When was Hickstead DQ’d?
And yes she will get to stand on the podium if Canada wins a team medal.
This is a copy of the email that I received this afternoon from Equine Canada (all EC members would have received one):
"
For Immediate Release
Starting Gate Communications for Equine Canada
Tiffany Foster’s Olympic Dream Comes to an Unfortunate End
FEI clearly stated that “there is no accusation of malpractice”
August 5, 2012, London, England - Canadian Olympic Team member for Show Jumping Tiffany Foster of Schomberg, ON, was disqualified from Olympic competition on August 5.
Less than one hour before the start of team competition, scheduled to commence at 11 a.m., FEI veterinarians entered the stall of Victor, the horse ridden by Foster. Following a routine examination of the horse in its stall, Terrance Millar, chef d’équipe of the Canadian Olympic Team for Show Jumping, was informed that Foster was disqualified under the International Equestrian Federation’s (FEI) hypersensitivity protocol.
An official communication issued by the FEI read: “The Veterinary Commission have stated that the horse has an area of inflammation and sensitivity on the forelimb just above the hoof. There is no accusation of malpractice, but the horse has been deemed unfit to compete by the Ground Jury.”
Millar lodged a protest which was heard by the FEI Appeal Committee before the end of the competition. However, the protest was denied based on Annex XI of the FEI Veterinary Regulations, which state: “there is no appeal against the decision of the Ground Jury to disqualify a horse for abnormal sensitivity from an Event.”
Foster and Victor, a 10-year-old Dutch Warmblood gelding owned by Artisan Farms and Torrey Pines Stable, were disqualified from further Olympic participation.
“We are extremely disappointed with this decision as Tiffany Foster should have been allowed to compete,” said Terrance Millar.
Terrance Millar further explained, “The horse has a scratch on its coronary band that occurred overnight.”
“This is an unfortunate application of a rule in the absence of context, which has shattered a young woman’s Olympic dream,” concluded Millar.
Despite the disadvantage of having no drop score following Foster’s disqualification on Sunday, the Canadian Olympic Team for Show Jumping qualified for Monday’s team final and is currently ranked sixth. The scores of Jill Henselwood of Oxford Mills, ON, defending Olympic Champion Eric Lamaze of Schomberg, ON, and ten-time Olympian Ian Millar of Perth, ON, will all be counted towards the final result."
OK, so how exactly do they test for sensitivity? He has a scratch, if it doesn’t bother him (sore causing him to pull up his front feet higher at a jump) then it is no advantage. Even if it was an accident, if he is hypersensitive, then he may have an advantage (not intended), so I can see how they would rule that it was unfair. BUT how do they know? Do they send him over a bunch of jumps (apparently not), poke the sore? How many times? With what pressure? Just make a judgment call that he may be hypersensitive? What is the baseline? How much experience do the vets have and where are the published reports for type of injury and amount of sensitivity? There must be a standard. What are they basing their interpretation on? Blind adherence to the rules, or real scientific knowledge? If its like the capsaicin issue, I’d say the former.
They use thermography. So they probably saw an increased heat signature and upon touching the cut, a bit of sensitivity to it. Which would be normal but wouldn’t necessarily mean the horse was going to be more careful because of it.
But it sounds like in this case it is total blind application of the rules. They made the decision in under ten minutes. They didn’t even take the horse out of it’s stall. I don’t know the horse but it’s hard to imagine an advantage in competition from the way they described that small, little cut. And there is no recourse, they make the rules, the final decision, period. I read the article and Eric Lamaze and Katie Prudent’s comments, and I agree, their power is scary. Especially because they are not using horsemanship to make the decision. You might as well have had a tennis referee there to make the decision. “It’s got a cut so it’s eliminated.” 
Back during the McLain debacle in Geneva, I read that when the riders were first made aware of this new rule, they generally thought it was a good idea. BUT, they either did not understand, or overlooked the “no appeal” part, and this has now come to haunt them again. I THINK I am remembering correctly, but if not, my apologies and please correct me.
Lamaze also didn’t mince words in front of an FEI audience. Good for him and Katie Prudent also.
