horses themselves.

“What I learned broke my heart,” she said.

“The owners… were victims too – yet never interviewed or contacted by the FEI investigators.

“The grooms who witnessed the behaviour and chose courage over silence are heroic in opinion. I don’t condone those who falsely exaggerated the innocents however the actions that were explained to be weren’t in need of embellishing. Some of these people walked away from the sport entirely because they could not bear to watch abuse continue. They too were victims.”

“Horses don’t lie”

Tamie said the two horses were underweight and tense, and showing “reactions unlike any I had seen in 30+ years training high-performance horses” when they arrived at her yard.

“Horses don’t lie,” she said. “Their transformation is their testimony.”

Tamie said she does not believe Andrew should be banned for life, as she believes in “rehabilitation, education, and redemption”.

“People can change – when they acknowledge harm and commit to structured help,” she added. “But what I cannot accept is: a sentence that feels overwhelmingly light, a process that never interviewed the owners, the riders, or pertinent people involved, a conclusion issued without gathering critical testimony, no mandate for counselling, education, supervision or reform, a message that risks telling the world that we tolerate abuse.

“We must be better. We must demand accountability and education, not silence and avoidance.

“There is an opportunity here – not just to punish, but to transform. Maybe it is time for a required course on understanding the horse’s mind, trauma responses, emotional regulation, and ethical training.

“Maybe it is time for governing bodies to reevaluate investigative processes so that every voice – including the horses’ – is heard.

“If we truly love this sport, any equestrian sport, we cannot turn away from what is uncomfortable. Ultimately. our horses cannot speak, we are their voice, and we owe them better than this.”

• To stay up to date with all the breaking news from major shows throughout 2025, subscribe to the Horse & Hound website

You may also be interested in:

Five-star rider Andrew McConnon provisionally suspended over horse abuse allegations

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

Five-star rider under investigation after ‘abusive behaviours’ caught on video

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

The panel who ruled on the case of horse abuser Cesar Parra was “amazed to see how creative [he] has been in trying to find techniques and practices that would hurt horses, in perfect indifference to their suffering”.

H&H reported in August that the US dressage rider had been suspended for 15 years by the FEI Tribunal, for repeatedly abusing multiple horses in his care. The full Tribunal report has now been published, detailing the many and varied methods he used.

The Tribunal panel found that Parra had excessively used the whip, and excessively and persistently used spurs. He caused damage to horses’ mouths by misusing his hands, used “abusive equipment” – metal nuts under the noseband – and elasticated hobbles and shackles.

“The respondent’s actions put the horses’ mental and physical health at risk,” the Tribunal report states. “Based on his own declarations, the respondent did not see any issue in his behaviour, considering it to be specific training techniques or practices. The panel strongly disagrees.

“On the contrary, the respondent adopted a behaviour aiming at obtaining complete submissiveness, in his pursuit of competition and commercial goals. The respondent’s practices included, in this sense, abuse through sheer force such as beating, whipping, abusing hand aids and spurs resulting in welts, swelling, open wounds, cuts, sores in the horses’ mouths to also more sophisticated abuse, such as elastics, pulley system, shackles, metal nuts under the noseband, etc.”

The FEI set out that Parra, 62, has been competing internationally since 1998, including at the 2004 Olympics, and is “an elite athlete who has reached the highest level of performance in dressage with considerable experience in equestrian sport”. He had been provisionally suspended since February 2024, when video clips of his training techniques were sent to US Equestrian (USEF), causing an FEI and USEF investigation.

Evidence

The FEI submitted 29 videos to the panel, 25 photographs and four witness statements.

The first witness, a rider who previously worked for Parra, said he saw him excessively using whips, spurs and his hands, causing open wounds, welts and mouth bleeding and sores.

He said he saw Parra using a “twisted wire headset” under the bridle and tied to the girth and a metal nut under the noseband to cause “pressure and pain” on the nasal bone. He also said he witnessed Parra using a “pulley system consisting of hoof shackles connected with a lunging girth via a long rope, used for the forced resistance of the legs and body”. The panel did not uphold the allegation of use of the wire headset, nor electric spurs as mentioned by another witness.

“The respondent’s philosophy was that by taking the horses’ legs away from them, he would make them submissive and humble,” the statement in the Tribunal report reads.

“Upon questioning from the FEI, the witness submitted that in general the horses were in a mental state of distress consecutively to the respondent’s behaviour, and they wanted to leave the arena.

“Sometimes, they would refuse to move, lean down or spin around, among other signs of stress. Upon questioning from Mr Parra’s counsel, the witness submitted that he had had multiple discussions with Mr Parra during the time he worked for him, in relation to the various issues raised, but that Mr Parra was not willing to listen to him or to the others.”

Another rider who worked for Parra said she saw excessive whip and spur use and resulting wounds, and horses left for hours with their heads tied down, as well as “tying the horse’s head down and at the same time excessively whipping the horse from the ground”.

“Whipping of horses was performed on a daily basis, to the extent that the sound of the whipping became almost normal,” the report on this witness’s evidence states.

“Upon questioning from the FEI, the witness testified that the horses were in a very bad mental state in consequence of the respondent’s behaviour. They urinated all over themselves, and their eyes became huge with fear when the respondent would approach them.”

Another witness said he saw Parra working horses in hyperflexion.

“Grave and extensive abuse”

The FEI submitted that Parra’s “grave and extensive abuse and abusive training practices” involved most if not all the horses he owned or trained, “continuously and repetitively throughout several years”, and that by doing so, and instructing employees to do so, he put horses’ and riders’ mental and physical health – and their lives – in danger.

Parra submitted 54 sworn declarations in his defence, from people including a reverend who went to Parra’s yard every day for four years.

“More than half of the 54 declarations come from clients, trainers, grooms, farriers, and friends who all had the opportunity to observe, in person, Mr Parra training horses, and for decades,” the report states. “In all these years, not one of them has ever witnessed Mr Parra abuse a horse, nor done any of the horrible things which the FEI witnesses accuse him of.”

Parra contested some of the videos, saying the horses did not show signs of stress, and that some were edited not to include “verbal and other rewards offered to the horse”.

He said allegations of electric spurs, twisted steel, beating a horse with a thick piece of wood and depriving horses of food and water were “pure fiction”, and pointed out that the FEI stewards’ manual says riding in hyperflexion is allowed for short periods of time.

One of his witnesses, his head groom for 20 years, said she had never seen him “abusing a horse, use electric spurs or whip a horse until he goes down”.

A second witness, Parra’s wife, said: “The respondent never abused any horse. There has been an accident once, but that’s all,” the report states. “Upon questioning from the FEI, the witness testified that it is not nice to hit horses. Similarly, horses’ wounds are not ok, but none of them were made by Mr Parra.”

Parra himself told the panel that “the horses are his life, he loves them”.

“If the panel does not believe that the respondent loves them, they should at least believe him when he says that they are worth a lot of money, and that it is his whole life,” the report states. “Why would he hurt or mark them? In relation to the spur marks, if the FEI considers him responsible for the marks to the horses which happened at his barn because he is the owner of the barn, he accepts it, but he never did those spur marks himself.

“The same goes for riding injured horses. It is unfortunate to ride injured horses, but the respondent never did so himself. It was actually FEI witness one and the others who did. The respondent insisted on never ever having hurt his horses intentionally and would never allow anybody to do so as well.”

The report adds: “Upon questioning from the panel, the respondent mentioned regretting having used some of his training methods and agrees that hitting a horse in the neck is not good, but he does not consider it to be abusive.”

“Bad training errors”

Parra said the FEI witnesses made false allegations, that “there is a difference between mistakes in training (bad training errors) and horse abuse”, and that the FEI’s picture and video evidence was “cherry-picked and taken out of context”.

The panel did not find Parra had used electric spurs or a twisted wire headset. It did not uphold allegations of overworking horses or leaving them without food or water.

But it was noted that Parra had been involved in the abusive practices for years.

“The case file, photographs and videos also show that various of the respondent’s horses were subjected to a repeated pattern of abuse,” the report states. “We are not in presence of only one horse or an isolated set of incidents, but instead it is a situation of several and repeated cases of abusive behaviors during an extended time. This constitutes, in the panel’s view, clear aggravating circumstances of the respondent’s misbehaviour.”

The panel noted that Parra had not previously been disciplined, but stated: “The respondent’s behaviour amounts to a clear abuse of horse as well as maltreatment of horses. These are among the most severe offences that can be committed in the context of equestrian sport.”

Parra was fined CHF 15,000 (£13,947) and ordered to pay CHF 10,000 in legal costs. He has submitted an appeal against the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

• To stay up to date with all the breaking news from major shows throughout 2025, subscribe to the Horse & Hound website

You may also be interested in:

Former Olympic rider Cesar Parra suspended for 15 years in ‘deeply unsettling’ horse abuse case

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

‘There is no place in our sport for abuse’: rules to be strengthened after ‘abhorrent’ training videos

‘Abhorrent and abusive training techniques’: former Olympic rider suspended from all competition

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

Former Olympic dressage rider Cesar Parra has been suspended for 15 years for repeatedly abusing multiple horses in his care in a “deeply unsettling case”.

The FEI Tribunal has announced today (6 August) that US rider Parra, 62, has been sanctioned for “actions violating the principles of horse welfare”. He had been provisionally suspended since February last year; H&H reported at the time that US Equestrian (USEF) had been sent video clips “documenting [Parra’s] abhorrent abusive training techniques” at his private training yard in Florida.

“US Equestrian had received multiple allegations along with numerous videos and photographs showing Parra engaging in abusive behaviour and training methods involving several horses,” an FEI spokesperson said.

“The FEI, in coordination with US Equestrian, launched an immediate investigation into the allegations that Parra had repeatedly and deliberately subjected the majority, if not all, of the horses he owned and trained to recurring and serious abuse over a number of years.”

The long-running investigation involved reviewing “extensive video and photographic material”, and statements from multiple witnesses. The FEI initiated formal disciplinary proceedings against Parra in May 2024 on three charges: abuse of horse, conduct that brings the FEI and/or equestrian sport and the FEI into disrepute and breach of the FEI code of conduct on the welfare of the horse.

“This case is deeply unsettling, not only because of the recurring nature of the abuse, but also because of the number of horses affected,” said FEI legal director Mikael Rentsch.

“That such behaviour came from a top-level athlete makes it all the more troubling. Our athletes are expected to represent and uphold the highest standards of horsemanship. Horse welfare is the foundation, not an add-on, of equestrian sport.

“The investigation demanded significant time and resources due to the volume and complexity of the evidence, which had to be meticulously verified. The 15-year suspension sends a clear message that regardless of profile or position, those who violate the principles of horse welfare will face serious consequences.”

Cesar Parra represented Colombia at the 1999 Pan American Games, the 2004 Olympics and the 2002 and 2006 World Equestrian Games. He switched nationalities in 2008 and competed for the US at the 2011 Pan American Games.

Rule change

A USEF spokesperson said that when the federation received the complaints about Parra in early 2024, it did not have a rule allowing it to take action on welfare issues outside sanctioned competitions. It referred the case to the FEI, which did have such a rule, and has since passed a change expanding its jurisdiction to “unethical treatment that occurs on or off the grounds of a federation competition”.

“As a federation, we have strengthened our rules to ensure we are within our jurisdiction to pursue disciplinary action for behaviour and actions endangering horse safety and welfare, both on and off competition grounds,” said USEF CEO Bill Moroney. “Parra’s documented and repeated behavior has no place in our sport, and we will ensure the enforcement of the FEI Tribunal’s decision. We appreciate the FEI’s diligence and expertise in pursuing this matter.”

The FEI said Parra’s suspension, from all national and international competition, related activity or training of FEI-registered riders or horses until 1 February 2039, is part of “one of the most significant sanctions issued by the FEI Tribunal”. He has also been fined CHF 15,000 (£13,947) and ordered to pay CHF 10,000 in legal costs.

H&H has contacted Parra.

• To stay up to date with all the breaking news from major shows throughout 2025, subscribe to the Horse & Hound website

You may also be interested in:

‘Abhorrent and abusive training techniques’: former Olympic rider suspended from all competition

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

‘There is no place in our sport for abuse’: rules to be strengthened after ‘abhorrent’ training videos

‘The whole world has witnessed terrible cruelty’: open letter to the FEI describes abuse in dressage as ‘a wake-up’ call

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

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.”

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

Horse feed contaminated by rats – and hay contaminated by a groom urinating in a stall – have been found to be responsible after horses tested positive for banned substances in two separate recent cases.

Rebekah Italiano’s ride Kenlock Cadillac tested positive for banned substance warfarin, a blood thinner also commonly found in rat poison. The positive sample was taken when the pair were competing at the CCI4*-S at Ballarat Horse Trials in Australia in May 2023.

The FEI Tribunal notes that warfarin may be used in the treatment of navicular disease and deep vein thrombosis, and is classed as a banned substance, which means it is prohibited both in and out of competition.

Ms Italiano opted to have the B sample tested, which also came back positive.

The Tribunal documents state that Ms Italiano put forward “extensive submissions” following her own investigation into where the substance could have come from. The FEI was satisfied that “on a balance of probabilities” the source was “contamination of the horse feed by rats”.

The FEI considered that she had shown she bore “no significant fault or negligence”, so the sanctions should be at the lower end of the range.

She was disqualified from the competition, given a two-month suspension, instead of the otherwise applicable stretch of two years, and fined CHF 3,000 (£2,635). The two-month suspension was also backdated, as she had already served a four-month provisional suspension.

In a separate case at a CCI4*-S in Quillota, Chile, a winning combination are set to be stripped of their victory after the horse tested positive for a banned substance owing to a groom urinating in a stable.

Chaman Ginn, the ride of Argentina’s Juan Benitez Gallardo, tested positive for O-Desmethylvenlafaxine at the event they won on 10 December 2023 after, it is believed, he ate contaminated hay.

The FEI Tribunal states that the drug is a metabolite of Venlafaxine, a serotonin and norepinephrine inhibitor used as an anti-depressant.

