Considering the fate of equestrian sport after the Olympic Games in Paris 2024

Abstract

Keywords

Olympic sports, Animal welfare, Horses, Equestrianism, Ethics, EU Law

Suggested Citation Style

Sazanów-Lubelska, Małgorzata (2024). Considering the fate of equestrian sport after the Olympic Games in Paris 2024. Journal of Animal Law, Ethics and One Health (LEOH), 135-145. DOI: 10.58590/leoh.2024.010

* Author Information: Dr. Małgorzata Lubelska-Sazanów, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland

Content

• I. Introduction
• II. The legal basis for the use of animals in sport in the EU
• III. Signs of a revolution
• IV. The horse – an athlete or a victim?
• V. What is wrong with equestrian sport?
• V. Summary

• “If we failto maintaina bright linebetween animals and human beings, we may end upby treating human beings as badly as we treat animals, rather than treating animals as well as we treat (or aspire to treat) human beings.”
• Richard A. Posner

I. Introduction

Animals have served humankind for centuries, proving to be indispensable for human survival, being used for food production, work activity and mobility purposes, as well as, later, also as companion animals. In the past, horses have not only been used in rural areas for farming and travelling purposes, but they have also played the most important role of all other farm animals, being used for military reasons, especially up until the First World War. The use of horses for military, travel and agricultural purposes changed diametrically after the industrial revolution, when horse riding became an increasingly common leisure activity in Western countries, both for the more affluent riders and breeders, and more generally for sporting purposes. This has led us to the current reality, where the main use of horses today depends on equestrian sport, whose roots can be traced back to ancient Greece.[1] This historical aspect becomes very important in the context of the Olympic games that have just taken place in Paris and the latest incidents in equestrian sports at the Olympic level. Over the last decades, the status of animals in the modern world has significantly changed and the ethics of using horses in sport are today being questioned. In addition, given that horses are the only animals being used in Olympic disciplines, the ethical standards for the use of horses in sport are governed by the Fédération Équestre Internationale, which, due to the principle of sports autonomy, takes precedence over state laws referring to animal welfare.[2]

This article aims to show the reality of animal welfare standards in modern equestrian sports, its pros and cons, and the possible fate of these Olympic disciplines in the near future. It starts off by presenting the legal foundations of using – and protecting – animals in sport, briefly referring to various aspects of animal law and ethics. It focuses on EU law, as well as the most important aspects of animal protection expressed in the national laws of EU Member States, as well as the position of animals under the law, with a brief summary and references to various legislation and literature, rather than a comprehensive presentation of laws, which I have already covered in my previous publications.[3] After presenting the legal foundations of equestrian sport, the paper summarises the most recent controversies and the most important facts relating to the ethics of using horses in equestrian sport as “signs of a revolution” that is already taking place in the equestrian sport industry. The problem of the position of the horses in these sports is also presented, trying to place them somewhere between athletes and victims. The next step is to point out the main negative aspects of equestrian sport, combining the social and psychological aspects of sporting rivalry and the impact that human emotions – inevitable in any sporting rivalry – can have on the ethics of using horses. In the conclusion, I give my opinion on the possible future of equestrianism, including the question of whether it should remain an Olympic discipline.

II. The legal basis for the use of animals in sport in the EU

For the purposes of this paper, the most recognised significant changes to the primary law of the European Union (EU) were introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force in 2009 and amended the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). With the introduction of Article 13 to the TFEU, the EU introduced the recognition of animals as sentient beings, declaring that “[i]n formulating and implementing the Union's (…) policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.” Unfortunately, the last part of this provision states that the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to “religious rites, cultural traditions, and regional heritage” must also be respected. These exceptions to the treatment of animals as sentient beings, together with the autonomy of sports law, constitute the reality of animals in the EU, allowing for corridas, ritual slaughter and (semi-controlled) animal abuse in equestrian sports.

