Earlier thread: Tryon Under FEI Investigation Following Rolex Kentucky
Posted on 07/23/2007 11:59:09 AM PDT by Help!
Near the end of the x-country phase at Rolex, Amy Tryon's horse Le Samurai took a misstep and came up lame. She pressed on and jumped the last fence and crossed the finish line before attempting to pull the horse up. The horse was later humanely destroyed. He did lose all supporting ligaments.
Here it is from FEI Press News:
The FEI Tribunal has taken its decision in the case of alleged horse abuse committed by Mrs. Amy Tryon on her horse Le Samurai while participating in the cross-country phase of the 2007 Rolex Lexington Kentucky 4-Star Event on 28 April 2007.
The case involved the riding of an apparently lame horse in the final moments of the course, and the state of the horse when the last fence was jumped. A hearing was held in this matter on 25 June 2007, at which the parties presented a substantial volume of evidence including testimony from a number of very experienced members of the international eventing community.
The dilemma which the Tribunal had to resolve was a very difficult one. The main issues to be decided were (a) whether the competitor committed an “abuse” as this term is defined under the applicable rules (see note to the editor) and, if an abuse was committed, (b) whether it was an intentional act or an unfortunate omission to take action and stop the horse, as signals of discomfort were not correctly perceived by the competitor.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the competitor's behaviour at the end of the cross-country phase of the event objectively constitutes abuse according to the requirements of the applicable FEI regulation. The competitor acted, by continuing to ride after the horse was objectively lame and injured. Conversely the competitor omitted to act, by failing to pull up the horse when she could have. This caused or was likely to cause pain or discomfort to the horse.
The Tribunal expresses its opinion that “abuse of horses constitutes an offence that violates the most fundamental rules of the equestrian sport and is, as such, highly reprehensible from a moral point of view”. The Tribunal determined that, had “the competitor intended to ride a lame or injured horse, a suspension for life would not have been an inappropriate or a too severe penalty”.
The Tribunal’s decision indicates, however, that it determined in this case that there was a “significant disconnect between what Amy Tryon felt and what was actually occurring.” While Amy Tryon was negligent in not stopping the horse, the Tribunal determined that she did not understand that the horse had been injured until just as she pulled him up. The decision states that “[t]he Tribunal believes that in the state the competitor was in – tired, focused on completing the course and without the benefit of video and ability to observe matters or analyze them logically - she did not realize that the injury had occurred, and thus never intended to continue on course with a lame or injured horse. The Tribunal believes that the competitor clearly realized that the Horse took quite a number of uneven strides, but could not determine their cause or likely severity. The Tribunal believes that the competitor should have nevertheless stopped earlier to understand the severity of the lameness.”
The determination that there was no premeditation and no actual awareness by the competitor that she was riding a lame or injured horse is taken into account in imposing sanctions on the competitor.
After careful examination of the parties’ submissions and evidence, the Tribunal confirms the disqualification of horse and the competitor from the above-mentioned event and imposes the following sanctions on the competitor:
- suspension from competition for a period of two months (to commence immediately and without further notice at the end of the 30-day appeal deadline, or sooner if the right of appeal is waived); - a fine of CHF 1,000; - a cost contribution of CHF 1,500 towards the legal costs of the judicial procedure.
The Tribunal decision states that Mr. David O’Connor, President of the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF), Member of the FEI Eventing Committee and Chairman of the FEI Eventing Safety Committee, phrased the dilemma and the conclusion well in remarking: “Premeditated abuse is an action that should, and needs to be dealt with in the most severe actions that we as a sport can take by our judiciary side. Similar cases to this [the present case] are much harder to judge and I feel should be dealt with on a whole different level. Should this be taken seriously – yes; career changing – no.”
The full text of the decision (30 pages) is available on the FEI website under LEGAL/DECISIONS.
Note to the editor: Definition of abuse according to the applicable rules
The principle of the horses’ welfare is of paramount importance and inherent in the conception of the equestrian sport promoted and regulated by the FEI, as expressed by the Code of Conduct, Statutes and General Regulations (GRs). The rider who puts his or her horse’s health and life at risk must be held responsible for this conduct.
Under the heading “Abuse of horses”, Article 143 of the GRs provides a general definition according to which the following requirements must be met for a case of abuse to be realized: act or omission which causes or is likely to cause pain or discomfort to a horse.
In the context of Eventing, Article 520 of the FEI Rules for Eventing states as follows: “Any act or series of actions that in the opinion of the Ground Jury can be defined as abuse of a horse or dangerous riding shall be penalised by disqualification and such other penalties in accordance art. 532.1 of the present Rules as the Ground Jury may determine. Such acts include, for example: rapping, riding an exhausted horse, excessive pressing of a tired horse, riding an obviously lame horse, excessive use of whip and/or spurs, dangerous riding”. __________________
http://video.tinypic.com/player.php?v=664abo2
That decision sounds about right. As I noted on the earlier thread, "tunnel vision" near the end of a course could have prevented her from realizing the severity of the situation, and the FEI seems to agree. She should have pulled up to assess the situation, and she is punished for failing to pull up, but not punished at the level which would be appropriate if she fully realized what was going on.
Ping to the horsey set.
Earlier thread: Tryon Under FEI Investigation Following Rolex Kentucky
How diplomatic:)
Becky
Who... me... or them? ;~)
Them....:)
Becky
I suppose it is... As you know, I was and am more ambivalent about punishing her than you were.
What do you think about it?
I think it was diplomatic:)
No, really, I find it hard to believe that at that level of competition, with the experience that a rider would have at that level, that she could NOT know that horse was seriously hurt. It was so obvious in the film, and she had plenty of time to know it was serious before the jump.
I think she took a gamble and lost. And for that I don’t think she should be allowed to compete at that level again. But I’m not PC:)
Becky
Fair enough. :~)
I think from the standpoint of protecting the best interests of the horses used in sport, that’s definitely the strongest statement they could have made.
Exactly, and I believe erring (altho I don’t think it would have been an error in this case) on the side of the horses is in the best interest of the horses and the sport. When animals are at the mercy of handlers, the doubt should go to the animal, because they have no voice of their own, especially when they are dead.
Becky
Well said!
The video has bben pulled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.