The FEI was satisfied that Mr Benitez Gallardo bore no fault or negligence. His provisional suspension was lifted with immediate effect on the date of the hearing (7 March), he has not been fined, and the horse’s two-month suspension was completed on 14 March.

Athough the results from the event are still showing the pair as winners on the FEI database, the FEI Tribunal notes state that they are disqualified.

You might also be interested in:

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Shocked? FEI issues warning – with video of man urinating in dining room

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits. 

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

The FEI Tribunal has dismissed a Spanish request to the FEI to overturn a ground jury decision and pay €1,000, after a horse went missing for two hours during a championship competition.

The Spanish equestrian federation appealed the ruling of the ground jury during the young riders European Endurance Championships last September, owing to an “unusual set of facts”.

The dispute related to Clara Latorre Sala, the person responsible or PR, and the horse Eryvan, who were on the Spanish team. During the first phase of competition, Clara fell from Eryvan, who “left without the rider”, the FEI Tribunal report states.

“After some [searching], the horse was ultimately found a couple of hours later,” the report adds. “The horse then returned to the veterinarian gate in the competition area, was checked by a veterinarian and deemed fit to compete.”

The report states that the president of the ground jury offered the rider the chance to go back to the point of the fall and continue from there, but counting the elapsed time. The rider and the Spanish federation refused this, “as they considered that the combination should have restarted from the vet gate, where [the horse] had been taken without the PR and appellant’s consent”.

The president of the ground jury refused this, the horse was eliminated and the appellant lodged a protest, which the president later dismissed.

After the competition, the federation lodged the appeal to the Tribunal, asking for the president of the ground jury’s decision to be dismissed, and for the FEI to pay the €1,000 “for the damages caused to the Spanish team due to the negligence of the competition officials and the organising committee” and “which could be quantified as the competition fee”. The federation also wanted an investigation to “clarify the responsibilities that may be appropriate for the removal of the horse from the field of play without the consent of the PR”.

The FEI’s position was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate in “a clear field-of-play decision”.

The Spanish federation said that once Clara had fallen, Spanish officials were looking for the horse, with the aim of returning him to the site of the fall, to continue. The federation said it was someone from the organising committee who found him, and was told to take him to the clinic at the main venue, “leaving the field of play without informing the PR”, and “transported without the PR’s consent”. The federation added that its aim in its initial request was to ensure the combination could “continue the competition in a fair and competitive manner”, and that going back to the fall site would have “created a big disadvantage”.

The FEI’s position was that the ground jury president told the rider restarting from the vet gate “was not feasible” and that the decision was a field-of-play one, so “immune from any further challenge”. The FEI added that restarting from the fall site was allowed in the rules, but restarting from the vet gate was not.

The Tribunal agreed that it was a field-of-play decision, so “not appealable in front of the Tribunal”, noting that the appellant did not lodge a protest within 30 minutes of the announcement of the results.

“Rather, the appellant seeks monetary compensation”, the report states.

The Tribunal said it was not in a position to hear the issue, and it was considered inadmissible. The Spanish federation will have to pay costs of CHF500 (£455).

Hannah Bradley, consultant solicitor at Setfords Solicitors, told H&H: “Albeit that this case turns on a very unusual set of facts, it is a reminder that if the applicable regulations preclude a right of appeal, a Tribunal is unlikely to interfere with the decision of a ground jury or steward. These regulations are drafted keeping in mind the special perspective, insight and experience which those responsible for making such rulings at competitions hold.”

You might also be interested in:

Endurance rider whipped horse ‘because it was lonely’

The ‘promising young rider’ used an extra pair of reins to hit his horse

‘No leniency for horse abuse’: top rider’s 10-year ban for electric spur use upheld

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

A rider who “escaped”, and “ran away” when FEI officials wanted to take a mandatory sample for dope-testing after his horse failed a hyposensitivity test, has been suspended for two years.

The FEI Tribunal has ruled on the case of Saudi Arabian rider Ayedh Al Maghamer, in relation to a charge of evading, refusing or failing to submit to sample collection, with eight-year-old Talaqah at a CEI1* endurance ride in Saudi Arabia on 11 February this year.

“The horse was selected for a mandatory in-competition doping control test after the failed hyposensitivity examination but the PR [person responsible, Al Maghamer] refused testing and escaped with the horse, which prompted these proceedings,” the Tribunal report states.

Hyposensitivity testing involves monitoring a horse’s reaction when pressure is applied to a limb using a blunt “pin” in three tests. Under FEI rules, if the horse does not react to a set level of pressure, he is marked as hyposensitive and disqualified. This leads to a mandatory four-week stand-down period from competition for the horse, plus dope-testing to check for nerve-blocking agents, among other possible substances.

In Al Maghamer’s case, the FEI officials said the rider “insisted on being retested” after the standard three tests.

“He then ran away from the steward accompanying him to EADCMP [equine anti-doping and controlled medication programme],” the official’s report stated. “He refused EADCMP testing.”

The officials’ report added that Talaqah was “too fractious to test” at the first two vet gates, and “could not be approached safely”, but at the third vet gate, the officials “decided he must be tested”.

“The groom restrained by applying a hand lip twitch,” the report states. “We could then safely apply the boots and actuators. The groom released his hand from the horse’s lip, so the horse was not restrained in any way during the test. After being informed that his horse had abnormal findings (in the hyposensitivity testing) in his left foreleg and was disqualified,, the PR was angry and kept requesting further testing, which we politely refused. He was accompanied by a steward and a national judge for EADMCP but refused testing and escaped with his horse.”

The FEI said the ground jury told Al Maghamer of the consequences of failing to submit the horse for sample collection but “nonetheless, the PR disappeared with his horse, which resulted in the impossibility to conduct an in-competition test”.

The only submission from Al Maghamer in relation to the proceedings was: “I objected to the committee’s decision regarding the fine and suspension, because the committee present at the race did not inform me that a blood sample had been taken from the horse. They only said exclusion because the horse did not sense the sensitivity device, and the passport was received and the chip was handed over, and the committee did not inform me of the analysis.”

The Tribunal was “comfortably satisfied” that Al Maghamer had breached anti-doping rules, stating: “The Tribunal agrees with the FEI that evading, refusing or failing to submit the horse to sample collection is a very serious offence. Indeed, the entire anti-doping system, as well as the integrity and credibility of the equestrian sport, relies on the cooperation and abidance by the rules, of all participants in the context of the testing procedures.”

The Tribunal ruled that the combination be disqualified from the event. Al Maghamer was banned for two years, fined CHF7,500 (£6,848) and ordered to pay CHF2,000 in costs.

Hannah Bradley, solicitor at The Equine Law Firm, told H&H FEI rules make it clear that failure to submit a horse for sample collection is a serious matter.

“The indicative period of ineligibility in the rules for evading sample collection is significantly higher than the indicative period of ineligibility for a positive controlled substance test, and equal to the indicative period of ineligibility for a positive banned substance test,” she said.

“It is also important to note that the FEI’s equine anti-doping rules apply a ‘strict liability’ principle to rule breaches. This means that unless the person responsible can prove that they bear “no fault or negligence” they will be liable for the violation, even if the breach of the rules was accidental.

“The outcome of this case is a reminder to parties to cooperate promptly with disciplinary investigations and to seek advice, where possible. Whilst the substantive outcome of this tribunal may not have been different had the respondent given his full cooperation, he would have likely received a reduced fine.”

You might also be interested in:

Cautious hope hyposensitivity testing is leading to ‘changed mentality’ in endurance

Endurance rider whipped horse ‘because it was lonely’

The ‘promising young rider’ used an extra pair of reins to hit his horse

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

A trainer who was suspended for trying to help a rider conceal the use of boots with nails inside on a horse has breached his ban by competing under a false name.

H&H reported that Hicham Gharib had been found guilty of horse abuse by the FEI Tribunal, alongside showjumper Essam Zbibi, in relation to gelding HH Sigma at a CSI3* show in Abu Dhabi in 2021 (news, 24 February).

During the original case, the Tribunal heard Gharib was seen taking boots off the horse and throwing them into a bush. When the show’s chief steward retrieved the boots, each contained a “nail/sharp object” with “blood around the area”. Gharib denied all allegations and claimed he was not in the warm-up as a trainer or support personnel, and that he had removed the boots “as a favour” to Zbibi. But the Tribunal found he had “assisted and encouraged” the abuse, and he was suspended for one year from 2 February, fined 5,000CHF (£4,442) and ordered to pay 2,000CHF (1,593) costs. Zbibi was suspended for four years, fined 10,000CHF and ordered to pay 2,000CHF. When the pair appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in July, their cases were dismissed and both were ordered to pay an additional 5,000CHF.

In May, the FEI opened new disciplinary proceedings against Ghrarib when members of the equestrian community reported he “might not be complying” with his suspension, and he was seen jumping three horses at an event in Furusiyya, UAE, on 6 April. The FEI was told he was registered for the show under a false name, and that he had tried to enter other events but later withdrew, when organisers realised he was suspended.

Gharib denied the allegations and the case was submitted to the FEI Tribunal.

The FEI said a whistle-blower reported seeing Gharib competing under the name Hisham Moataz. The FEI based its claim on this testimony, along with pictures taken by the event’s photographer showing Gharib riding a horse there. A rider named Hisham Moataz was included on a screen showing the athletes participating – and appeared on a start list with three horses.

The FEI confirmed the rider’s identity through FEI officials who reported the original horse abuse case, and Gharib’s passport confirmed the photos taken during the event were of him. In total, the FEI investigated three events where Gharib allegedly competed, but due to lack of evidence, did not pursue two of these. The FEI added that throughout the investigation “more and more” evidence was removed from the internet and social media.

The show organiser, the Furusiyya Equestrian Club, confirmed to the FEI that Gharib was at the show with his students and that he participated hors concours (HC) and did not pay entry fees and his results were not recorded.

The FEI noted that after Gharib was suspended in February, he repeatedly asked about his rights and restrictions during his suspension. He asked whether he could attend events as a trainer or spectator, and was told by the FEI this was not allowed.FEI rules state, “No athlete may take part hors concours in any international competition unless otherwise specified by the sport rules of the relevant discipline.”

“It is important to remember the respondent was found to have engaged in and facilitated horse abuse at an event. It is therefore entirely logical, reasonable and proportionate for the FEI to prevent someone that has engaged in horse abuse from attending further events under the FEI umbrella,” the FEI submitted.

In Gharib’s submissions, he acknowledged that he recognised himself in the photos taken by the photographer, but claims he never took part in the event. He said he used the fences in the arena after the show and jumped a course with two horses later that day. He also provided a letter from the organiser certifying he had not taken part in the competition, and had attended as a spectator.

Gharib argued the FEI never obtained confirmation from the photographer that the pictures were taken during the show, and that the photographer told him she “was not sure” about the image in question and that her assistant sometimes “rotates” them for social media purposes. He added that the horses on the start list under Hicham Moataz were different horses from the ones in the pictures.

He also claimed there was confusion over the words “hors concours” and denied all allegations, “since he did not take part” in any competitions.

The Tribunal was “comfortably satisfied” Gharib was at the event and satisfied he participated as an athlete.“The fact he was not awarded any prize money is of no relevance,” said the Tribunal, adding that it could not be considered that Gharib did not know he could be in violation of his suspension.

The Tribunal said whether or not Gharib attended under the name Hicham Moataz “could remain open”, because jumping HC was sufficient to consider he had breached his suspension – but “for the sake of completeness” the Tribunal noted the evidence, and is “convinced” he attended the event as Hicham Moataz. The Tribunal acknowledged Gharib’s claims around the identity of two horses in the photos, but said this was not substantiated with proper evidence.

The Tribunal was satisfied Gharib had violated his suspension, and the violation showed “how little consideration” he had for FEI rules.

Gharib was suspended for an additional year, fined 5,000CHF and must pay 2,000 CHF in costs.

You might also be interested in:

Court upholds bans for pair that abused horse by using hind boots containing nails

Bans for rider and ‘trainer’ who tried to cover up use of hind boots with nails inside

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

A vet who admitted not following equine herpes virus (EHV-1) by-laws, which he claimed were “stupid”, has been suspended by the FEI for three years.

The FEI launched disciplinary proceedings against Belgian vet Marc Juul H Schelkens after it was discovered he failed to implement biosecurity measures required under the EHV-1 by-laws at a number of events in Lier and Bonheiden in 2021. The by-laws – brought in last year following the European EHV-1 outbreak in which 18 horses died – require horses to be examined by the veterinary delegate on arrival at FEI events and their temperatures recorded on the FEI HorseApp.

The FEI notified Schelkens of the proceedings, and in his response on 26 April 2022 he claimed other officials told him that in Spain and Italy it was “common practice not to take temperatures [at events]” and that if a veterinary delegate claims to be applying the by-laws properly, “you know he’s cheating”. He added that he did not want to officiate at events until mandatory EHV vaccination is brought in.

In June Schelkens wrote to the FEI Tribunal and “admitted not having applied the EHV-1 by-laws”, stating they were “impossible to carry out”. He accepted a three-year suspension, but did not indicate whether he admitted breaching the veterinary regulations or the officials’ code of conduct – or if he accepted a fine.

When Schelkens and the FEI could not reach an agreement on these “outstanding matters”, and as there was no request for an oral hearing, the Tribunal informed both that a decision would be based on the case file.

The FEI claimed Schelkens failed to take horses’ temperatures at a showjumping competition in Lier (3–7 November 2021). When asked by the foreign judge about the temperature checks, Schelkens said he did not perform the check, as he did not want to. He told the judge he had previously informed the FEI that the procedure was “not necessary and he did not want to do it any more”. But on the same day the judge noticed the temperatures had been recorded in the HorseApp, and he claimed he saw Schelkens “filling the HorseApp [in] with his phone”. The judge believed it could only have been “fake” data.

According to a chief steward’s witness statement, at four events in Bonheiden, Schelkens took horses’ temperature via their nostrils, not rectally as required by the rules. In his veterinary reports from the events Schelkens stated the examination is “dangerous”, “it simply takes too long”, the HorseApp “should be more user-friendly”, and the rules were “so stupid” and “not effective”. In one report Schelkens said he was “seriously thinking” of stopping his work for the FEI if the situation continued.

