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 “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and not supported by substantial evidence” and that she would suffer “irreparable harm.” After a number of stays, the court ultimately affirmed the USEF committee decision. Under the new rules, Brigid would have still been punished as the trainer, but the responsible parties would also potentionally include Tori as the rider, the owner of the horse, and the support personnel. Given the rule’s wording, the burden falls on the accused to prove their ‘innocence.’ It is also clear that USEF’s motivations behind these rules is in the best interest for the animals, justifying their zero tolerance approach to doping punishments.
On the international and Olympic level of equestrian sports doping has also been a recent issue. In May, the French eventing team was stripped of their Olympic qualifying berth when one of their horses tested positive for a banned substance during the World Equestrian Games. And even more recently Swiss rider and Olympic medalist, Steve Guerdat, had to fight his suspension after one of his horses tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. Ultimately his punishment was lifted when evidence was presented that linked the banned substances to contaminated food.
While doping is an issue in many sports, doping in equestrian sports presents an interesting animal law issue. In doping situations in other sports, the responsible party had the decision making power to take the drugs. In equestrian sports, the athlete that is doping (the horse) did not make the decision to dope; meaning the individual that is physically at risk due to drugs had no capacity to weigh the consequences. The typical notions of animals as property is heavily involved; but at least in the competitive equestrian the governing bodies extend accountability beyond the owner.