In general, the legal systems of the EU Member States also contain provisions stating that animals are not things. This is the effect of the process of “dereification” in animal law that occurred over the course of the last century[4] and into this century – whether in civil codes or in specific animal protection legislation.[5] However, while dereification provisions establish that animals are not things, they also tend to state that provisions relating to things apply to animals respectively. Thus, wherever animals are exploited for human purposes, there is a conflict between the autonomous rights of animals’ owners and the requirement to meet the basic needs of animals. In this way, the mere use of animals in sport could be justified by policy makers on the basis of the health benefits associated with equine sports.[6] Following this path, the rights of animal owners could be limited in accordance with the principle of the least restrictive means, as introduced by Childress et al.[7] According to these authors, proportionality and least infringement are examples of two (of five) conditions necessary to justify public health interventions. In cases where a public health measure infringes on some more general moral consideration, it must be shown that the infringement is proportionate to the public health benefit.[8] While this may be the case with hippotherapy or possibly the recreational use of horses, when they are kept in their natural conditions and ridden in an empathetic way using animal-friendly training methods, it is definitely not the case for competitive equestrian sport, where human emotions clearly dominate over empathy towards the horse.

The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) has strict rules regarding the methods used to train horses. According to the FEI’s rules and principles, excessive use of the whip, the use of prohibited training methods, the beating of horses or the excessive use of spurs are all forbidden and punishable by a yellow warning card, a fine or even disqualification.[9] However, this leads to the conclusion that the use of whips and spurs is a general reality in equestrian sport. Since it is impossible to observe the daily training sessions of every horse, the assumption that the use of whips and spurs is standard practice in equestrian sport leaves the decision as to whether a particular use is ethical or not to the subjective judgment of the rider, which is inevitably linked to cases of misinterpretation.

In addition, horses used in Olympic level equestrian sport become a valuable “commodity”, making it too risky to allow them to play freely in paddocks with other horses. Some countries, such as Switzerland and the United Kingdom, have introduced laws making it compulsory for horses to be allowed to exercise outdoors. In Switzerland, the law[10] requires that working horses (those who are ridden or work regularly) must be allowed to exercise freely outdoors at least two days a week, for at least two hours each day. The Danish legislation dictates that all horses should have a minimum of two hours in a paddock or “other exercise” every day,[11] which is a wording that easily allows the free movement of horses in natural conditions to be replaced by another training. While the Swiss law refers to group housing only in reference to young horses (up to two and a half years old), the Danish law generally refers to the presence of “compatible companions” in reference to all types of horses, “unless veterinary conditions speak decisively against this.” As there are several “veterinary conditions” that every horse may suffer from, this (albeit logical) exception might easily lead to a horse’s basic need being denied. In addition, the absence of a “compatible companion” can easily become a subjective point of view for the owner, making it very likely that horses working in equestrian sport will not spend any free time outdoors to avoid the risk of an injury. Still, in countries like Denmark, the United Kingdom or Switzerland the position of working horses is, at least, theoretically better than in most countries, where the law does not make any reference at all to their time outdoors.

The problem with the use of animals in equestrian sport is that as long as equestrian sport is an Olympic sport and governed by a single governing body – the FEI – the autonomy of the sport will always prevail over national animal welfare legislation.

III. Signs of a revolution

Recently, equestrian sport has been the subject of increasing controversy, namely in relation to the status of the horse as a competitor in the context of a debate on the personhood of animals and the protection of animal rights. In order to guarantee a minimum level of welfare for horses, the FEI, as the sole authority for all international equestrian sport events, issues rules aimed at safeguarding these standards. In recent years, however, the ethical aspects of horse participation in sport have become the subject of debate. In 2019, at the FEI European Championships in Rotterdam, a young woman ran out onto the showjumping parkour while one of the competitors was attempting a difficult triple combination jump with his horse. The protester had the phrase “stop horse slavery” painted on her body and was holding a sign that read, “horse beating is not a sport”. Although this was not the first protest against the use of animals in sport, the gross violation of safety rules made it famous throughout the world, including outside the equestrian industry, and raised awareness of the ethical aspects of equestrian sport. Leaving aside the question of the danger of such movements (for the activist, for the rider and for the horse her- or himself), doubts have been sown as to whether horse beating does remain one of the main foundations of equestrian sport. This leads to a more general question – should horses be used in sport at all?

