NARG, the North American Riders Group needs to also get behind this.
Former EC CEO speaks out about the issue;
Now this is more like it (from the above link to EC former CEO’s statement)
After Foster was sent home from the Olympics, Equine Canada, the Canadian Equestrian Team’s governing federation, chose to issue a statement thanking the FEI for its conduct in this affair. Its choice was a public obscenity, and an affront to every athlete who has ever carried the maple leaf into competition.
[QUOTE=Jealoushe;6486702]
Former EC CEO speaks out about the issue;
Bravo, Akaash. Bravo.
Ok. I think we want this person back.
Akaash Maharaj speaks out
In the soaring language of the Olympic Charter, the very first “Fundamental Principles of Olympism” include “respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.” But high words cast a long shadow over low deeds.
On Saturday, Tiffany Foster, one of Canada’s Jumping team members, was disqualified from the Olympics by the International Equestrian Federation (FEI), after its Veterinary Commission discovered a superficial scratch above one of her horse’s hooves.
The FEI justified its decision by citing regulations designed to protect horses from abusive competition practices, in which unscrupulous riders scald or inflame their horses’ legs, to force the horses to leap higher in a desperate attempt to avoid striking hypersensitized skin against the fences.
The regulations are absolutely legitimate. The FEI’s attempt to apply them to Foster’s situation was absurd.
The FEI has conceded that there is no suggestion that Foster acted improperly, neither through malice nor through negligence, neither through omission nor through commission. The FEI Veterinary Commission did not even bother to take the horse out of its stall to examine it further or to test its movement for any signs of discomfort. There is no evidence that the horse itself was even aware of the scratch, other than when it was poked repeatedly.
The FEI acknowledged that Foster had no ill intentions. It acknowledged that she committed no wrongful act. It acknowledged that she failed in none of her responsibilities. It presented no evidence that her horse was in any distress.
It nevertheless punished her by casting her out from the Olympics.
By wrapping indefensible decisions in the false flag of horse welfare, the FEI has done more than wrong individual athletes. It has brought its commitment to horse welfare into disrepute, and demonstrated a willingness to make its most important rules the enemies of the most basic standards of justice.
How is such a state of affairs possible? The FEI regulations state baldly, “there is no appeal against the decision of the Ground Jury to disqualify a horse for abnormal sensitivity.” There is explicitly no remedy for those who have been treated unjustly; there are no consequences for those who wield power capriciously. And power without accountability inevitably invites abuse.
Many Canadians will shake their heads in sympathy for Foster, then shrug their shoulders in the belief that there is nothing to be done, that the forces arrayed against her and other athletes are simply too powerful, that the interests embodied in international sport organizations are too entrenched. But this is only true if we allow it to be so.
As Canadians, we have a choice, and we have a responsibility to choose to not go gentle into that good night.
In a globalized world, we can project our values into the international system, or we can allow ourselves to become prisoners of the values of others. We can speak up for the ideals good sportsmanship, or we can stifle the voice of conscience when those ideals are trampled. We can stand with our athletes, or we can collude with those who treat their dreams as expendable commodities.
After Foster was sent home from the Olympics, Equine Canada, the Canadian Equestrian Team’s governing federation, chose to issue a statement thanking the FEI for its conduct in this affair. Its choice was a public obscenity, and an affront to every athlete who has ever carried the maple leaf into competition. In response, Eric Lamaze, perhaps the greatest equestrian athlete Canada has ever produced, chose to announce that he will never again compete under Equine Canada’s authority, unless the federation reverses its position.
This is more than a fight over the treatment of a single athlete. This is more than a struggle for the future of equestrian sport. This is a battle for the values, the honour, and the very soul of our country’s national sporting system.
Eric has chosen to risk everything to stand with the angels. I believe in my heart that Canadians will not leave him to stand alone.
Akaash Maharaj is a triple gold medallist for Canada at the International Championships of Equestrian Skill-at-Arms, and a former CEO of Equine Canada. His personal web site is www.Maharaj.org.
Hallelujah, this guy gets it! The EC SHOULD be ashamed of itself for groveling to the FEI. This sort of abuse of power with this organization is nothing new! Until the international equestrian community stands together to make the organization accountable, travesties like this will continue to happen.
[QUOTE=BoldChance;6486730]
Ok. I think we want this person back.[/QUOTE]
Akaash is the man! Having personally heard him speak, he is really something else. But no…they shoved him out the door too.
What the HE double hockey sticks is EC doing!?!?
Best thing I’ve read in a long time.
The urge to protect horses that lies behind the FEI hypersensitivity rule is correct, but the methods used to determine said hypersensitivity are muddled.
No transparency, no recourse, inconsistent application… sounds like a kangaroo court.
