FEI blood rules

“We are jumping 1.60m tracks and managing our own weight and the movement of the horse. In the case of Lady Lou, the mark on her flank was a superficial graze no bigger than a fingernail, and it occurred after my round when I was leaving the ring. The FEI did not conduct any veterinary examination and Lady Lou was always in fine health,” he said.

“Unless spurs are to be outlawed, the outcome of their use has to be addressed in a more considered manner. My jumpoff was perhaps 40 seconds in duration. The FEI examined

Lady Lou before I started both rounds. There was no question raised about whether she was fit to start. No one suggested any modifications to my tack or spurs. No one considered I rode inappropriately.

“If riders and owners are to lose competitions in which they were permitted to start, surely a more considered approach is required for the regulations to be fit for purpose.”

An FEI spokesman told

H&H the FEI has a duty, which it “does not take lightly”, to establish appropriate rules and guidelines to ensure horse welfare. He said rules relating to blood are discipline-specific, adding amendments to rules to “enhance harmonisation” across disciplines were voted through the 2017 FEI general assembly.

Prior to 2018, blood found on a horse in jumping resulted in disqualification. Under the amended rules since January 2018, there are two separate provisions. If blood is found on a flank it means elimination, but if marks indicate excessive use of spurs (or whip) the combination will be disqualified.

“The rules and protocols are continuously assessed and, where necessary, updated to ensure our rules on tack are fit for purpose, and new research is factored into that,” said the spokesman.

SANCTIONS

A SPOKESMAN for the International Jumping Riders Club (IJRC), which raised concerns about the blood rules in 2017 and called for officials to be able to use discretion when dealing with cases (news, 16 February 2017), told H&H the IJRC believes blood cases must be sanctioned but there should be different kinds of sanctions for whether it was an accidental or minor or major violation.

“Currently this is not taken into account, leading to sanctions which are not proportionate to the violation,” he said. “Without wishing to enter into the merits of Billy Twomey’s case, we must reiterate that the norm is flawed

“Lady Lou was always in

fine health”

BILLY TWOMEY

and should be reviewed in order to better respect the principle of rights recognised, among others, by the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS]. These include the proportionality of sanctions, voluntary or involuntary infractions leading to aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and whether or not it was a first offence, as well as the need to provide an accurate consideration of the implied consequences – just as in an ordinary courtroom.

“Not considering these principles in sporting law creates sentences that are sometimes regarded by athletes, managers and the public as the result of a sporting injustice.”

Billy had 21 days from the Tribunal’s decision on 18 June to appeal the decision to CAS. A CAS spokesman told H&H it had not received an appeal.