On 23 July 2024, just a few days before the start of the Olympic Games in Paris, the British equestrian’s governing body, British Equestrian, decided to suspend one of its most talented equestrian competitors from competing in the games after a video became public showing her striking a horse with a long whip more than 20 times in one minute during a training session.[12] The British rider, who won six Olympic medals in dressage in London, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo, could have become Britain’s most decorated female Olympian in Paris. However, the FEI’s British governing body, showed by its decision that the horse’s welfare takes precedence over Olympic medals. There is also a secondary question – whether this decision was based on moral grounds or to protect the image of equestrianism herself. After all, the FEI worked hard to improve the image of equestrian sport in the public eye following several incidents of animal abuse in the past years. In the age of the internet and social media, when anything can be recorded and go viral in an instant, when society is becoming increasingly aware of animal cruelty and when animal law scholars around the world are educating society to change attitudes from animal welfarism to animal rights,[13] there is also an increasing number of public voices calling for a reformulation of equestrian sport, or even banning it from the Olympic Games. The equestrian discipline of the pentathlon has already suffered this fate, since the federations for modern pentathlon decided to replace horse riding with a different fifth discipline in order to save the sport from being discontinued at the Olympic Games, following an incident in which a German athlete abused an uncooperative horse in 2021. The 2024 Olympic Games in Paris are supposed to be the last to use the “old” version of the pentathlon including show jumping.[14]

Initial steps have already been taken to tackle aggressive or cruel treatment of horses in equestrian sport, for example when, in 2010, an FEI round-table conference declared “rollkur” – a method used almost universally in dressage before its ban, defined as bending the horse’s neck through aggressive force – to be unacceptable (banning its use in all events organised by the FEI). The same refers to “barring” or “rapping”, defined as causing pain or discomfort to horses when they touch or knock a pole, to achieve the effect of keeping their legs higher when jumping the next obstacle, which was already banned in the FEI General Rules during FEI events or at “any other time” as stated in its Article 142. However, many riders claim that these methods are still being used outside of shows where horses are trained on a daily basis. Although this is not easy to be confirmed or denied, such allegations continue to cast the sport of equestrianism in a bad light. For example, in 2021, the FEI filed a complaint against a famous and eligible German show jumper for a possible violation of FEI rules and relevant animal welfare legislation referring to the use of abusive methods during the training of horses in 2021. However, the issue of horse rapping is much more complicated in Germany, where national law introduced the term of “touching”, which is permitted, as opposed to “barring”, which is forbidden. The FEI’s investigation was eventually discontinued, but the example shows the depth of ambiguities in equestrian disciplines. While horse abuse can certainly be reported, such reports might both over- and underestimate the actual prevalence of the practice. Some have suggested that the video of the British dressage rider just before the Olympics may have had a political element to it, although others have suggested similar investigations might have been swept under the carpet for the same reasons. Nevertheless, equestrian sport has entered a difficult time in the digital era, full of mobile phone videos that can often be misleading.[15] However, there is no denying that these problems have highlighted the important issue of animal welfare in these sports.

In 2022, the FEI created the Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission, which carried out a global survey on equine ethics and wellbeing. Among the findings was that 75% of the almost 28,000 respondents had concerns about the welfare of horses used in sport. One of the members of the Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission is also the author of the Ethical Framework for the Use of Horses in Competitive Sport. All of this underlines that, as has already been stated, the need of the equine industry to be proactive in adapting its practices to reflect the changing consensus of public opinion.[16] While it is clear that the FEI will do all it can to keep equestrian sport in the Olympic Games, this is already being challenged by animal welfare activists,[17] with the famous animal protection organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) claiming for the removal of all equestrian events from Olympic Games.[18]

IV. The horse – an athlete or a victim?

According to the FEI “(e)questrian sport is a unique case of a sport that involves animal and human athletes working together as a team.” At the same time, Article 165 TFEU states that “the EU’s aim is to protect the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen.” Since the FEI considers a horse to be an athlete,[19] this implies that the EU must also protect the physical and moral integrity of horses, as Article 165 TFEU should consequently apply to both types of athletes working together in equestrian sport. Meanwhile, the FEI’s General Rules,[20] while theoretically aimed at improving the welfare of horses in equestrian sport, refer only to the ‘excessive’ use of spurs or whips (defined as using it more than three consecutive times), implying that the less extreme use is obvious, acceptable and crucial to achieving certain goals in this sport.

