Equestrian Sports and Doping

Charles T. Jordan

Much like any competitive sport there is a risk of doping. Because competition in professional sports is so intense, there is always the temptation to take shortcuts to achieve success. Sports like cycling and baseball are generally most associated with doping scandals; however equestrian sports (such as show jumping, dressage, eventing, hunters, etc.) has needed to address doping. Equestrian sports are one of the only major competitive sports where one of the athletes competing is a non-human. This creates an important distinction, unlike in cycling and baseball where the “doper” is the competitor with the decision making power, in equestrian sports the “doper” is the horse (which is not who makes the decision to dope). This makes it difficult to determine who should be punished in doping scandals. Recently the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF), the governing body of equestrian sports in America, has clarified and extended the responsible parties in doping situations. Previously those responsible when the horse tested positive for performance enhancing drugs was just the trainer. Under the new rule those responsible would also include the rider, owner of the horse, and support personnel (including grooms, handlers, and veterinarians). Furthermore the presumption is that these individuals are responsible absent a showing of “substantial evidence to the contrary.”

        The enforcement of these rules has been taken to court when one of the biggest names in the sport was involved in a doping scandal. Tori Colvin’s mother, Brigid, was suspended and fined by a USEF hearing committee as the trainer when the horse Tori rode tested positive for higher than usual levels of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Colvin challenged the suspension in New York Supreme Court, claiming that the punishment was

Wildlife Welfare: Adopting a New Ethic Everyone Can Agree Upon

Michelle D. Land

Harris’s Hawks, native to the Southwest, form complex social groups and hunt cooperatively, sometimes stacking 3-birds high to maximize good perching locations and find prey more efficiently.

Why animal protection organizations and environmentalists don’t collaborate more meaningfully is a long-standing question without a satisfactory answer.

Typically, the explanation for a lack of sustained cooperation between the two is that animal protectionists are concerned about individual animals, while environmentalists care only about populations or healthy ecosystems. This “mission loyalty” is a false dichotomy. Climate change perturbations, palm oil plantations, industrial farming, habitat loss, over-harvesting…the list of intersecting interests is too long to exhaust. Ecosystems are comprised of millions of individual animals. And individual animals depend upon healthy ecosystems to thrive. Conservation biologists, Chris Darimont and Paul Paquet in their 2010 article, Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: two sides of the same coin? illuminate this point:

Although rarely considered, depriving animals of their life requisites by destroying or impoverishing their surroundings causes suffering of individuals through displacement, stress, starvation, and reduced security. The same human activities driving the current extinction crisis are also causing suffering, fear, physical injury, psychological trauma, and disease in wild animals. These discomforts are well beyond and additive to what might occur naturally (i.e., non-anthropomorphic).

On November 18^th, a report by the Endangered Species Coalition entitled

Personhood, Robots, Animals, etc.

David Cassuto

Michael Dorf, Steve Wise and I are featured extensively in this WaPo article discussing personhood in the context of artificial intelligence and the U.S. political system.

Are Lab Animals Necessary?

Raghav Patel

For centuries animals have been used for experiments in the name of science. Scientists have urged the general public that these experiments are necessary, for the advancement of medical and scientific discovery. These scientists believe that without using nonhumans, there would be no way for us to know if the drugs or research discovered, would work or be safe for human use. This argument is flawed in many respects, but none more than the fact that nonhumans simply are not humans. Many of the experiments that bring desired results on animals does not necessarily bring the same results for humans. Actually this is the case way more often than not, with a vast majority of experiments that bring desired results in animals, but resulting in either adverse or no effect on humans. This then bears the question; why do we still use animals in scientific experiments and medical research? There really isn’t a good reason based on the facts. Researches and certain companies want us to believe that these experiments are necessary for our safety, but in reality these experiments are used by companies and researchers to hedge their liability, so that if anything does actually go wrong on the humans that use their products, they can show the results from the animal

Humane Slaughterhouses: Fact or Fiction

Jeshica Patel

A couple  of days ago, a member of Compassion Over Killing, revealed footage that he recorded during the time he worked undercover at a Quality Pork Processors Inc. plant in Minnesota. The video depicted graphic and disturbing images of how pigs are treated during the slaughter process. While the video is not for the fainted hearted, it does shed light on a very real issue in factory farming, and serves as a way to educate the public about what really goes on behind closed doors.

The current Federal Meat Inspection Act regulates a broad range of activities at slaughterhouses to ensure both the safety of meat and the

To Ride Or Not To Ride

Tyson-Lord Gray

In a few months I will be celebrating my birthday and as has become the custom, this means an international trip inclusive of life changing experiences. Last year I went bungee jumping in Costa Rica, the year before that skydiving in South Africa, and the year before that hang-gliding in Brazil. This year I decided to check elephant riding in Thailand off my list however, recent discussions in my Animal Law class prompted me to reconsider my decision.

Although elephant riding appears seemingly harmless, many of these animals are tortured into submission through a process known as phajaan. Phajaan, which also means to crush, involves ripping baby elephants from their mothers and confining them in a very small space where they are unable to move. The baby elephants are then beaten into submission with clubs pierced with sharp bull-hooks.

As a result, an animal welfare bill was introduced in Thailand in 2014 to