The FEI submitted that Schelkens “knowingly and deliberately” failed to take temperatures – and “blatantly disregarded and refused to apply” a number of biosecurity rules. The FEI said not only had he “endangered the health of participating horses by refusing to perform one of the key biosecurity measures” but he also falsified official records. The FEI argued that Schelkens’ non-compliance with the biosecurity measures breached the officials’ code of conduct and brought the FEI and/or the sport into disrepute.

The FEI considered Schelkens’ behaviour “serious misconduct” and wished to “send a signal to all stakeholders in the sport that this is not acceptable”. The FEI asked the Tribunal to consider that the offences involved the “potential maltreatment of horses” and that Schelkens had resorted to “fraudulent behaviour intended to deceive”.

The Tribunal said although Schelkens admitted not applying by-laws, he did not appear to do so to gain “personal advantage” and ruled that though he breached the FEI vet rules, he did not breach the officials’ code of conduct by expressing negative opinions

“If we were to accept the FEI’s interpretation, no stakeholder, rider, trainer or official could ever express opinions regarding rules, regulations and measures adopted by the FEI, without having the risk of infringing the officials’ code of conduct,” stated the Tribunal report.

The Tribunal found the breaches of the by-laws “very serious offences” and took into account Schelkens’ role as an FEI official. The Tribunal upheld Schelkens’ three-year suspension and fined him 2,000 CHF (£1,754). He must also pay 1,000 CHF (£877) towards the FEI’s legal costs.

You might also be interested in:

EHV-1 vaccinations will not be compulsory for FEI competitions following major outbreak

‘Mistakes were made’: poor decisions and human error contributed to European EHV-1 outbreak

Equine herpes virus – all you need to know right now

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

*Update* This article was published in August 2022. The FEI suspension of Roberto Gottarelli to which the article refers ended on 8 March 2023.

A vet who gave a horse a banned substance has been suspended for two years from his FEI roles and fined thousands by the FEI Tribunal.

Roberto Gottarelli, national head vet of San Marino and a member of the Italian equestrian federation, injected jumper Halo with anabolic steroid stanozolol, the FEI Tribunal heard. The mare failed a dope test in Spain (29 September–4 October 2020), where she was competing with Italian rider Giuseppe de Luca.

A letter from Mr Gottarelli said the treatment was for “a fragility” of the cartilage in Halo’s left hock.

“To physiologically stimulate the activity of cartilage cells, I proposed to Mr de Luca the utilisation of Sungate – stanozolol by means of intra-articular injection – three times a week, for a total of four injections,” he wrote. “I specified to the client that this medicine, if administered [this way], normally would not have put him at any risk profile relating to the [anti-doping] list drafted by FEI, on the basis of both the known scientific literature and my professional experience on dozens of cases.”

He said the last injection was on 21 September 2020, that the use of the drug “falls within a precise therapeutic plan”, and that Sungate is authorised by the Italian ministry of health.

The rider was also brought to the FEI Tribunal and said he had seen stanozolol was not allowed, so checked with Mr Gottarelli.

Mr de Luca said he was “assured” by Mr Gottarelli that the way Sungate was to be used was allowed under FEI rules, if the correct detection time was used.

The tribunal found Mr de Luca at fault. His ban was reduced by six months owing to tweaks in the rules, his honesty, cooperation and swift admittal of the rule violation. He served 18 months and was fined CHF5,000 (£4,300).

Mr Gottarelli said his right to a fair trial had been violated as he had written the letter at Mr de Luca’s request to prove the rider had no fault for the positive test.

“[Mr Gottarelli] issued a statement with the best of intentions, unaware that the [rider] was intending to shift the blame […] thereby causing [the vet] to move from a position of a helpful witness to an accused party,” states the Tribunal report.

The vet argued that the FEI was “trying to fix loopholes in its own rules” by maintaining that any horse registered is considered a competition horse, and pointed to his “impeccable reputation” and “commitment to horse welfare.

He said he did not consider Halo a “competition horse” at the time of treatment, as he knew the mare had not competed for almost a year, so “could not have been expected to believe” she was competing, or would be “any time soon”. The FEI said he was Halo’s regular vet, and that she competed eight days after her final injection.

He said he was acting “in the best interest of the horse, and had chosen the most effective treatment under these circumstances” and was not treating to enhance performance.

Zero tolerance

The FEI highlighted its “zero-tolerance” stance on stanozolol, “one of the most-known abusive anabolic steroids in the industry”.

It also argued that given the “various official” vet roles Mr Gottarelli held, he “ought to have been aware of the rules”.

“The FEI believed that [Mr Gottarelli] clearly knew and suspected that he had treated the horse with a banned substance,” states the Tribunal report.

“The FEI stated that they were very curious why [the vet] chose to use Sungate. There were alternative allowed treatments, which may have been equally efficient but with a bit longer rest and recovery time. As such, the FEI queries whether it was logical there was no intent to enhance performance and strongly disagreed [as] the prospect of returning a horse to its normal condition with prohibited substances could only be deemed as trying to enhance performance.”

Mr Gottarelli was given a two-year ineligibility order for his FEI roles, a fine of CHF5,000 and ordered to pay CHF2,000 costs by the FEI Tribunal.

You might also be interested in:

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits. 

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

A showjumper and his “trainer” who used hind boots with nails on a horse – then tried to cover it up by throwing the boots in some bushes – have had their appeals rejected.

In February H&H reported that Essam Zbibi, a British-registered rider based in the UAE, and Hicham Gharib, had been found guilty of horse abuse by the FEI Tribunal in relation to gelding HH Sigma at a CSI3* show in Abu Dhabi in February 2021.

The pair were reported to the FEI after officials at the show saw HH Sigma react “excessively” when a groom put hind boots on him. The chief steward was called and when he attended, Ghraib was seen taking the boots off and “running to the side of warm-up”, where he threw the boots “into the brush/shrub area”. The chief steward retrieved the boots, which each contained a “nail/sharp object” with “blood around the area”.

During the Tribunal the FEI said it believed the boots were “constructed and designed in advance, showing intention and pre-planned abuse” – and the main intention of the “pins” was to cause pain and unnecessary discomfort to the horse so HH Sigma would lift his hind legs abnormally – and “win advantages in competition”.

In his defence Zbibi told the Tribunal that marks found on HH Sigma were owing to an allergy, and he was “certain” the wrong boots were handed to officials. He also claimed Gharib was not his trainer.

Gharib denied all allegations and claimed he was not in the warm-up as a trainer or support personnel. He said he removed the boots “as a favour” and did not recall seeing “nails or blood”. He added he had never been involved in horse abuse, the wellbeing of horses has always been his priority, and the allegations could cause “irreparable harm”.

The Tribunal found Zbibi’s behaviour amounted to “clear abuse” and “maltreatment” – and based on the case material, that Gharib “assisted and encouraged” the abuse. The Tribunal believed Gharib’s attempts to throw away the boots constituted a “separate and clear breach” by trying to “cover up” the violation.

Zbibi was suspended for four years from the date of the decision, fined 10,000 CHF (£7,969), and ordered to pay 2,000 CHF (£1,593) costs. Gharib was suspended for one year, fined 5,000 CHF (£3,984) and 2,000 CHF costs.

The pair appealed the decisions to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and yesterday (6 July) the CAS panel dismissed both cases – and confirmed the FEI Tribunal’s decision. Zbibi and Gharib must now pay an additional 5,000 CHF (£4,284) each towards the FEI’s legal fees and expenses incurred during CAS proceedings.

You might also be interested in:

Bans for rider and ‘trainer’ who tried to cover up use of hind boots with nails inside

FEI promises to act after horse with broken leg left untreated at show while awaiting dope-test: ‘This must never happen again’

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

The Russian equestrian federation (FESR) said there is “no evidence of a war in Ukraine” as it made an unsuccessful attempt to void its FEI blackout.

The FEI Tribunal has ruled on the FESR appeal against the cancellation of all FEI events in Russia and Belarus, and the banning of all athletes and officials from both countries from participating in FEI competition. At the time, the FEI said its board “condemns the invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces and the support provided by the government of Belarus”, adding that the move was in line with International Olympic Committee (IOC) recommendations.

FESR appealed, claiming the decision was “politically discriminatory on ethnic grounds and contrary to the legal and ethical norms of the FEI rules and regulations”.

In its submissions, FESR claimed the FEI had violated its own statutes.

The FEI had acted under a rule stating that in an “emergency situation”, the FEI board can make decisions that would normally go to the general assembly, but FESR said: “There is no evidence that the alleged invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces constitutes an “emergency basis”.

It added that there was no evidence that horse sport in Ukraine had been shut down or that Ukrainian riders’ lives were at risk, and that there was no FEI shutdown related to other recent conflicts “including between the US and Syria, Israel and Yemen, and Turkey and Cyprus”.

FESR said the ban was discriminatory and that there were no allegations of wrongdoing against itself or any Russian athletes or officials.

“When asked [in the Tribunal hearing] if the FESR would allow an individual athlete who was publicly against the war in Ukraine to compete as an individual athlete, the FESR replied that there was no legal basis for any sanctions, which also applies to an individual’s participation,” the Tribunal report reads. “The FESR also stated: ‘There is no evidence that there is a war in Ukraine.’”

The FEI said its board was satisfied an emergency situation existed, adding: “The circumstances relating to the invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces have been widely reported and documented. The invasion met (and still meets) the definition of an emergency situation because it was (and remains) a serious situation or occurrence that happened unexpectedly and required immediate action, even when only viewed in the context of equestrian sport.

“The military action effectively had the effect of shutting down equestrian sport in Ukraine, placing the lives of Ukrainian athletes, officials and horses at risk and severely limiting, if not completely restricting, their ability to compete in FEI events. By adopting the resolution, the FEI board wanted to ensure the fairness and integrity of FEI events.”

It added that the IOC had urged international federations to ban Russians and Belarusians from events, which “reinforced the emergency nature of this situation and could not be ignored”.

No national federations objected within a timeframe set out by the rule in question so, the FEI said, the decision carries the same weight as any made at a general assembly. It added that had Russians been allowed to compete, other riders might have boycotted events, a concern especially for this year’s World Championships. Ukrainian riders may also withdraw, it said, rather than be judged by a Russian. The FEI also wrote to all registered Russian and Belarusian riders and officials.

The Tribunal panel said the conflict, and events such as “cluster bombs landing on an apartment building” are “difficult to ignore”, adding: “These images are real and enough for this panel to state that a reasonable person would conclude that Russian military forces invaded Ukraine and the war is ongoing.”

The panel found the criteria for the FEI’s decision had been met, and that not banning Russian and Belarusian riders and officials would undermine events’ integrity.

“The resolution further prevents the possibility that FEI events are used as a political platform,” the panel said. “FESR suggested the FEI was mixing politics with sport when it adopted this resolution. However, we have actual examples of prominent Russian athletes wearing the symbol Z as a sign of support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is mixing politics with sport with an enormous megaphone. This panel states that FEI events cannot be used as a political platform.”

The panel dismissed the appeal and ordered FESR to pay 3,000 CHF (£2,485) in costs.

You might also be interested in:

Russian and Belarusian riders, horses and officials to be banned from international horse sport ‘until further notice’

FEI cancels horse sport in Russia, plus £800k relief fund for Ukraine’s equestrian community

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

The rider of a horse who tested positive for a banned substance that occurs naturally in some countries’ grass has been found not to be at fault, but her World Cup qualifier win remains disqualified.

South African showjumper Lisa Williams’ horse Campbell returned a positive urine sample for synephrine following their win on 29 August 2019 at the CSI*-W in Polokwane, South Africa.

Synephrine, a stimulant that is found in grass in countries including South Africa, is classed as a banned and specified substance by the FEI. Specified substances “should not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other prohibited substances” but they are those that are more likely to have been ingested by horses “for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance, for example, through a contaminated food substance”.

On 30 September 2019 Lisa Williams was notified by the FEI of the anti-doping rule breach and was not provisionally suspended, as synephrine is a specified substance. Campbell was provisionally suspended for two months.

At a preliminary tribunal hearing in 2019, Ms Williams said because of Campbell’s history of tying up and laminitis, she fed ad hoc low-sugar hay, and that, as she had since found out, the only hay available in South Africa contained synephrine. Ms Williams provided evidence such as laboratory certificates for grass samples, including from the “FEI secure grazing area”, from the Revil Stables showground where the event was held, that confirmed synephrine was present. She also provided a letter and her invoice from Midfeeds, South Africa’s largest feed supplier, confirming the presence of synephrine in her hay.

Following the positive sample, Ms Williams discovered synephrine was a natural substance found in grass fed to horses, as well as various weeds, bushes and trees. She added that “even being aware of synephrine does not change the position for South African riders as there is no alternative feed”. According to Ms Williams’ witness, Dr Schalk de Kock who holds a PhD in biochemistry, it is “almost impossible” to find synephrine-free grass in South Africa.

Ms Williams also referred to a statement from the South African Equestrian Federation (SAEF) in July 2019 stating that the federation will no longer screen/prosecute SAEF samples for synephrine at national shows.

In its written response, the FEI acknowledged there was a “significant” number of synephrine cases during an extended period in 2019, including in Mexico, Spain, and 11 from South Africa, which were “similar to these proceedings”. In those South African cases it was confirmed synephrine naturally occurred in teff grass, which was fed to all the horses as the main source of nutrition and the FEI noted no suitable alternative existed. Consequently, the FEI was satisfied Ms Williams established how synephrine entered Campbell’s system.

The FEI proposed a settlement agreement with Ms Williams on the terms that she admitted the violation, had established how the substance entered Campbell’s system, she would not serve any period of ineligibility, Campbell’s two-month suspension would remain, and the results achieved by Ms Williams and Campbell during the whole event are disqualified.

Ms Williams did not agree to the proposed terms, specifically her results being disqualified, and she asked to present her case to the FEI Tribunal.