If as Lamaze said they poked the horse multiple times on the hoof area (which is also evidently what happened with Sapphire) this doesn’t sound like a good rule at all.
I agree 100% with everyone that thinks this is awful because it is. Poor Tiffany, her connections and really, hasn’t Team Canada had enough bad going for one Olympics? I’d love to see them catch a break.
And now for the but…
The hyper sensitivity rule was written to stop players from cheating via horse abuse and it was intended to be strong and unappealable. Now we have Tiffany stuck in a completely unlucky deal and it sucks, but instead of hating the FEI (and trust me I’ve worn those shoes before) it may be best if ‘we’ think about different solutions that still protect the horses. Keep in mind that adding written context to hyper-sensitivity is going to make applying the rule all the more complicated. And for commenters that want to see horsemanship applied I ask you how we do that? It’s a good start, but what if I think I’m a great, common-sense based and seasoned horseman but you think I’m a bozo? Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and we will almost always find differing opinions there.
One thing out of this debacle that I truly appreciate is that the FEI went out of their way to clearly state that there is no allegation or suspicion of wrong doing. Tiffany is going to have a long career ahead of her and it’s important her reputation comes out of this clean as it went in.
Go Canada! (from your neighbor to the south)
Yah, poke a sore until the creature with the sore reacts in pain - “oh my there is hypersensitivity” - great way of testing - asshats.
[QUOTE=PrettyBayMare;6480584]
I agree 100% with everyone that thinks this is awful because it is. Poor Tiffany, her connections and really, hasn’t Team Canada had enough bad going for one Olympics? I’d love to see them catch a break.
And now for the but…
The hyper sensitivity rule was written to stop players from cheating via horse abuse and it was intended to be strong and unappealable. Now we have Tiffany stuck in a completely unlucky deal and it sucks, but instead of hating the FEI (and trust me I’ve worn those shoes before) it may be best if ‘we’ think about different solutions that still protect the horses. Keep in mind that adding written context to hyper-sensitivity is going to make applying the rule all the more complicated. And for commenters that want to see horsemanship applied I ask you how we do that? It’s a good start, but what if I think I’m a great, common-sense based and seasoned horseman but you think I’m a bozo? Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and we will almost always find differing opinions there.
One thing out of this debacle that I truly appreciate is that the FEI went out of their way to clearly state that there is no allegation or suspicion of wrong doing. Tiffany is going to have a long career ahead of her and it’s important her reputation comes out of this clean as it went in.
Go Canada! (from your neighbor to the south)[/QUOTE]
Regardless of the intention of the rule, it is just plain a BAD rule, impossible to implement fairly and HUGELY Open to misuse, as we have seen.
The rule needs to be scrapped and another way found to catch cheats, but let horses jump who cannot be proven to have been doctored. The burden of proof needs to be with FEI. And don’t for a second think this is an honorable organization. It is about power…
Personally as someone who years ago used to show groom and saw late night polling done by BNTs I am glad that they are firm on this rule.
Any sign of a the horse having been resently sensatized should be cause for elimination obviously even if the horse is no longer sensative as the horse would remember it’s painfull lesson.
It is no different than the big lick horses any sign of something that “could be” sensitisation has to be disqualified.
It is unfortunate that some will be disqualified without wrong doing but it is a good rule if it stops what many of us have seen.
My 2cents
“It is unfortunate that some will be disqualified without wrong doing but it is a good rule if it stops what many of us have seen.”
I completely disagree. Given the HUGE amount of time and money associated with preparing for and getting into the Olympics and that it only occurs every 4 years, I think it warrants a bit more thought before DQ’ing someone.
A decision made in 10 minutes whereas the rider and horse had to prepare for who knows how long to get to there?
completely unfair.
