Final statement from USEF on Mclain Ward case

[chris_j]

This just hit my inbox - a press release from USEF:

The United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) acknowledges today's announcement by the FEI that Sapphire (McLain Ward) was incorrectly eliminated from the second round of the FEI World Cup Final in Geneva on April 16, 2010.

"We've had full faith in the outcome of this unfortunate situation since the beginning," said David O'Connor, President of the USEF. "There could not have been a different result. The McLain/Sapphire combination has had and will continue to have the full support of the USEF. McLain has been the consummate gentleman and our hats are off to him for the way he has handled this regrettable situation."

In that McLain and Sapphire did not participate in the final round, it is impossible to know the outcome. In the spirit of competition everywhere and our sport specifically, Sapphire's disqualification from the Final will not be challenged even though the USEF does not agree with the FEI that the mare displayed a level of sensitivity, nor do they agree with the process that resulted in her disqualification.

As a result of this situation the USEF fully endorses the FEI initiative to issue mandatory guidelines that will strengthen the hypersensitivity protocol, which it believes is in the best interest of the sport.

More background here: http://www.horsehero.com/editorial?feat=48216

 

[zefragile]

Wow, FEI screwed up big time.

 

[marble]

still do not understand, did the mare display sensitivity on legs or not, if she did, why did she, if not, why are they (FEI) saying she did......thoughts please.

 

[TarrSteps]

The "test" is an official poking the horse at the coronet band and counting how many times the horse reacts, in this case 4 out of 25 times. There is no baseline to compare to so individual sensitivity can't be taken in to account. In this case the test was repeated quite a few times, raising the argument that in itself would make the horse more sensitive. So it's not really an "is" or "isn't" situation, it's someone's opinion.

The rider and Team vet also insisted on further tests which can be done - but are not, necessarily - for substances, injury etc, all of which were negative. So, in other words, there was no evidence the horse had intentionally been made sensitive. I think one could also make an argument that at least some good jumping horses would be naturally more sensitive anyway.

The last issue is the original "failed" test was done before Round 2 but the horse was allowed to continue and was standing in the lead at the end of it. Then she was eliminated with no other explanation at the time, although now it's claimed the officials couldn't get the proper signing off on the decision before the second round. Not really an excuse when a welfare issue is at stake. And if it wasn't considered a welfare issue then it would have been more appropriate to issue a warning or yellow card, neither of which seems to have been discussed.

So, short answer, she did display behaviour which COULD be taken to mean sensitivity but maybe not. It was not wildly out of the ordinary and further tests proved there was no reason for concern. So it was pretty much just a subjective decision, rather than anything based on science.

The suspicion, which can never be confirmed either way, is obviously that the rider's identity somehow influenced the decision making process.