The FEI submitted to the Tribunal that as the positive test occurred during an event, to “safeguard the level playing field”, Campbell’s results at that event should be disqualified. The FEI explained it always applied disqualification for a whole event, unless the person responsible can establish with a negative test that a horse did not compete with a prohibited substance. The FEI added that in all synephrine cases so far, the results from the events concerned have been disqualified, and if the Tribunal chose to decide differently, an “unfairness” would be created that would “threaten the level playing field” and provide a disadvantage to those who have entered settlement agreements previously for synephrine.

The FEI requested that no fines be imposed in this case, and that the FEI and Ms Williams pay their own legal costs.

At the Tribunal hearing on 18 October during the FEI’s opening arguments it emphasised the hearing was “mainly” about the disqualification of Ms Williams’ results. She argued that synephrine did not have any performance-enhancing effects, and the rule disqualifying her results should only be applied in circumstances where the substance had such an effect.

The FEI said a suggestion was made to the FEI list group in 2019 by the SAEF to change the status of synephrine, but following a review, this was declined.

In Ms William’s opening submissions, she stated her appreciation of the FEI for declaring this was a no fault or negligence case, and that she would serve no suspension and receive no fine, but said a hearing was “necessary as this was an atypical case” and she wanted to explain the “unique circumstances”.

She referred to the FEI’s acknowledgement in 2019 that synephrine was present in feed in a number of countries, and as a result of this SAEF had stopped testing for the substance – but said in contrast the FEI was testing for it, which provided an “unlevel playing field”. She considered that “unequal treatment existed between the FEI and the national authority in South Africa, and this was “difficult to accept”.

Ms Williams added that any horses who were unable to give urine samples at the event had to have blood samples taken, and blood samples did not return adverse analytical findings for synephrine, which “further destabalised the playing field”. She noted this “caused an issue where competitors would withhold water from horses to prevent urine samples being taken which created further welfare issues for these horses”.

She said when the FEI list group was asked to consider the removal of synephrine from the banned list, “a whole body of evidence” was submitted by the SAEF, which she believed to be compelling enough to warrant its removal. She said the SAEF appealed the rejection and in response to requests from national federations for the anti-doping system to be more flexible around contamination, the FEI introduced the atypical findings policy (ATF) in January 2021.

Ms Williams said if this policy had been in place in 2019, her results would have been maintained and she asked the Tribunal to retroactively apply the ATF policy to her case. At the event in question she knew there would be no feed merchants and therefore brought her own hay (bought from Midfeeds). She won her class, and her horse was selected for sample with “no concerns” and she was shocked to find out about the positive sample weeks later. She said when she returned to South Africa, she heard about a fellow rider whose horse tested positive for synephrine in 2019.

In closing statements the FEI acknowledged there was an appeal regarding the list group’s decision for synephrine to remain on the banned list, but no decision was taken on the matter and the parties requested a one-year “stay”, which was granted to see how the ATF policy “would work out” in respect of synephrine. The FEI added the ATF policy had worked well to date. Under the policy, specified substances are reported as an ATFs, rather than adverse analytical findings. The FEI notifies the person responsible, who has the opportunity to provide an explanation. Once the FEI has gathered the relevant information this is submitted to the ATF panel for consideration.

The FEI said the policy came into effect in 2021 and cannot be applied retrospectively to 2019, and changes to the policy can only be made with the approval of the FEI board. The FEI said it “fully understood this was a very unfortunate situation for everyone involved and acknowledged Ms Williams had always ensured the welfare needs of her horses”, but that the same rules for the same cases, and in line with those rules in place in 2019, must apply.

Ms William concluded by asking the Tribunal to review the case from her position, that the “vast majority of horses would have been positive for synephrine if they had been selected for testing”. She said it was “completely counter to the idea of a level playing field” if only two horses were picked for testing out of a whole field, owing to their success at the event.

The Tribunal found that Ms Williams had established on a balance of probability how synephrine entered Campbell’s system and she bore no fault or negligence, and agreed that no fine would be imposed.

The Tribunal took into account the arguments and case law presented with regard to the disqualified results, but ruled there was “no room for any form of discretion” in relation to the mandatory automatic disqualification of results in connection with anti-doping rule violations. The Tribunal also agreed that the ATF policy cannot be applied retrospectively.

The Tribunal upheld that Ms Williams’ results from the event would remain disqualified. Ms Williams can appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days.

Lisa Williams told H&H that “unfortunately” she does not think it is financially viable to take the matter further, but she “truly believes” the outcome of her Tribunal “should have been different”.

You might also be interested in:

Urgent calls for action to reduce contamination risks at shows

Anti-doping rule changes agreed for horse sport

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

A showjumper and his “trainer”, who used hind boots with “nails” inside on a horse then tried to cover it up, have been banned from the sport.

The FEI Tribunal has published its decision on Essam Zbibi, a British-registered rider based in the UAE, and Hicham Gharib, relating to abuse of HH Sigma at the CSI3* in Abu Dhabi on 25 February 2021.

The FEI said event officials reported that day, that Zbibi and Gharib had used hind boots with pins on HH Sigma.

Reports from four officials said a groom was seen “cautiously” putting a boot on the horse, his body angled away, then he “quickly pushed it down to the fetlock”. The steward said the horse’s reaction was “immediate and excessive”; lifting his leg and “shaking it several times”, then repeating.

The chief steward was called, during which time the groom was seen putting the second boot on HH Sigma, who displayed the same reactions. Zbibi got on and jumped fences “under the guidance of his trainer Hicham Gharib”. When the chief steward arrived, Gharib was seen taking the boots off and “running to the side of the warm-up” where he threw the boots “into the brush/shrub area”. The chief steward retrieved the boots, which each contained a “nail/sharp object” with “blood around the area”.

The chief steward reported it was “very clear and obvious” what had happened, and said when the horse’s hind legs were checked, it could be easily seen he was “still sore” and white cream had been applied to wounds. Zbibi did not initially deny that the boots were his and allowed photos to be taken. Zbibi and Gharib claimed to the officials they “did not know” [about the boots]. Zbibi was disqualified from the event and issued a yellow warning card. Gharib was told he would be reported to the FEI for horse abuse.

The FEI told the Tribunal it believed the boots were “constructed and designed in advance, showing intention and pre-planned abuse”. The main intention of the “pins” was to cause pain and unnecessary discomfort to the horse so he would lift his hind legs abnormally – and “win advantages in competition”. The FEI said the wounds on the horse’s legs and his reaction to the boots indicate they had been used before. FEI expert vets found there was “no doubt the respondents acted to cause pain and unnecessary discomfort to the horse”.

Representing himself, Zbibi said he was a “mere amateur rider” and had only been involved in FEI events for two years. He claimed he is “fond” of HH Sigma, whose health and wellbeing were his “main priority”. Zbibi said when he instructed his groom to tack up his horse he had “no idea” he would use the boots, adding that he had “never seen the boots before”. He fired the groom following the incident.

Zbibi said he accepted the yellow card at the time, but was not told there would be any further procedure for horse abuse. He claimed at the event and directly afterwards he had been “under constant pressure from FEI officials, and was not able to properly investigate the matter” until later. Zbibi said he spoke with the groom, who said he never put the boots on the horse.

Zbibi claimed Gharib was not his trainer and was at the event as a competitor, and he only asked him to take the boots off because he was unable to find his groom. He was “certain” the wrong boots were handed to officials, said the boots were not checked before or during the warm-up, and said a vet did not inspect the horse after the incident – and only the chief steward inspected the horse the following day. Zbibi claimed the marks on the horse were owing to a “history of allergy, which resulted in sudden and immediate limb sensitivity”.

Gharib denied all allegations – he said he entered the warm-up as a rider, not a trainer or support personnel. He removed the boots “as a favour” and could not recall seeing “nails or blood”. When shown the boots, he told officials they were not the ones he had removed. He added that the warm-up was busy, with accessories and equipment lying around near where the boots were found. Gharib said he had never been involved in any horse abuse, the wellbeing of horses has always been his priority, and the allegations could cause “irreparable harm”.

Gharib added that there had been “several procedural breaches” by FEI officials including that he did not receive a yellow card at the event and was not told of any violation, and that photos of HH Sigma were taken the next day and can not be relied upon as evidence. He contested the FEI expert vet report, and noted inconsistencies between officials describing the boots as having nails, but the expert report noting pins – “which are different in terms of effect, harm and size of the marks that would be caused”.

The Tribunal was “satisfied” the respondents committed horse abuse and their actions extended to “excessive discomfort”, and the horse was “clearly hurt and wounded”. Based on the expert vet reports, the Tribunal said the wounds indicated new and old injuries, from “repetitive use” of the boots.

The Tribunal was “not convinced” Zbibi did not know that the boots were put on his horse and that he had never seen them before. Based on the case material, the panel was “convinced” Gharib removed the boots and threw them away in “an attempt to hide the reprehensible behaviour”. The Tribunal believed Gharib “assisted and encouraged” the horse abuse committed by Zbibi, and his attempt to throw away the boots constituted a “separate and clear breach” by trying to “cover up” the violation.

The Tribunal found Zbibi’s behaviour amounted to “clear abuse” and “maltreatment”.

“These are among the most severe offences that can be committed in the context of equestrian sport,” read the decision, adding that Zbibi’s actions were “intentional, deliberate and premeditated”, and he showed “no signs of remorse”.

In mitigation, the panel noted, to its knowledge, Zbibi and Gharib had never before been sanctioned for disciplinary offences in equestrian sport.

Zbibi was suspended for four years from the date of the decision, fined 10,000 CHF (£7,969), and must pay 2,000 CHF (£1,593) costs. Gharib was suspended for one year, fined 5,000 CHF (£3,984) and 2,000 CHF costs. The respondents can appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days.

The full Tribunal decision can be read here.

You might also be interested in:

‘A clear case of horse abuse’: showjumper banned for using ‘spiked’ hind boots

Top rider’s 10-year ban for ‘deliberate, methodical and repetitive’ electric spur use

The rider said he intends to appeal immediately to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

An Olympic rider who failed a dope test and claimed he “had never heard of cannabis” – before blaming another country for “sabotage” — has had his Tokyo Games result disqualified. 

Egyptian showjumper Mohamed Talaat, 33, tested positive for carboxy THC, a metabolite of cannabis, in a sample taken on 22 August 2019 at the African Games in Morocco. Carboxy THC and cannabis are prohibited in competition, and the rider’s A sample contained an estimated concentration of 608 ng/mL, which is greater than the decision limit of 180 ng/mL.

The African Games organising committee originally dealt with Talaat’s disciplinary process and when he was notified of the failed sample on 16 September 2019, no provisional suspension was imposed. On 14 February 2020 a partial decision was issued by the committee, resulting in his results from the African Games being disqualified.

Owing to “extensive delays” in the disciplinary process, including the rider’s request for his B sample to be analysed – which did not take place until January 2020 – the disciplinary process was transferred to the FEI. Talaat was notified by the FEI on 28 February 2020 of the violation of the human anti-doping rule, and an FEI Tribunal hearing was held on 1 October 2021.

In his written submissions Talaat told the Tribunal he had never knowingly smoked, inhaled or otherwise used cannabis during the African Games, and said before the event, the team manager verified with the hotel about ensuring compliance with the anti-doping rules.

The rider was convinced the only plausible explanation for the positive sample was “inadvertent exposure” to cannabis during team visits to the hotel’s shisha bar in Rabat. On 20 August 2019, he and his fellow athletes visited the bar, where other riders were also present. Following drinks, Talaat ordered shisha but “did not stay very long in order to prepare for the next day’s competition”. After the visit to the bar he reported “he felt sick and believed he may have food poisoning as he was up all night and unable to sleep”, and as a result changed hotels the following morning.

The Tribunal heard from Talaat that smoking shisha is very popular in Qatar, and is a common way for professional athletes to relax. He also said although shisha is very popular in Morocco, a substance called “kief” (Moroccan cannabis) is often used instead or in combination with shisha tobacco, unlike Egypt. He claimed “all precautions were taken” to make sure only shisha tobacco would be smoked by himself and his team.

Dr Borrey, an expert witness for Talaat, stated in her report that Talaat’s exposure to cannabis most probably occurred “unconsciously” during visits to the shisha bar, and even though different values of the drug were detected in some of the other riders’ samples [Sheikh Ali Al Thani and Bassem Mohammed], they could have been exposed to a “similar dose” but had a different metabolic reaction causing varying results.

Talaat stated he is not a cannabis or drug user, adding that it is against his religion and upbringing. He said using a substance such as cannabis, which “does not even enhance performance”, at such an important event, would have been “simply stupid”. He said he had “never heard of cannabis and carboxy THC”, so was “shocked” when he received the results of the adverse finding. Talaat considered it “very implausible” he and his fellow athletes would knowingly put themselves and the team in “such a volatile situation”. He had never tested positive for any prohibited substance, and therefore concluded “keif” must have been deliberately added to his shisha without his knowledge to “influence [the Egyptian team’s] performance in the competition”.

At the African Games, Morocco was the winner of showjumping individual and team final. Talaat believed the results allowed Morocco as a host country to exhibit “exemplary results on its own territory”, having been absent from the Games since 1978. He added that at the time of the event, the Egyptian team were considered most likely to win the showjumping. Consequently he deemed “the stakes were high enough” for the Moroccan team to consider a strategy to gain a clear advantage and is the reason why their shishas were “tampered with a prohibited substance”.

To find out “who had tampered with the shishas”, and whether the person or group was connected to or acting on instruction of the Moroccan team, Talaat confirmed he hired a Moroccan lawyer to file a criminal complaint with the Moroccan authorities. The rider stated that due to the exceptional circumstances, no merits of the Tribunal proceedings should take place until a decision was taken on the criminal complaint, and if necessary apply a retrospective sanction on the outcome of the criminal investigation to assess whether sabotage occurred. It is not clear if the criminal complaint has been finalised.