I’m also utterly disgusted with the decision that was made to modify the punishment associated with the riders (Sharbatly and the other guy) whose horses had been caught with drugs in their system so they could still compete at the Olympics. An obvious and serious infraction, but they were allowed to go…
[QUOTE=Antaeus;6480178]
I am one of the pleasure riders that doesn’t know FEI rules, and maybe this is comparing apples to oranges, but: a jumper can be dq’d for a scratch, but a dressage horse can appear to have the sh*t rolkured out of him and still compete?[/QUOTE]
Uh oh. Here comes that can of worms! Oh yes, Princess Haya her “majesty” would tell you that the equesrian sport is the most well looked at and into etc. This is the most ridiculous subjective veterinary rule inclusion that I have ever heard of. Hypersensity to a cut on a coronary band and a horse is ejected, same deal with Sapphire. And yes, they can rolkur the shit out of these horses outside of or inside of the dressage competition, but since they do not react when you touch them on the overbent neck or tortured corners and bars of their mouths, it is all great and “on with the games”! The Roman Empire had it all wrong, maybe they should have had hypersensitivity test on the lions mouths…, “oh gosh, what is that slave doing in there?”
When is this stupidity going to stop.
[QUOTE=BumbleBee;6480800]
Personally as someone who years ago used to show groom and saw late night polling done by BNTs I am glad that they are firm on this rule.
Any sign of a the horse having been resently sensatized should be cause for elimination obviously even if the horse is no longer sensative as the horse would remember it’s painfull lesson.
It is no different than the big lick horses any sign of something that “could be” sensitisation has to be disqualified.
It is unfortunate that some will be disqualified without wrong doing but it is a good rule if it stops what many of us have seen.
My 2cents[/QUOTE]
If you saw the poleing, (I assume you weren’t interogating the horses or BNTs for a poll), did you report it to the show personnel? This is an easy one. Photograph, report, done. There could be cameras on the warm up rings, it is so easy it does not need this kind of baloney. All of that prep, all of that money and this stupid, subjective rule that could easily be caught elsewhere. Jumpers can easily nick their coronary band with a shoe. What if this were you riding and this your horse? Honestly. I never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life. Just hang around the show world long enough all of the loonies come out of the bin. I don’t mean you 2cents.
This was nearly 20 yrs ago and I was a young teen and no I said nothing nor did anyone else it was quite common back then. Might not have even been against the rules as everyone knew it happened.
I am not sure I even thought much of it at the time as I was all stary eyed, and under the spell of all those who knew more than me.
It used to be very common. People would school in the rings at 3am the night before.
Maybe it is a rule that isn’t needed in this age at this level since I am sure at the olympics no one could school in secret and get away with it.
Yikes, man I really feel for Canada at the games, bad luck to nearly everyone luckily we’re in a sport that people and horses can compete in for years and get another chance.
I guess that is true about the shoe. I was thinking a horse could wear protection but realize some horses could even react to boots or wraps.
I imagine it is a hard rule to manage without going to far one way or the other.
I am just a realist and know no system is perfect. If we don’t have rules in place to prevent this we will go back to the way things were.
Was there any description of the wound? If she competed and won would there not be the same type of protest from the other teams?
What is the alternative to black and white enforcement of the rules?
I personally just don’t see an alternative.
Well in light of the drug issue being over looked I can see the annoyance with the firm stand on the scratch. I am just very glad I am not responsible for these decisions as I think it would be impossible to please everyone. My sympathy to Tiffany.
Exactly! Ireland’s Dennis Lynch was denied his spot on the Olympic Team because he had been called out by the FEI on hypersensitivity. UH, his horse had a tiny cut WHICH HE SHOWED the FEI, and he was still DQ’d from Aachen.
HE WAS NEVER fined, etc, by the FEI and they even wrote in their report that it was NOTHING HE DID. But the Irish Fed is a tad paranoid, so they removed him from the list… and then put in Cian (:rolleyes:) (There were Irish riders based elsewhere with longer partnerships and better records…)
The whole thing, while supposedly in the interest of the horse, stinks.
So, it is NOT a conspiracy, but I do feel for the rider and owners!!!
I really feel for Tiffany!
How to enforce the hypersensitivityrule fairly though, wow that´s the milliondollar question…
I don’t totally understand what is meant by the term “hypersensitivity.” Does it mean that the horse is showing more reaction to the wound than he should? Or does it simply mean that he has a wound?