The question that arises in this context is how different a horse is from a human, especially when it comes to striking an animal or a human. It is a fact that animals do not have the same legal status as humans, and in most legal systems they fall somewhere between legal persons and things. However, the civil law qualification of animals should not apply to the welfare of horses in equestrian sport – where their names are sometimes better known than those of the riders, where the rider and the horse have to “work together as a team” (as the FEI states) and especially where, according to the FEI, the welfare of the horse must be paramount and never subordinated to competitive or commercial influences.[21] What makes one of the athletes in this ‘team’ less equal than the other? It is obvious that the human has to teach the horse certain movements, certain behaviours and to lead the horse in the parkour. However, being the leader can lead to the abuse of the power by the rider. The crux of the matter is whether or not it is considered wrong to use force on a horse. For it to be considered “wrong”, the human would first have to believe that striking the horse causes her or him pain, which could be of a physical or emotional nature. Therefore, according to various laws, animals must be kept free from distress, which, if deliberately caused by a human, could also be considered animal abuse. Secondly, if beating a horse is indeed considered as a wrong, it would have to evoke feelings of compassion, in the sense that not only does the beating cause the animal pain or distress, but the mere feeling that an animal is suffering these emotions causes a human to feel compassion. It has been shown that while moral outrage is felt by observers both in cases of human and animal abuse, in the case of human abuse, moral outrage is driven by perceptions of the immorality of the abuse, whereas in animal abuse cases, moral outrage is driven by perceptions of the suffering of the victims.[22]

Whether or not an observer considers a certain behaviour towards a horse to be aggressive or to be animal suffering depends largely on two aspects. Firstly, knowledge of the horse’s behaviour and sensitivity, and secondly whether this behaviour is considered “normal” in a certain environment, in other words whether this observer has been exposed to it before and is used to it. This view is consistent with the culture pattern model of aggression, according to which aggression is predominantly a learned behaviour. This means that exposure to aggressive behaviour tends to make people more aggressive.[23] This is consistent with the findings of the Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission that the highest percentages of concern about the welfare of horses used in sport were expressed by vets (87%) and leisure riders (84%), i.e. in groups outside of the FEI pyramid. The reason for this may be that these groups of people– who are not exposed to more or less aggressive behaviour towards horses on a daily basis –do not consider such methods of training horses in sport as “something normal”. This may confirm that people adapt to their misbehaviour by adapting their own psychological mechanisms.

What increases the tendency to use aggressive methods was shown in one of the most famous psychological experiments, conducted by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University in 1971.[24] This demonstrated how good people can rapidly become tyrannical under certain circumstances, depending on their role in society and the environment. It is difficult not to use the power that we have been given, and this often leads to overuse or abuse of that power. In equestrianism, this is expressed in the misuse of the whip, spurs or putting too much force on the bit, as the rider has this power over the horse and it can make the difference between winning or finishing second in an equestrian competition just before the finish line or the last fence. Research has confirmed that anxiety, anger, surprise and sadness are the most commonly recognised emotions in sporting rivalry, with a recognition accuracy more than 80%.[25] When feeling these emotions, when being on the verge of losing or winning a prize that an equestrian has dedicated much of their life and trained hard for, it can become very difficult to think about the partnership with the horse, who easily can becomes a victim rather than a teammate. It is not the cruelty of the rider, but the circumstances and the equestrian sport environment that make the rider cruel in these circumstances.

V. What is wrong with equestrian sport?

The assumption that the use of a whip is not be absolutely forbidden in equestrian sport has a certain logic, since using it can sometimes prevent a major accident, for example when a horse expresses doubts just before jumping a 1.60 m obstacle in show jumping competitions. However, there is no reason to use the whip in flat racing other than to motivate the horse to run faster and gain a competitive advantage.

The French philosopher René Girard theorises that the origins and tenacity of human aggression derive from humanity's foundational social nature.[26] This means that because we live in groups, we internalise and repeat our values since they come from reliable, tested information.[27] The same thing happens with bullying in the army – soldiers repeat the same behaviour that they were once exposed to. This applies also to young equestrians exposed to cruel and abusive methods of training horses (especially if it produces the expected results). When they see it for the first time, they may resist, but the student-trainer relationship makes them obey these rules. After some time, they get used to these training methods and treat them as equestrian reality, which some of them will undoubtedly use in the future.