In its written submissions to the Tribunal, the FEI stated that the violation is a “strict liability” offence, established simply by proof that the prohibited substance was present in Talaat’s sample, and the B sample also confirmed this. The presence of the substance was not disputed by Talaat and therefore the FEI submitted that it had discharged its burden of establishing the rider had violated the rules.

The FEI noted Talaat’s explanation of sabotage by another team, but as the rider did not provide any evidence this was deemed by the FEI “mere speculation”. The FEI requested more information and explanations but Talaat did not respond. Despite Talaat’s claims of “innocent exposure” to cannabis, the FEI considered that even if passive smoking shisha provided a plausible explanation for the adverse finding, Talaat had not submitted any substantiated evidence of such a scenario.

The FEI submitted that Talaat could have perceived the risk of going to the shisha bar and smoking shisha during the event, and by doing so he had not exercised “utmost caution” in his duty of care. The FEI believed he exposed himself to a risk he was already aware of, therefore was at fault for the violation, and requested the Tribunal impose a two-year period of ineligibility.

During the hearing’s closing proceedings, Talaat raised concerns that his rights of defence had been violated by not having his case heard in a timely manner, and the delay was not attributable to him. He claimed “opportunity costs” were suffered throughout the proceedings owing to a two-year period of “immense uncertainty”. Initially he voluntarily did not compete, but since his case did not seem to progress he eventually resumed riding. He claimed the uncertainty negatively affected his results, mental wellbeing and health, and the delay should be reflected in the outcome of the proceedings and a significant reduction in sentence would be appropriate as he had to wait “10 times longer” for his case to be dealt with than what the World Anti-Doping Agency considers timely.

The FEI acknowledged the proceedings had “taken some time” but submitted this was largely due to the fact the source was not established and the arguments put forward were examined and addressed in detail.

The Tribunal considered Talaat’s suggestion of sabotage but noted no corroborating evidence was submitted and such conclusions “could not be formed”. The Tribunal found the rider’s witnesses provided “no clear facts or findings” of sabotage, other than hypothetical claims and therefore no Talaat had failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered his system.

The Tribunal ruled that the FEI had established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal, and ordered a two-year period of ineligibility from 17 June 2021. This means all his results from 17 June 2021 are disqualified. This includes his results obtained with Darshan at the Tokyo Games, resulting in the disqualification of the Egyptian showjumping team. The team were 11th in the team qualifying competition, but only the top 10 teams went through to the final.

Talaat was fined 7,500 CHF (£5,981), and must contribute 2,000 CHF (£1,595) towards FEI costs. The rider can appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, within 21 days.

You might also be interested in:

Olympic place lost over claims of deliberate cannabis sabotage

‘To use a substance that did not even enhance the performance at such an important event would be stupid’

‘A clear case of horse abuse’: showjumper banned for using ‘spiked’ hind boots

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

A senior figure in endurance who admitted to using a vet’s stamp to falsify horse passports has had his suspension reduced by the Court of Arbitration for Sport – as flaws in the FEI vaccination system are highlighted.

Trainer Pierre Arnould, former Belgian endurance national team leader and member of the FEI endurance committee, used FEI vet Peter Wijnendaele’s old stamp and added a forged signature to four horses’ FEI passports – including Sonschein, who participated in the 2018 World Equestrian Games. In April 2020, Dr Wijnendaele discovered that a Belgian horse’s passport contained his name and stamp, years after 2005, when he had left Belgium. He found further instances of his stamp being used in horse passports, and informed the FEI. In October 2020 Arnould was told of FEI disciplinary proceedings relating to four endurance horses whose passports showed vaccinations between 2017 and 2018.

During a FEI Tribunal hearing in March this year the FEI stated the horse passports were “unlikely” to be the only ones falsified and claimed the organisation had evidence of further cases. Arnould submitted that he had never been subject to any sanction during his equestrian career, highlighted that he was a member of the FEI endurance task force from 2007 to 2009 and argued the case against him was “driven by people motivated by jealousy of his achievements”.

The Tribunal suspended Arnould for 20 months for fraud and conduct that brought the FEI and or equestrian sport into disrepute. He was fined 5,000 Swiss francs (£3,917) and ordered to pay 7,000 francs (£5,485) toward FEI legal costs.

In April Arnould lodged an appeal with CAS, in which he asked for the duration of the suspension and the fine to be reduced. He also asked for the suspension to be postponed, pending CAS’s decision and for the order to be amended to allow him to attend equestrian events as a spectator.

At a CAS hearing on 25 October Arnould argued the sanction was “not proportionate” in comparison to comparable decisions ruled by CAS or the Tribunal. He believed the FEI wanted to “set an example” and “definitively rule him out” from the FEI where he is “influential”. Arnould argued the Tribunal’s decision violated his right of defence because the Tribunal “is not impartial”, the original hearing should have been held in French – his preferred language – instead of English and the decision failed to address any of the legal arguments made by him.

The FEI requested CAS dismiss the appeal in its entirety and order Arnould to pay the arbitration costs as well as a contribution to the FEI’s legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the CAS hearing. The FEI argued Arnould had not offered any defence to the charges, adding “it was not even in dispute he knowingly and deliberately falsified the passports”. The FEI said if Arnould wished to claim the horses were vaccinated, he must bear the burden of proving that but he has offered no evidence to support this claim.

The CAS panel stated the main issue to be resolved was whether the sanction and fine imposed on Arnould was proportionate.

“Indeed, the appellant [Arnould] does not deny he knowingly and deliberately falsified the FEI passports, but claims that the sanction is not proportionate in comparison to similar facts before the CAS or the FEI Tribunal,” said the panel.

The panel noted there were no consistent FEI Tribunal precedents regarding the length of suspension imposed upon cases involving similar violations, and found several mitigating factors; it was Arnould’s first violation of FEI rules, and he had successfully passed all veterinary checks at the competitions he attended with the horses, which “highlights the defects of the vaccination system currently implemented by the FEI”.

Neither Arnould or the FEI was able to establish with a “sufficient degree of certainty” the vaccination status of the horses relating to the disciplinary proceedings, and while the CAS panel considered the financial advantage Arnould would have had from avoiding bi-annual vaccinations, this was “much less” than the risk incurred for the welfare of the horses and his own career. The panel understood the importance of vaccinations and compliance with the rules, but said the FEI vaccination system as it currently exists is “insufficiently robust” and “should be improved to make it more reliable”.

“The FEI could impose the use of the vaccination stickers in the horses’ passports, in addition to the stamp and signature of the veterinarian. This would also allow a better tracking of the vaccination of horses and would make the veterinary checks at competition more reliable,” said the panel.

“This system could also be modernised by computerising it. For example, the information relating to the horse vaccination, could be included directly in the horse’s microchip. This would ensure horses are properly vaccinated and that the vaccination is performed by competent veterinarians.”

The panel was satisfied Dr Wijnendaele voluntarily left his stamp with Arnould, and was a very close friend at the time. The vet had previously stayed at Arnould’s home during trips to Belgium and provided two horses to Arnould’s daughter and accompanied her as a groom at the 2014 World Equestrian Games.

The panel partially upheld Arnould’s appeal. The panel ruled his suspension should be reduced to 14 months and considered this to be proportionate and “struck a balance” between Arnould’s conduct, the mitigating factors, the fact he used a vet’s stamp in violation of the rules and that he is an “emblematic figure” in endurance – and therefore responsible for setting an example by complying with regulation. Following the suspension, Arnould may attend FEI events in any capacity. The fine of 5,000 Swiss francs was upheld owing to being “reasonable in light of the procedure”.

You might also be interested in:

Ban for leading figure who falsified horses’ FEI passports

Record ban for endurance rider who committed three doping offences in 12 months

5 reasons why a subscription to HorseandHound.co.uk makes the perfect last-minute gift

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

An international showjumper who used hind boots with “sharp spikes” on a horse in a “clear case of abuse” has been banned for a year, in the first case of its kind.

Ukrainian rider Andre Schröder was competing 13-year-old gelding Allegro at the CSI* in Samorin, Slovakia (6–9 May). Before the grand prix, hind boot control was performed on all horses. When the rider’s groom handed Allegro’s left boot to the assistant chief steward, it was found to have sharp pressure points on the inside. The right boot had the same points.

Schröder was told the boots were prohibited, and may cause an abuse of horse offence owing to the “dangerous” pressure points, which would cause “excessive pain” and discomfort. The steward said Schröder argued that the boots were “OK”, and he had been allowed to jump in the ranking class using them. He claimed he had bought the boots with the points inside.

The chief steward said the boots contained sharp objects, which caused pain to his finger when he pushed on them. When he spoke to Schroder, the rider’s reaction was “very clear” that the boots were “a normal type of hind boots which he used in many competitions”.

Photographs showed 11 sharp pressure points, which would sit on the cannon bone, and if the horse hit a pole the points would cause excessive pain and discomfort.

The boots were investigated by the president of the ground jury, who confirmed there were holes on the inside of the boots and in each of the holes were “sharp spikes”.

The boots were returned to Schröder’s groom, following which Schröder claimed they were not his; he had found them on the way to the warm-up arena and used them “just to protect his horse”. Following his jumping round, according to the chief steward, Schröder stated the horse didn’t need the boots as he had “jumped well”.

Schröder was given a yellow warning card for abuse of the horse and on 8 June FEI disciplinary proceedings were opened against him. He replied to the FEI on 17 June and said when he got on Allegro that day, boots had not yet been put on. He asked his grooms to get boots and put them on – but said he did not look at the boots.

The FEI told the Tribunal that by using the boots Schröder engaged in abuse of the horse, an abusive training method that caused fear, and used the horse’s equipment to inflict pain and discomfort. It was claimed the location of the sharp points were “not coincidental” and horses’ distal limbs are particularly sensitive owing to the lack of soft tissue coverage.

An expert witness statement from FEI veterinary manager Gonçalo Paixão further explained limb sensitivity and said trauma of the skin and tissues will trigger an inflammatory response and acute pain.

The FEI added that to avoid pain caused by the boots, the horse will “over-jump”. The use of such boots presents an abusive method to make horses jump higher and more carefully with the intention of competitive advantage, and the “sole purpose” is to inflict pain on a horse in an attempt to force it to perform “abnormally”.

The FEI noted Schröder’s intentional use of the boots by his comment to the chief steward that his horse “doesn’t need these boots, he jumped well”, indicating he knew fully what effect the boots would have, and had Allegro knocked jumps down, he would have “needed” them to improve his performance.

On the day Schröder claimed to officials “with no remorse” he had used the boots many times. It was clear to the FEI the abuse was a recurring event that should be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

To determine sanctioning, the FEI reviewed previous case law regarding horse abuse, but confirmed Schröder’s case was the first case of abuse carried out with abusive hind boots.

In a decision issued on 29 September, the FEI Tribunal agreed it was Schröder’s decision to use the boots, but it was unclear how often he had used them. The Tribunal also agreed that Schröder’s claims he had never seen the boots, or did not know which ones the grooms put on, were false.

The ground jury was “applauded” for prompt sanctioning at the competition, but the Tribunal wanted to highlight that “additional appropriate action” could have taken place at the time. The Tribunal considers it “regrettable” the matter was not dealt with more severely on the ground, taking into account the seriousness of the violation and the sanctions available.

As well as issuing warnings and yellow cards, the ground jury may impose a fine of up to 2,000 Swiss francs (£1,588) and eliminate or disqualify a rider and/or horse.

The Tribunal said Schröder gave various, inconsistent explanations during the competition – and in his response of 17 June, which included a reference to personal difficulties with his partner which the Tribunal said were “irrelevant” and “no excuse”.

“The Tribunal considers the respondent’s behaviour amounts to an act of clear abuse of horse as well as the maltreatment of horses. Such behaviour also amounts to the most severe offences that can be committed in the context of equestrian sport. The Tribunal deems the respondent’s actions were deliberate as it was confirmed by the respondent the boots needed to be either purchased or home-made in advance,” read the decision.

“The respondent confirmed to officials, with no remorse, that he had used the boots already many times before in competition. Taking into account the respondent is an experienced rider who has been participating in the most high-profile competitions, he should be a role model and ensure compliance with the rules.”

The Tribunal suspended Schröder for 12 months, based on evidence and the mitigating circumstances; he had no disciplinary history and it was unclear how much he had used the boots. His results from the competition were disqualified, he was fined 5,000 Swiss francs (£3,971) and must pay 2,000 Swiss francs (£1,588) costs. He can appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days of the Tribunal’s decision.

You might also be interested in:

Top rider’s 10-year ban for ‘deliberate, methodical and repetitive’ electric spur use

The rider said he intends to appeal immediately to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Record ban for endurance rider who committed three doping offences in 12 months

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

The FEI tribunal has ruled an endurance trainer’s suggestion that a horse tested positive for beta blockers at a UK event owing to a groom being on heart medication, was “weak, to say the least”.

Feline X tested positive for banned substance atenolol, a beta blocker used for the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and obstructive cardiac disease, following blood and urine samples taken at the CEI*80 at Euston Park on 16 June 2019. A banned substance is a substance deemed by the FEI to have no legitimate use in competition horses and/or have a high potential for abuse. Banned substances are not permitted for use in competition horses at any time.

On 26 August 2019 the FEI provisionally suspended Feline X’s rider Pane Singh Amar Singh (the person responsible) and trainer Fadhl Manea Saleh Al Mathil (the additional person responsible).

In December 2019 Mathil submitted to the FEI that he did not understand the positive finding, and upon receipt of the notification he “analysed the situation” with his team to determine how it could have occurred. Following an investigation it “appeared” one of his grooms, who is in contact with horses and their feeding, has a heart condition and needs to take regular antihypertensive pills. He added this was not an “excuse”, but it was the only option he could think of that could have caused the positive sample. Singh did not provide any submission to the FEI with regard to the allegations.

The case was submitted to the FEI Tribunal on 29 March 2021. The FEI submitted to the Tribunal that in endurance, trainers by definition take decisions with regard to horses they are registered for, and Mathil is presumed to be the person responsible for taking “relevant decisions on the conditioning of the horse for the competition”.