Have any other horses in the show jumping stabling been examined for hypersensitivity? How did they manage to pass? Why did the officials zero in on a small wound on this one horse? Who spotted this wound? Who ratted? And not one other horse in the show jumping – What, there are maybe 60 horses competing? – has a small cut below the knee? If other horses were tested, were they European-country horses or more North American horses?
It makes me wonder if there are pressures on the FEI from outside groups. Hence, the erratic (read: frantic) approach to testing…
Perhaps part of Eric’s anger stems from the autocratic, anti-North American environment of the FEI. The FEI cannot stand the U.S., and I’m assuming, Canada and Mexico, and everyone knows this.
Sigh.
Bingo, and it has been that way for a loooong time. Hence my comments regarding non- continental Europeans seeming to be the only ones to have this particular problem. Someone mentioned a French rider having been DQd recently for it, but I found no case history of it on the FEI site. Denis lynch’s case isn’t there, either, so maybe they are behind on getting the website up to date.
[QUOTE=jlphilli;6485522]
It rules a horse “hypersensitive” if they are ouchy to a sore tendon just as if they are ouchy to a small cut on their coronary band (as in this case). Do you think those two scenarios should be created equal? I think a horse with a small cut or “lesion” on it’s coronary band (that may have pulled back when the area was poked at) may be fine to compete. I think this is what all the fuss is about.[/QUOTE]
How can you seperate those issues without allowing people to “create” a small cut or lesion on the coronary?
[QUOTE=Mardi;6485704]
Maybe because when it happened to us it was at the 2010 World Cup, which is an individual competition. There aren’t teams at the WC, so who would have stepped forward ?
And with no USET teams chosen yet at that time, it would be a bit awkward for someone to say “I won’t be on the team !” To which someone would reply, "Well no team has been chosen, and if it had, who said you’d be on it anyway ?
The beauty of Eric’s comment (threat, whatever) is that there IS a team.[/QUOTE]
That’s true. But as I recall now riders from the US and other countries did stand up and offer to boycott the rest of the finals because of what happened to McLain. Too bad there wasn’t enough riders willing to do it to make an impact.
[QUOTE=jlphilli;6485522]
I think the issue goes beyond this particular incident. There has been a lot of raised eyebrows in the whole “hypersensitivity” rule. It’s completely subjective. It rules a horse “hypersensitive” if they are ouchy to a sore tendon just as if they are ouchy to a small cut on their coronary band (as in this case). Do you think those two scenarios should be created equal? I think a horse with a small cut or “lesion” on it’s coronary band (that may have pulled back when the area was poked at) may be fine to compete. I think this is what all the fuss is about.[/QUOTE]
(a) My horse picks up his leg if you touch him ANYWHERE on the leg. He’s had a nick on his heel that is scabbing for a week. Should I have laid him off until the cut is entirely healed?
(b) Are we all to stop riding our horses if they have minor cuts?
© Did they even trot the horse for soundness? (NOOOOOO!)
How much competitive edge would a small cut actually give someone?
And how much of a difference would there be between a small, localized thermal reading on the cut, and the less localized readings that would be evident if someone were truly trying to cheat at the expense of the horse?
[QUOTE=Tha Ridge;6485593]
Yes. What do you think you would do if you were poked 50+ times? A nick on a coronet band (from a shoe, a rail, anything) isn’t okay, but yet dressage horses cantering around with their tongues flailing out or necks hyperflexed is perfectly acceptable. I just don’t get it. :no: Bravo to Eric.[/QUOTE]
Thank you very much.
If you all that think Eric is wrong, READ HIS STATEMENT. The horse was eliminated after being poked about 50 times, never taken out of the stall, never jogged, let alone observed in warm up. Same as Saphire… Worry about the dressage and reining training methods that are definitely harmful to horses…
Thank you, that was my memory of the matter (and I recall that GM was… livid … in the press conference as well). It was poor consolation of McLain, but at least he knew his national federation had his back (and thanks for saving me from searching through links!)
The idea that a hypersensitive horse should not compete is a great idea. But if anyone thinks the execution of an otherwise good idea hasn’t gone horribly wrong, then they haven’t been paying attention. And if the national federations (and riders) don’t SAY the execution of the rule needs to be reviewed then how will it ever get better? Because we can do better than this, I’m sure of it.
[QUOTE=Equibrit;6486824]
How can you seperate those issues without allowing people to “create” a small cut or lesion on the coronary?[/QUOTE]
Per my previous post, then why aren’t event horses receiving this same scrutiny? If you can’t separate those issues (I can), then you shouldn’t be able to separate the disciplines they are applied to.
[QUOTE=BoldChance;6486844]
How much competitive edge would a small cut actually give someone?
And how much of a difference would there be between a small, localized thermal reading on the cut, and the less localized readings that would be evident if someone were truly trying to cheat at the expense of the horse?[/QUOTE]
Besides, there are three other legs equally capable of dropping rails! 
Event horses are generally greased up and avoid dinging a foot, and they are subject to veterinary inspection.
