Erring On the Side of the Horse
With 2025 fast approaching, I find myself even more optimistic about the future of horse sports. Why, you ask?
Well, 2024, you delivered incomprehensible, almost unimaginable, critical incidents: decorated Olympians whipping in-hand, under-saddle whipping, blue tongues (right under the judges' noses) at the Paris Olympic Games, and a 5* event rider repeatedly punching his horse in the face after landing from a jump in training ... you really couldn't make this stuff up. For horse lovers, 2024 has been both equally shocking and, well, not.
Please don’t think I’m naive in my optimism. The critical incidents of 2024 (with still three months to go) are not the sum total of equestrian abuse. Sadly, I imagine there is more to come, because courage is always contagious. As more whistleblowers speak out for horses, and as more people move from contemplation to action, more videos will surface. But we must continue to show up for our horses, refusing to "tap out" from the violence and abuse perpetrated by so-called 'professional' riders who fail our horses.
So, why am I optimistic for horses in 2025?
Three reasons:
The independent commission from the FEI: The Equine Ethics and Well-being Commission (EEWBC) Final Report (November 2023).
FEI’s acceptance of the EEWBC final report in toto.
FEI Welfare Strategy, July 2024. The strategy outlines 37 actions, 26 of which fall under EEWBC’s six focus areas.
The matrix snippets in the Welfare Strategy offer insights on the EEWB recommendations and the timeline for their implementation.
According to the FEI's own deadlines, before the start of 2025, we will have rules to regulate the abuse we've seen (and potentially continue to see as more videos emerge) with a 'zero-tolerance policy toward any practice that compromises equine welfare and safety, both during and outside of competition.’ (FEI Welfare Strategy)
In addition, the FEI has developed its own noseband taper gauge, which will be implemented in January 2025. Having read two recent noseband studies, if the FEI is uncertain about how much space to give horses (through the design and production of the FEI taper gauge) between the nasal plane and the noseband, refer to page 6 of the EEWBC report.
Known as the 'precautionary principle,' EEWCC advises when there is indecision, say the space for horses (two, three or even four fingers?), the deciding factor must favour the horse.
"Where there is a lack of good evidence, or where contradictory evidence exists, we should adopt the ‘precautionary principle,’ i.e., give the horse the ‘benefit of the doubt’ and make the decision most likely to optimise equine welfare given the uncertainty of the evidence available to us." - EEWC Final Report (2023)
FEI has committed to giving horses the benefit of the doubt. At least two fingers space, should be granted by the FEI's Taper Gauge, under the noseband at the nasal plane, possibly more. January 2025, is our (equestrians’) opportunity to do better for horses. Make positive change. The new FEI taper gauge, along with the implementation of the FEI Welfare Strategy marks the beginning of a new welfare era in horse sports, an era I have coined Welfare Horse Sports.
All decisions, including in the face of uncertainty (when scientists disagree), must land in favour of the horse. When in doubt, err on the side of the horse.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Lisa x
References
A GOOD LIFE FOR HORSES. A vision for the future involvement of horses in sport
FINAL REPORT – November 2023. Equine Ethics & Well-being Commission. https://equinewellbeing.fei.org
EQUINE ETHICS AND WELLBEING COMMISSION: Further supporting information related to Tack and Equipment Early Recommendations 2022. Review of relevant research (August – November 2022) Supporting Information:
1. Noseband over-tightening is commonly cited as being a welfare concern by industry participants
(Crago et al., 2019; Visser et al., 2019; Clayton & Williams, 2022)
2. Intended purpose of tightening nosebands relates to closure of the mouth to avoid penalisation
(dressage) and to enhance control of the animal (Doherty et al., 2016; Doherty et al., 2017a; Weller
et al., 2020)
a. Evidence indicates increased tightness of the noseband is related to increased sensitivity
towards bit pressure (Manfredi et al., 2005; Randle & McGreevy, 2013; Pospisil, 2014)
b. Despite the noseband not being needed to serve a specific function, fit is often commented
on by stewards, trainers, peers, and technical delegates for being “too loose” (Clayton &
Williams, 2022)
An independent Commission established by the FEI
3. Standard recommendations for noseband tightness suggest that two adult human fingers need to
fit under the nosepiece of a bridle (FEI), despite the origin of this method of assessment being
unknown (Ulhdahl & Clayton, 2019)
a. Research indicates that riders tend to agree that there should be at least 2-3 fingers
beneath a noseband for it to be considered correctly adjusted (Clayton & Williams, 2022)
b. Execution of assessment by competition officials does not standardise size of fingers or
location or method of assessment, leading to variable results (Kienapfel & Preuschoft,
2010; Doherty et al., 2017a; Weller et al., 2020)
c. True prevalence of over tightening in the industry is currently unknown, but current
literature suggests more than 50% of horses are experiencing noseband tightness of less
than “two fingers” (Doherty et al., 2017a) despite public agreement on a 2 finger
“minimum”
4. Excessively tightened nosebands have been shown to exert extremely high forces (of up to 95 N)
and peak pressures of more than 1000 mmHg directly onto the tissues under the noseband (Casey
et al., 2013, Murray et al., 2015, Doherty et al., 2017).
5. Overtightening has been thought to be linked to negative impacts on the horse’s overall welfare
a. Physiological
i. Pain (Tell et al., 2008; Doherty et al., 2016)
ii. Discomfort (Christensen et al., 2011; McGreevy et al., 2012; Doherty et al., 2016;
Weller et al., 2020)
iii. Tissue damage (Casey et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2015; Doherty et al., 2016; Weller
et al., 2020)
iv. Vascular perfusion (McGreevy et al., 2012; Doherty et al., 2017b)
v. Microfractures and bone remodelling (McGreevy, 2015)
vi. Oral lesions and ulceration (Weller et al., 2020) .A 64% higher incidence of lesions
was found to be associated with use of a tighter noseband in the study of approx.
3000 horses (Uldahl, 2018).
b. Psychological
i. Stress (Fenner et al., 2016)
c. Behavioural (Weller et al., 2020)
i. Prevention of common behaviours which may impact welfare (Casey et al., 2013;
Weller et al., 2020)
ii. Post-inhibitory rebound following removal of noseband pressure (Fenner et al.,
2016)
1. Yawning
2. Swallowing
3. Licking
6. Particular issues have been linked to specific bridle designs
a. Crank noseband (McGreevy et al., 2012; Casey et al., 2013; Hill et al., 2015; Doherty et al.,
2016; Weller et al., 2020; Dyson, 2022)
i. Potential to overtighten is increased due to developmental design relative to
human effort exerted
b. Flash noseband (Doherty et al., 2017a)
7. The use of practices which cause physical or mental suffering in the horse is in direct opposition to
the FEI Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse (FEI, 2013).
8. Extremely tight nosebands were found to be prevalent in the disciplines of dressage and eventing
(Doherty et al., 2017).
3.2 Further information regarding concerns about tight nosebands:
• Social Media –Various Commentary
• Recent Surveys (results of FEI Equine Ethics and Wellbeing equestrian survey)
• Position statements from International Equestrian Scientists - ISES. In: Position statement and
recommendations—see: http://www.equitationscience.com/restrictive-nosebands.
• Research findings from equestrian stakeholder surveys/forums (eg Visser et al.,2019)
• Written submission from Dr Orla Doherty to clarify research findings and discussion with Dr
Doherty on her latest research
Comments