Under anti-doping rules it is the FEI’s burden to establish all elements of the rule violation to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. As Feline X tested positive for a banned substance, this constituted “sufficient proof” of the violation and Mathil or Singh did not dispute the presence of the atenolol in the horse’s system. While Mathil did submit the sample could have resulted from human-horse contamination, he did not provide any evidence supporting this allegation such as the name and testimony of the groom, or documentation evidencing the groom‘s alleged medical condition.

“No document was provided to actually prove that it was indeed a human-horse contamination instead of voluntary doping. If we were to accept such concise, unsubstantiated and non-corroborated statement as a proof of human-horse contamination, then the whole anti-doping system, and efforts to eradicate doping in sport would be undermined,” said the FEI.

On 10 August 2021 the Tribunal ruled the FEI had sufficiently proven the offence under the anti-doping rules, and the Tribunal was “not convinced” Mathil or Singh had established the source of the banned substance on the balance of probabilities.

“The person responsible (PR) [Singh] did not submit any position, which in itself does not need any further explanations,” read the decision.

“As to the additional person responsible (APR) [Mathil], the Tribunal rules he failed to submit conclusive information and evidence, to prove that it was indeed through the medicines of his groom (or a third party) that the horse’s system was contaminated with atenolol. The APR’s explanations are weak, to say the least, and are not substantiated. Accepting a sole letter – without any supporting evidence, at all – as a fact is therefore not something admissible in the Tribunal’s view. Rather, it was the APR (and the PR)’s burden of proving how the prohibited substance entered the horse’s system. Both failed to prove how the prohibited substance entered the horse’s body.”

Singh and Mathil were banned for two years. The Tribunal took into account the pair had been provisionally suspended since 26 August 2019, and did not compete or train during the period of suspension, so the ban is in place until 25 August 2021. Both were fined 7,500 Swiss francs (£5,867) each.

Singh and Mathil can appeal the Tribunal’s decision to the Court of Arbitration of Sport within 21 days.

You might also be interested in:

Record ban for endurance rider who committed three doping offences in 12 months

Rider blames ‘cocktail’ of drugs in horse’s system on ‘unknown’ operation

The FEI stated that to accept a “simple statement” as proof would undermine the whole anti-doping system and efforts to

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade your subscription to access our online service that brings you breaking news and reports as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

An endurance rider and trainer has been given a record ban for three separate doping offences in a year – two while he was provisionally suspended.

The case of Saudi Arabian Rafae Alamri related to three anti-doping rule breaches in 2019. The case was heard by the FEI Tribunal and a decision was issued at the end of last month.

The first offence occurred at the CEI2* 120km at Al Ula, Saudi Arabia, on 2 February 2019. Blood samples taken from the horse Walfan, trained and ridden by Alamri, were found to contain reserpine, a tranquiliser with long-term sedation effects, and heptaminol, a stimulant that dilutes blood vessels, both of which are banned substances. The sample also contained controlled medication phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone, anti-inflammatory drugs with analgesic effects.

Alamri was provisionally suspended from all competition as of 4 March 2019, and Walfan was provisionally suspended from 4 March to 3 May 2019. On 19 March Alamri wrote to the FEI legal department with a “short explanation”, in which he apologised for the findings and claimed he was “not aware of the medicines” as pharmacies had given him the drugs, and he was “new to this type of competition”, as was Walfran.

The second offence related to Walfan at the CEI1* 110 at Al Qaseem, Saudi Arabia, on 9 March 2019, where the gelding tested positive for phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone. At the event Alamri was the registered trainer, and the rider was Ali Alhashem – but Alhashem and Walfan were prevented from competing as the horse was provisionally suspended. The FEI issued separate proceedings against Alhashem and on 6 October the FEI Tribunal sanctioned him to six months’ ineligibility.

The third case related to the CEI2* at 120 Al Ula, Saudi Arabia on 1 February 2020, where the horse Ankor Class, trained by Alamri and ridden by Alhashem, provided urine and blood samples which tested positive for phenylbutazone and oxybutazone. On 31 March Alamri was notified by the FEI that this third rule violation would be processed in a consolidated procedure with the first and second offences.

On 4 April the FEI received an email from the Saudi Arabian equestrian federation who confirmed they had contacted Alamri to notify him of the charges relating to Ankor Class. The federation “reminded him” he was provisionally suspended and not eligible to participate or attend in any capacity, including as a spectator, any event authorised or organised by the FEI or any national federation. He was also prohibited from training any FEI and/or national horses during his provisional suspension.

The federation told the FEI the Alamri stated he was not the trainer of Ankor Class. He alleged he did not attend the event and that his name was added by the horse’s owner in the entry system “in error”. As Alamri did not inform the federation of this before the event, he has accepted “any consequences” related to this error. Alamri did not submit any explanation in respect of the second or third doping offence.

In relation to the first offence the FEI submitted to the Tribunal that as Alamri did not dispute the presence of the substances or provide an explanation, the FEI had discharged its burden of establishing that Alamri had violated an anti-doping rule. With regard to the second and third offences, the FEI submitted Alamri did not dispute the presence of the samples, or respond to the FEI notification letters. Given this, the FEI maintained it had discharged the burden of establishing that Alamri had violated the rules.

In order to determine the applicable length of ineligibility, the FEI submitted the fault or negligence for each rule violation by Alamri must be evaluated – but as Alamri had failed to establish how the prohibited substances entered Walfan or Ankor Class it was not possible to evaluate the degree of level of fault or negligence based on the applicable rules. As a consequence, the FEI submitted that the presumption of fault, as stipulated in the rules, should stand for each violation.

Under anti-doping rules, if an aggravating circumstance is established by the FEI, the period of ineligibility can be increased up to a maximum of four years unless the person responsible can prove to the Tribunal that they did not knowingly commit the offence. The FEI outlined a number of aggravating circumstances; the sample in the first offence involved three different prohibited substances, no evidential explanation was provided, and the combination of the prohibited substances is uncommon and not normally associated with a legitimate medical treatment and may have been administered for intentional purposes. And given Alamri’s explanation in relation to the first offence that “the horse is new and I want to prepare him for the races” and the nature of the detected substances, the FEI concluded the products were intentionally administered, and as Alamri was also the trainer it was “impossible” to accept the claim that a “cocktail” of substances had been administered without his knowledge.

The FEI submitted that the rule violations took place within 12 months and Alamri was notified of each violation after each occurrence, so they should be considered as separate offences for the purposes of deciding an ineligibility period. The FEI explained to the Tribunal that the period should be examined in greater detail owing to the “unique elements” of the case; three violations have been consolidated, substantial delays occurred due to a backlog of cases the FEI legal department was dealing with, and although Alamri had not competed as a rider since 2 February 2019, he was a registered trainer on the FEI database. As such he violated the provisional suspension served on 4 March. The FEI “explicitly” removed Alamri from the database in 2019 following the second offence, but he was again registered by his national federation as a trainer in 2020 which was a “clear violation” of the rules.

Continued below…

Disappointment as ban overturned for rider of horse who suffered fatal fracture in competition *H&H Plus*

Ban for leading figure who falsified horses’ FEI passports

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

When considering when a period of ineligibility should start, the FEI submitted Alamri “consciously and deliberately” violated his provisional suspension so he should not receive any credit for it. Consequently the FEI requested the ineligibility starts from the date of the Tribunal’s decision.

The Tribunal found the FEI had established the adverse analytical findings and sufficiently proven the violations of the rules and noted Alamri had failed to establish how prohibited substances entered Walfan and Ankor Class in all three cases.

After reviewing the sanctioning scenarios proposed by the FEI and with regard to aggravating factors, the Tribunal upheld the three charges. The Tribunal ruled Alamri should serve a ban of seven and a half years, and must pay a fine of 35,000 Swiss francs (£27,620) beginning on the Tribunal decision date – 24 June 2021. He must also pay the FEI’s 4,000 Swiss francs (£3,156) legal costs. Alamri may appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days of the notification.

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade to access our H&H Plus online service which brings you breaking news as it happens as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

A number of riders have fallen foul of the deadline on horse ownership and will miss out on the Tokyo Games as a result. H&H finds out more

REGISTRATION issues have ruled a number of combinations out of Tokyo, in what have been described by the FEI as “unfortunate” but “avoidable” cases.

Riders from Israel, Italy and the Netherlands have been caught out by the 15 January 2021 deadline, by which horses must have been registered as property of owners of the same nationality as the athlete to compete at the Olympics.

In April, Israeli showjumper Daniel Bluman discovered his mare Gemma W was registered under the incorrect nationality – and not eligible to compete for Israel at the Games. The FEI refused Daniel’s requests for the mare’s nationality to be changed, and he appealed to the FEI Tribunal. 

The Tribunal acknowledged that proper registration on the FEI database is paramount to the FEI because the federation is not responsible for inputting a horse’s nationality; this is the responsibility of national federations and athletes. The FEI relies on its database to ensure rules are complied with.

Daniel said he was “extremely disappointed” with the FEI.

“I felt disrespected, treated as if I was a liar, deceitful, and wrong intended. I truly believe FEI and riders should work together for our sport,” he said.

An FEI spokesman told H&H the organisation “understands Daniel’s disappointment”.

“It is unfortunate he missed the deadline to ensure his horse met the nationality requirements, despite the clear reminders issued by the FEI in advance of the deadline,” said a spokesman.

Dressage rider Dinja van Liere of the Netherlands will not compete at Tokyo on her top ride Hermes as the stallion’s owner, Joop van Uytert, incorrectly appears on the FEI database as German – instead of Dutch.

A spokesman for the Dutch federation KNHS said Hermes was not on the Netherlands’ long-list by 15 January, and it was discovered the stallion was registered on the FEI database in June 2018 with the correct owner – but an incorrect German residential address, related to a German owner with whom Mr van Uytert co-owns other horses. KNHS maintains the error was the mistake of an FEI intern – and appealed to the tribunal to allow Hermes to compete in Tokyo, but this was rejected.

KNHS and the owner filed separate appeals against the tribunal’s decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but on 5 July both were dismissed. Under FEI statutes, the Tribunal and CAS are the only bodies with authority to rule on this matter, so the FEI “considers the matter to be closed”.

“This is an unfortunate case but regrettably one that was totally avoidable had the straightforward checks been carried out by the Dutch national federation and owner before the 15 January 2021 deadline,” said an FEI spokesman.

Dressage rider Tatiana Miloserdova has also been affected by the rule. The Russian-born rider switched to Italian nationality in 2018, but the gelding’s nationality was not changed from Russian before the deadline.

The Italian federation told H&H Tatiana’s FEI ranking secured a dressage place for Italy at the Games and owing to this, and her good performances this season, Tatiana was among the accredited candidates to represent Italy in Tokyo.

“Unfortunately, the problem with registering her best horse did not allow us to take the combination into consideration,” said a spokesman for the federation.

“Once the Olympic dressage qualification was confirmed, Francesco Zaza was selected among the potentially eligible riders because he had both the sport and technical requirements to represent Italy.”

The FEI said the nationality rule “is based on fairness and transparency, and is not simply a formality”.

“The rule does not provide for exceptions to be granted, and it must be applied consistently to all national federations, athletes and horses to ensure a level playing field,” said the spokesman.

You might also be interested in…

‘The hype around it is three-fold’: Holly Smith on Tokyo selection and why the Olympics is a different entity *H&H Plus*

Covid-19 update: No Olympic spectators as Tokyo declares state of emergency

Top showjumper misses out on Tokyo after horse registration dispute *H&H Plus*

‘No stone unturned’: measures agreed to make Tokyo ‘fit for a post-Corona world’

‘This process will benefit future society – becoming a role model for future global events as people adapt to living

‘He’s like a Ferrari’: Ben Maher wins Royal Windsor grand prix as Tokyo beckons *H&H Plus*

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

A top showjumper will not be allowed to compete at the Tokyo Olympics owing to an alleged “administration error” in the registration of his horse.

Israeli showjumper Daniel Bluman was on the country’s team that secured Olympic qualification and had been hoping to compete in Tokyo. But behind the scenes it was “recently” noticed Daniel’s mare, Gemma W, was registered under the incorrect nationality.

Under FEI Olympic rules, horses must have been registered with the FEI as property of owners of the same nationality as the athlete by 15 January of the year of the Games.

On 18 May Daniel contacted the FEI to request the database was updated but the FEI said changes could only be processed by the administering national federation – in Gemma’s case the Belgian federation, with which she was first registered. Daniel asked the federation to urgently update Gemma’s nationality, which it did, but did not change Gemma’s ownership – which appears as Blue Star Investments. According to Daniel, on 25 May the Belgian federation asked the FEI to backdate the mare’s change of nationality and Daniel alleges the FEI refused to, in a decision issued to the Belgian federation on 26 May. Daniel appealed the FEI decision to the FEI Tribunal on 2 June.

Daniel told the Tribunal he became aware of an “administration error” – the FEI database showed Gemma W’s nationality as American. This should have been Israel; Daniel had always been Gemma W’s sole owner and the mare has no sporting links to the US.

Daniel claimed the confusion around the mare’s nationality stemmed from his use of the pseudonym “Blue Star” when registering horses. He said Blue Star is not a company, holding group or syndicate, and the name “reflects his attachment to the Israeli flag”. On noticing the error he contacted US Equestrian and asked for the error to be corrected. But the FEI advised USEF that because this had not been changed before the deadline, Gemma could only compete with a US rider at Tokyo.

The FEI submitted to the Tribunal that Daniel received a clear and valid decision on 19 April that Gemma would not be eligible to compete for Israel at the Games – and the rider should have appealed this decision within 21 days. The FEI said the rules are clear and do not conflict with each other, as Daniel claimed, and added that all national federations received reminders about the deadline. The FEI did not accept Daniel’s position that this was an administration error, and said Gemma’s nationality had appeared as American for almost four years.