However, the most important factor in human-horse abuse in equestrian sport is the simple fact that one individual in the partnership has more power over the other and more drive to win than the other. Even in the case of the most compassionate horse riders, this disparity in knowledge, ambition and drive to win can lead to aggressive behaviour towards horses.

At the same time, I am aware that now that we have domesticated horses and used them for “higher purposes” than in agriculture, it is no longer possible to simply release them into a world full of glass buildings and concrete. What should be reassuring, however, is the fact that an increasing number of equestrians are applying the methods of “natural horsemanship”, using practices that are supposedly derived from observing the natural behaviour of free-roaming horses and rejecting abusive training methods.[28] However, the methods applied in “natural horsemanship” aim at achieving a better relationship with the horse, not at winning medals or achieving fame. The desire to win a certain competition will always inevitably involve emotions that can overwhelm a rider who is entitled to use a whip, spurs and bridle during a competition (and in the daily training away from the eyes of the FEI Commission). The commercialisation of equestrian sport has also led to the pressure for immediate success, without the necessary groundwork and time, which has changed the way that professional riders view their horses.[29] This leads to the conclusion that while recreational riding, the teaching of respect for horses and the use of natural methods of training horses could still be defended (given the anthropocentric era in which we live and the lack of other ways of giving the horses the activity they need in captivity), the abuse of horses (at least occasionally) is inevitably associated with equestrian sport – probably at all levels, but certainly at the Olympic level. The expectations of horses used in sport are so high that it is very difficult to train them to this level without tethering on the edge of animal ethics. Especially as the incentives are so high – the global sports industry worldwide was worth nearly 355 billion US dollars in 2021 and is expected to grow to over 700 billion US dollars by 2026.[30] This massive industry includes the people, activities and organisations involved in producing, facilitating and organising sporting activities.

VI. Summary

The equestrian sports industry is a lucrative branch of business for numerous stakeholders. The question I have tried to ask in this article is not whether it is ethical or not to use horses in sport, but why unethical actions towards horses take place in equestrian sport. The simple fact is that whatever rules are set by whatever governing body, it is impossible to eliminate all cases of animal abuse in the training of horses. As detailed in previous sections, the psychological underpinnings of sporting rivalry are what leads to such behaviour towards horses. Firstly, the high standards set for the horses used in the sport, and secondly, the incentives associated with winning prizes, inevitably combine with human nature to push horses harder to reach extremes. I must underline that it is not the riders’ lack of empathy or any desire to deny the horse the dignity it deserves. It is simply human nature to inadvertently use excuses, habits and denial to protect ourselves from realising our own wrongdoing when we feel compelled to take certain actions. Additionally, the extent of the grey areas in these sports, where nothing appears to be black or white, makes it very difficult to treat horses with respect and compassion. This is especially true when we consider that horses are naturally calm and receptive animals, easily submissive to humans.

I believe that equestrian sport at the Olympic level will remain unethical and lead to a degeneration of the horse’s nature as long as the incentives in this sport remain so high. The fact that horses are considered luxury goods, and that equestrian sport is considered noble and prestigious is related to the economics of this sport, although money never goes well with ethics and empathy. However, I also firmly believe that it is still possible to ride ethically and that cooperation between humans and horses can be beneficial to both. However, in my opinion this excludes training horses to Grand Prix level and putting too much pressure on winning competitions. This could be changed, for example, by competing with natural methods, without whips and spurs, but also by limiting the aspect of sporting rivalry to a level where all human-animal pairs that complete the competition without any mistakes would be awarded prizes. Such an attitude would exclude the darker aspects of human nature that abuse the horse in order to win. At the same time, it would be the bond between the rider and the horse that would be rewarded, not the unknown training methods used to ensure victory. Although it may be considered utopian, the revolution in equestrianism has already begun and is unlikely to end without major changes, of which the removal of equestrianism from the Olympic Games, with all its subsequent consequences, is likely to be one.

Copyright (c) 2024 Malgorzata Lubelska-Sazanow

Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International.