The FEI said Daniel’s claim that Blue Star Investments is a pseudonym is “not credible or consistent” with his conduct and dealings with his other horses. Gemma is not registered as “Blue Star” but “Blue Star Investments”, which is registered as a corporation on the FEI database. The FEI added that the rider’s theory is also “not credible” because his ownership of his horse Ladriano Z is split between Daniel, Blue Star Investments, and another stable – so Blue Star Investments is a different entity from Daniel. The rider is listed as one of two “authorised persons” for a company called Blue Star Equestrian LLC, registered in Florida, and the FEI claimed this “only adds to the confusion” about the Blue Star pseudonym and Blue Star Investments.

The FEI referred to an article that refers to Daniel’s success being down to his supporters that either co-invest or co-own horses with him. Daniel was also quoted as saying: “There is Blue Star Investment, the original group we founded ourselves and that different people have been part of over the years and invested in. Everyone involved in this group has made profits, and that is something I’m very proud of.”

The FEI said it must apply the rules in question “extremely strictly” and with “100% consistency”, adding that the rider is not the first person to miss the 15 January deadline. The FEI asked the Tribunal to declare the appeal invalid on the basis it was lodged after the deadline, or dismiss the appeal in its entirety.

The Tribunal acknowledged that proper registration on the FEI database is paramount to the FEI because the FEI is not the entity responsible for inputting a horse’s nationality. This is the responsibility of the national federations and athletes. The FEI relies on its database to ensure the rules are complied with. The Tribunal agreed with the FEI that there was no conflict between the two rules and the intent of them is to create a “level playing field” as well as ensure equal and fair treatment among all national federations and athletes.

The Tribunal took into account that Daniel had owned Gemma for over five years and never checked her ownership status on the FEI database until it was too late, and Daniel’s explanation of Blue Star Investments was “unclear to say the least”.

The Tribunal ruled that the appeal was admissible but dismissed it, and the FEI decision was upheld.

On 30 June, Daniel said he was “extremely disappointed” with the FEI.

“I felt disrespected, treated as if I was a liar, deceitful, and wrong intended. I truly believe FEI and riders should work together for our sport. [It] certainly didn’t feel like that on my first experience with the FEI,” he said.

“I want to thank everyone that supported me on the journey to Tokyo and I will be cheering for Team Israel.”

An FEI spokesman told H&H the organisation “understands Daniel’s disappointment”.

“It is unfortunate he missed the deadline to ensure his horse met the nationality requirements, despite the clear reminders issued by the FEI in advance of the deadline,” said a spokesman.

“This rule is based on fairness and transparency and is not simply a formality. The rule does not provide for exceptions, and it must be applied consistently to all national federations, athletes and horses to ensure a level playing field.

“Mr Bluman had a full right to be heard and all his legal rights were respected at all times. He was granted an expedited hearing before the FEI Tribunal and his request for provisional relief before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was also expedited. Mr Bluman’s request to CAS for provisional measures suspending the effect of the FEI Tribunal decision, was also dismissed on 30 June.”

You might also be interested in…

British Tokyo teams preparing for all situations after more Covid rules announced *H&H Plus*

‘He’s like a Ferrari’: Ben Maher wins Royal Windsor grand prix as Tokyo beckons *H&H Plus*

Legendary rock star’s daughter heads to Olympics on US showjumping team

‘The sport has lost’: Tokyo dream at an end for Irish dressage team

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

H&H finds out what the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled on the case, and what the reactions of the FEI and welfare experts were to the decision

THE FEI and World Horse Welfare have both been disappointed by the overturning of a record ban given to the rider of a horse who suffered a fatal injury in competition.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has eliminated all sanctions — a 20-year ban and a fine of 17,500 Swiss francs (£14,500) — given by the FEI Tribunal to UAE endurance rider Abdul Aziz Bin Faisal Al Qasimi last year, ruling that the burden of proof of horse abuse had not been sufficiently met by the FEI, so no sanctions for horse abuse could be imposed.

H&H reported on the Tribunal’s findings (news, 18 June 2020) on the case of Castlebar Contraband, ridden by Al Qasimi in a CE1* at Fontainebleau, France, in October 2016. The 10-year-old gelding sustained what the event organiser described as “the worst fracture I have ever seen”. Castlebar’s leg, the attending vet said, was “only hanging from the skin and ready to fall off”.

Post-mortem samples from the horse showed the presence of controlled medication xylazine, used as a sedative, analgesic and muscle relaxant but prohibited in competition. The substance, which is rapidly excreted from the body, is known to be used in endurance to lower the heart rate.

The FEI Tribunal accepted the treating vet’s statement that she had followed standard protocols, which do not include use of xylazine, in putting the horse down, denying the defence claim that the drug had been used in the process.

The post mortem found “multiple lesions with a highly targeted location, consistent with recent injections”, which the FEI said showed that the horse had been nerve-blocked in training, before and during the competition.

The FEI’s view was that this desensitisation, in combination with osteoarthritis in the right front fetlock, led to stress fractures that caused the catastrophic injury. The Tribunal was “comfortably satisfied” that the horse had been nerve-blocked during the event, which “likely caused pain and unnecessary discomfort”.

But the CAS panel ruled that neither the rider nor his vet could have “reasonably detected” alleged bone fatigue in the horse.

“Despite extensive veterinary evidence presented by the FEI and its expert witnesses, the panel found there was no proof the horse had been nerve-blocked or abnormally desensitised in competition,” an FEI spokesman said.

The CAS panel said as the horse had passed the horse inspection the day before the event, and the vet checks during the competition, it could not be ruled as unfit to compete. The panel found the FEI had failed to establish that the athlete competed on an exhausted, lame or injured horse or committed “an action or omission which caused or was likely to cause pain or unnecessary discomfort to a horse”.

FEI secretary general Sabrina Ibáñez said: “Although we respect the CAS decision, we are extremely disappointed. The FEI has to stand up for horse welfare and clamp down on horse abuse, and the FEI endurance rules have been improved from a welfare perspective since this case.”

FEI veterinary director Göran Åkerström said the FEI is “incredibly frustrated” to have lost the case, but that the incident was a main driver for the development of the FEI’s hyposensitivity control system, which provides physical evidence of nerve-blocking.

“The CAS decision has resulted in a system that is already being used and which will help prevent similar tragic injuries in the future,” he said.

World Horse Welfare CEO Roly Owers said the charity is “bitterly disappointed” by the decision. “The one positive that has evolved since this case is the development of better methods of detecting physical evidence of nerve-blocking which will hopefully help to deter this dreadful practice and benefit horses in the future by preventing similar tragic and unacceptable losses,” he said.

You might also be interested in…

Record FEI ban for rider of ‘nerve-blocked’ horse who suffered horrific fracture

Two endurance horses put down during 90km FEI ride

An international 90km endurance ride in Fontainebleau, France, has been overshadowed by the death of two horses

Endurance rider who whipped and kicked horse banned for abuse *H&H Plus*

A rider and trainer who used his reins to whip his horse and kicked it so hard that daylight could

High hopes for better things after endurance rule changes approved *H&H Plus*

Campaigners are hopeful that a raft of rule changes approved at last week’s FEI general assembly will lead to significant

Ban for leading figure who falsified horses’ FEI passports

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

US showjumper Andy Kocher has been banned for 10 years for “deliberate, methodical and repetitive” use of electric spurs, on numerous horses in training and competition.

A press release on the FEI Tribunal ruling on Kocher was released last week, and the operative decision has now been published.

The FEI legal department told the rider last June that an investigation had been opened following allegations about electric spur use reported to the independent equestrian community integrity unit (ECIU). It was alleged that Mr Kocher had used electric spurs on a number of FEI-registered and national horses in international and national events, and in training.

Disciplinary proceedings against Kocher were opened last October, and he was provisionally suspended.

This month, the Tribunal ruled that “the respondent’s actions based on the evidence

provided throughout these proceedings demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the prolonged use of the electric spurs by the respondent and additionally, that the respondent’s use was deliberate, methodical, repetitive and on numerous horses, both in competition and training.”

Kocher was suspended until 27 October 2030, fined 10,000 francs and ordered to pay 7,500 francs in costs.

All his results from events at which the FEI has photographic evidence of his electric spur use are disqualified. These include the Hickstead Derby meeting in 2018, at which Kocher’s ride Navalo De Poheton suffered a broken leg on the flat after fence four of the Derby, and had to be put down.

He is also disqualified from a CSI3* at Lexington, US, (14-18 May 2019), a CSI2* at Lexington, (22-26 May 2019), two CSI5* shows in Calgary, Canada (5-9 June and 27-30 June 2019), a CSI3* in Traverse City, USA (7-11 August 2019), a CSI3*-W in Columbus, USA (2-6 October 2019) and a CSI4*-W in Toronto, Canada (5-9 November 2019).

Kocher said he intends to appeal immediately to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

“The result was expected as the FEI Tribunal was not concerned about the truth of the matter and chose to ignore clear evidence against the FEI’s position,” he claimed. “There was no question during the FEI proceedings that the Tribunal gave great deference to the FEI.”

Kocher said the FEI’s main piece of evidence was a video of a device “purportedly owned by me”.

“A video of this all-important piece of evidence was presented to the FEI,” he said. “They allowed the witness to keep possession of the device. When I asked to examine the device, they were unable to produce it for inspection.

Continues below…

‘He was a soldier’: rider pays tribute to horse who died at Hickstead

The rider had planned to send Navalo back to his breeder after his retirement as ‘a perfect ending and reward

Top rider under investigation over electric spur allegations

The rider said he was ‘devastated’ to hear of the investigation

Investigation under way after controversial derby round

“The FEI’s witnesses testified the device did not even belong to me. The FEI was unable to produce even one steward or show official that ever saw or witnessed the use of the alleged device. [The FEI Tribunal] later chose to allow me an opportunity to inspect the device, after two-thirds of the evidence had been heard, and they offered my counsel one hour to examine the device.

“They learned one month earlier that it had mysteriously disappeared and could not be located.

“There is no question there were many instances that make the appeal of this matter necessary. Everyone deserves a level playing field in these very serious and important matters and I was not afforded a fair hearing.”

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade to access our H&H Plus online service which brings you breaking news as it happens as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has ruled on a sensational case involving shows, ranking points and Olympic places. H&H fids out more, and speaks to lawyers for those involved

A RIDER has regained her Olympic showjumping slot in the latest twist of an incredible saga concerning shows and points.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has upheld the appeal of Sri Lankan Mathilda Karlsson, the Sri Lankan federation and Romanian showjumper Andrea Herck against the FEI’s decision to annul results from shows at Villeneuve-Loubet, France, between December 2019 and January 2020.

H&H has reported widely on the fiasco; classes were added to the event schedules after the definite entry deadline, and the additions approved by the FEI and the French federation. Some of the shows included Olympic and Longines world rankings points classes with entries confined to a handful of riders.

The FEI investigated and found the updated schedules were “mistakenly approved”. Their results’ annulment meant Ms Karlsson lost points and dropped out of Olympic qualifying. Her appeal was dismissed by the FEI Tribunal but has now been upheld by CAS.

Rankings have now been recalculated and Sri Lanka regains its individual place for Tokyo. Hong Kong, which had been allocated the slot for jumping after the annulment, is now the first reserve in Group G for Tokyo.

In its ruling, the CAS panel noted that the “protection of the integrity of FEI’s events and competitions will be much more effective if they may also be cancelled retroactively, because, in many cases, the circumstances giving rise to integrity or ethical issues (such as betting, bribery or match fixing) will only become known through information that transpires as late as during or after the event”.

The panel confirmed the FEI has the power to remove events retrospectively, but that its rules do not allow the federation to “retroactively rectify mistakes which entirely stem from its own sphere”, referring to “human error” at the FEI that had led to approval of the updated schedules.

The panel found that as the FEI had failed to establish “justified circumstances” for the removal of the competitions, the prerequisites of the relevant rule were not fulfilled so the FEI decision, and the decision of the FEI Tribunal, are unlawful and must be reversed.

“This is a very disappointing result, but we respect the decision as we knew mistakes were made and the CAS decision is based on that,” FEI secretary general Sabrina Ibáñez said. “When we decided to annul the Villeneuve-Loubet results to do the right thing from a sports integrity perspective, we knew there was a possibility we could lose this case on appeal, but agreed it was a risk worth taking.

“We have been proactive in addressing the issues and in February 2020 implemented the online invitation system for FEI jumping events that introduced a quota system for CSI2*, but the rules were not in effect at the time of the events in question.

“In addition, organisers of CSI2* events that wish to include competitions counting for the Longines Rankings must now invite a minimum of 50 athletes and the FEI is also reviewing the scale of Olympic ranking points based on the number of participants in competitions.”

British Olympic dressage rider Richard Davison, who has previously spoken of his concerns over the FEI Tribunal system (news, 15 October 2020) told H&H the FEI’s actions, and the decision of the FEI Tribunal, had “always seemed wrong to me”.

He added: “A regulatory governing body that admits to a lack of diligence should not impose punitive sanctions on the athletes affected by the consequence of such errors. The standard of remedy for the athletes should be the same as in any civil law procedure and this is what the CAS decision has achieved.”

Ms Karlsson’s representatives, Mr Luc Schelstraete and Mr Piotr Wawrzyniak of the Dutch Schelstraete Law Firm, observed that the FEI cannot hold other parties responsible for its own errors, and that riders cannot be expected to suspect mistakes in schedules approved by the national and international federations.

The lawyers said: “This is a landmark decision for equestrian sports as it illustrates that the FEI’s discretionary powers are limited, and that the FEI needs to observe utmost care in approving equestrian events where ranking points are to be earned. All this is for the benefit of the riders.”

The Villeneuve-Loubet organiser was cleared of any wrongdoing.

You might also be interested in…

Questions over FEI Tribunal’s processes, structure and independence *H&H Plus*

Lawyers who have represented a number of riders in cases involving the FEI have raised concerns about the appeals process,

Appeal to decide Russia’s place at Tokyo 2020 after doping scandal *H&H Plus*

Russia is taking its appeal against the decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency to the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Shows stripped of ranking points after FEI makes blunders *H&H Plus*

Questions raised over government’s decision to ban use of indoor schools *H&H Plus*

Pressure to void Tokyo places after qualification questions *H&H Plus*

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

An Olympic dressage rider who was filmed “riding a small pony, jabbing his mouth and excessively pulling on the reins” has been suspended for three years.

The FEI Tribunal has ruled that the actions of Brazilian Leandro Aparecido Da Silva, who represented his country at the 2008 Olympics and the 2018 World Equestrian Games, constituted horse abuse.

The footage, shared widely on social media last summer, shows the then 44-year-old riding a small coloured pony, his feet inches from the ground, and pulling hard on the reins.

The FEI was made aware of the video on 15 July. In response to an FEI request, the Brazilian national federation said the case would go before the national equestrian sport tribunal.

On 17 September, the tribunal announced its decision, that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, as the incident happened at the rider’s private farm rather than a competition. The FEI then opened disciplinary proceedings.

In his evidence, the rider submitted a vet’s report, from 28 July, stating that the pony, Pirulito, was in “excellent condition”, and “perfect health”, with no lesions or injuries.

He said the six-year-old, who was born on the farm, is ridden mainly by his daughters, and employees’ children. As he is “surrounded” by children, who “pamper and feed him”, he is “spoiled and therefore started to show signs of disobedience”. On the day of the incident, the rider had seen Pirulito disobey, so decided to apply “technical correction”, especially after the pony bit the rider’s youngest daughter.

“According to the respondent, this latter event showed that Pirulito had lost respect for the children and would no longer obey,” the Tribunal report states.

“Thus, the respondent mounted the animal, and ‘applied the desired correction’, without using spurs or a whip. The technique used was called ‘half-halt’, i.e. that ‘the commands were obeyed when the animal was ridden by the children’. This correction was recorded on the respondent’s son’s mobile phone.

“After[the rider] applied the correction, Pirulito started to obey again, without hesitation.”

Leandro said he has been caring for horses for 25 years, so has wide experience, and that “a pony is, despite its small size, a very robust animal and has the proportional strength of a common-sized horse, meaning that it can, usually, bear the weight of an adult”.

He said he had not intended to punish the pony for biting, but to ensure he would “not disobey again, so that the children would not get hurt”, and that the incident lasted “a few minutes”. He said he did not consider his actions abuse, as they “did not cause any psychological trauma or injury to the animal”.

“Throughout his career, the respondent has never been subject to any disciplinary sanction or suspension,” the report states.

“Since the publication of the video – which was misinterpreted by people who are unaware of the technique used – the respondent has been receiving several types of threats and suffered substantial damage to his image as a professional athlete.”

A further veterinary examination including X-rays of the pony’s mouth, carried out in September, found no issues.

The FEI submitted that the rider is “clearly oversized and overweight to be riding such [a] pony, as his legs are practically reaching to the ground”.

“The respondent is seen strongly pulling on the reins to the extent that the pony’s head is restrained in an upright position. In addition, the respondent jabs the pony’s mouth with both hands using the reins.

“The pony is trying to avoid the discomfort and pain by thrusting the head up and opening the mouth.[He] is afterwards pulled on a small circle where the respondent

continues to violently jerk the rein with his right hand causing the pony to spin in a circle trying to escape the afflicted pain.”

The FEI added that the rider can be seen leaning backwards, to use “his full body weight” on the pony, and that the dog following Pirulito is “adding to the mental discomfort of the pony”.

The FEI said the “highly aggressive” riding was “in the FEI’s view, clearly to punish and/or cause fear to the allegedly misbehaving animal, which clearly amounts to an abusive training method”.

The FEI also references a second video shared online, in which Pirulito is being ridden by Leandro’s 20-year-old son.

Continues below…

Ban on trimming horses’ whiskers for international competitions starts today

The ban came into force at FEI events on 1 July

Endurance rider whipped horse ‘because it was lonely’

The ‘promising young rider’ used an extra pair of reins to hit his horse

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

“At some point in this video, the son crashes into an obstacle because the pony can barely jump the oversized obstacles with the weight of the rider on its back,” the FEI submission states.

“As a consequence, the pony suffered a dangerous, rotational fall and landed on its back. According to the FEI, an ‘unidentified bystander’ is laughing and during the ride, the pony is, once again, followed and rounded up by the dog. It is the FEI’s view that this video raises questions on whether the video, which is the object of the present proceedings, is truly a sole incident, or whether it was actually a common practice within the respondent’s family.

“The FEI considers therefore that the video which gave rise to these proceedings is likely not to be a sole incident, which should also be taken into consideration for the sanctions to be imposed.”

The Tribunal report states: “With respect to the second video, the respondent indicated that it is his son who rides the animal and leads it to jump the obstacle.”

Leandro was suspended until 20 November 2023, fined 5,000 Swiss francs (£3,909) and ordered to pay 2,000 francs (£1,563) in costs. He has 21 days to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Under FEI rules, during a period of suspension, “the person, horse or body suspended may take no part in competitions or events as an athlete, horse or official or in the organisation of, any event under the jurisdiction of the FEI or any event under the jurisdiction of an national federation in accordance with the statutes or in any FEI-related activity (e.g. FEI courses, meetings, general assembly etc.)”

This also includes, in this case, any event run under the jurisdiction of the Brazilian national federation, which will comply with the suspension at national level.

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade to access our H&H Plus online service which brings you breaking news as it happens as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

An eventer who was denied a national championship win by 0.1 of a penalty after her dressage sheet was added up incorrectly by “human error” has lost her appeal.

Evelina Bertoli and Seashore Spring were declared runners-up in the CCIO4*-S at Montelibretti (22 to 25 October), which was also serving as the Italian national championships.

Score sheets are normally given out to riders, but the FEI rules were modified owing to the coronavirus pandemic. This meant sheets should not be given out at the event and could be requested to be sent via email following the competition instead.

But when her dressage tests were emailed to Ms Bertoli the following day, she spotted the calculation error. This email was not submitted with her appeal.

The Italian equestrian federation sent a letter to the FEI eventing department, dated 27 October, informing them of the error so the FEI “may make the amendments it deems necessary to the classification of the competition.

The FEI replied via email that day, explaining that the results cannot be changed if an appeal is not lodged within 30 minutes of the final scores’ being published at the event, under any circumstances.

An appeal was then lodged with the FEI tribunal by Ms Bertoli’s mother and the horse’s owner, Argenta Campello, and legal representative Mariano Salvatore on 6 November. The appeal called for the results to be amended and for the Covid rules concerning dressage sheets to be modified.

The hearing went into deep detail over the rules surrounding field of play decisions, deadlines for objections over results, even down to the wording of “should” and “shall” in terms of the distribution of score sheets to riders.

The FEI stated that Ms Bertoli “should have requested the judges’ score sheets directly after the dressage test“.

“If she had requested the score sheets directly after the dressage test, the [organising committee] would have plenty of time to email them to Ms Bertoli and she would be in a possession of all necessary information in order to file a protest within the mandatory deadline, which elapsed on 24 October 2020 at 4:37 pm,” argued the FEI.

The FEI said that “the outcome of the competition is really unfortunate for the participant and that mistakes happen”.

“While the FEI has a sympathy for all athletes who are ‘victims’ of such ‘honest’ mistakes, the FEI, as the world governing body of the equestrian sports, is in charge of applying and respecting the sport-specific rules, even if those rules are strict and do not foresee any exceptions,” it argued.

“They maintain that [this is] the only way to ensure fairness towards all the participants of sports competitions, including other athletes who act in good faith and rely on the results (and following from its consequences) once they have been approved and announced.”

Article continues below…

You might also be interested in:

Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round

‘Mistakes happen’: scoring error means wrong rider ‘won’ Blair

The three-star winner alerted organisers when she discovered she had had one more showjump down than was previously thought

The FEI Tribunal concluded it does not have jurisdiction over rule changes. It also concluded that it could not change the result, citing previous rulings and Court of Arbitration for Sport decisions.

“Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed,” the hearing concluded.

“The FEI Tribunal has sympathy for the appellant and regrets that it cannot assist. It notes the FEI does not ask for costs. The deposit is to be returned to the appellant.”

Horse & Hound magazine, out every Thursday, is packed with all the latest news and reports, as well as interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and training advice. Find how you can enjoy the magazine delivered to your door every week, plus options to upgrade to access our H&H Plus online service which brings you breaking news as it happens as well as other benefits.

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now

Lawyers who have represented a number of riders in cases involving the FEI have raised concerns about the appeals process, while British dressage rider Richard Davison asks whether a form of mediation would be a better solution. H&H finds out more...

CRITICISMS have been levelled at the FEI appeals process, with concerns over the structure and questions about its independence.

The case of Sri Lankan showjumper Mathilda Karlsson – who lost Olympic ranking points, and her country its individual Tokyo spot, after an FEI investigation – has led to riders and lawyers speaking up.

Ms Karlsson’s appeal against the FEI’s decision to remove classes held at Villeneuve-Loubet from the ranking points was dismissed by the FEI Tribunal (news, 25 June). The classes had been added to schedules after the definite entry deadline, but the additions were approved by the FEI and the French federation.

Their removal meant Ms Karlsson lost points and dropped out of Olympic qualification.

Her lawyers, Piotr Wawrzyniak and Luc Schelstraete of Dutch firm Schelstraete, have represented a number of clients in cases involving the FEI.

“We think the structural approaches of the FEI are not right, in more than one area,” Mr Schelstraete told H&H. “We’ve had a number of experiences that raise serious concerns.”

Mr Schelstraete said one issue is the fact everything to do with each case is kept confidential; so if a decision is not published on the FEI’s website, as not all are, nothing to do with it may be cited in another case.

Mr Wawrzyniak said: “It’s about an objective and professional approach towards stakeholders, which the FEI seems to lack.”

Mr Schelstraete cited the 
case of two Ukrainian dressage judges who lost their appeals against suspensions for “nationalistic” judging (news, 
15 December 2016).

He said the lawyers asked for the evidence on which the FEI had based its decision, and explained the Tribunal told the FEI to disclose evidence and communication with the dressage committee, but this did not happen.

“According to the FEI, there was nothing,” he said. “In a civil court, if this is the case, you will win as there’s no evidence. The FEI and its legal department didn’t obey the instructions to disclose, but nevertheless, our clients were suspended.”

The lawyers also criticised the process of informing riders of regulatory and disciplinary decisions unrelated to doping, as they said they are told nothing but the decision itself.

“In Mathilda’s case, we had an email from the Tribunal asking us to name our witnesses for the hearing, then there was an email from the FEI legal department saying we weren’t allowed witnesses as we didn’t name them in our appeal submission,” Mr Wawrzyniak said. “But we hadn’t specified any because we hadn’t seen the file. We need the file to be able to put witness requests in; the Tribunal should think about due process and a fair trial.”

Independence

Mr Schelstraete questioned whether the FEI Tribunal is as independent from the FEI as is claimed, especially as it is chaired by an FEI dressage judge.

There is no specific allegation of impropriety or bias made against the chairman, rather the criticism is one of a potential for or perception of bias.

“Who writes the decisions?” he asked, adding that in Mathilda’s case, there was no one on the panel who knew about showjumping. This meant long discussion of FEI jumping rules, “but the Tribunal always accepts FEI rules because they don’t know how it works”.

“We’re not convinced this is objective or independent,” he said. “For us there’s no fair trial.”

The lawyers would like to see modernised regulations and more rights for riders, with full documentation released, and Tribunal panellists who are nothing to do with the FEI.

“We need more checks and balances, and better procedure,” Mr Schelstraete said. “This isn’t acceptable; something has to change.”

Mediation

TOP British dressage rider Richard Davison also raised concerns about the FEI’s dispute-settling process, in response to 
Ms Karlsson’s case.

“I’d like to have a discussion with the FEI about whether there’s a better way to resolve some disputes than a Tribunal hearing,” he told H&H.

Richard believes a mediation route might be more helpful rather than the adversarial approach, especially in cases such as Ms Karlsson’s.

“A lot of other sport governing bodies are going down this route,” he said.

Richard agreed with the lawyers in questioning the fact it was Ms Karlsson who suffered, when the FEI had acknowledged it was at fault, and that she had paid all her costs to get to the show on the basis that it was above board.

Richard also agreed that perhaps the Tribunal should not be chaired by a FEI judge, as “any official who wanted to be upgraded would have to be pretty brave to find against the governing body”.

An FEI spokesman said all final Tribunal decisions are published online except cases involving minors or issues related to safeguarding. Preliminary Tribunal decisions are not published as it would not be appropriate when the “merits of the case have yet to be adjudicated on; this is in keeping with the established practice of the Court of Arbitration for Sport”.

In Ms Karlsson’s case, the FEI said her points had not been validly earned, and the decision was “not arbitrary, but rather necessary to assure fair and equal conditions for all riders”.

The spokesman said the suspension of the Ukrainian judges was upheld by the Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which “rejected the judges’ arguments regarding any procedural irregularities”.

The FEI Tribunal is elected in accordance with the FEI statutes, in particular article 38.6 which states: “The FEI Tribunal shall be composed of a chair and a minimum of six other members, each with legal expertise and appropriate knowledge and experience of equestrian sport.”

All Tribunal decisions are appealable to CAS. The appellant nominates one panel member, the respondent another and the president of the CAS appeals division nominates the chairman.

CAS jurisprudence has long established that any perceived procedural irregularities in the underlying proceedings are “cured” by the “de novo” nature of the appeal.

H&H, 22 October 2020

.

You may also be interested in…

Shows stripped of ranking points after FEI makes blunders *H&H Plus*

FEI Tribunal suspends rider in ‘landmark’ horsemanship decision *H&H Plus*

Spanish endurance chef d’equipe successfully appeals to Court of Arbitration for Sport *H&H Plus*

Appeal to decide Russia’s place at Tokyo 2020 after doping scandal *H&H Plus*

Russia is taking its appeal against the decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency to the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Stay in touch with all the news in the run-up to and throughout the major shows and events during 2026 and beyond with a Horse & Hound subscription. Subscribe today for all you need to know ahead of these major events, plus online reports on the action as it happens from our expert team of reporters and in-depth analysis in our special commemorative magazines. Have a subscription already? Set up your unlimited website access now