Charlotte Dujardin’s top-level career is already in tatters. Her horse whipping video has been judged not just by the FEI and her former fan base, but by others now distancing themselves as fast as they can press the send button.
Today she has already lost her UK Sport funding while the investigation is ongoing, and the Brooke Hospital, once proud to call her their ambassador, dumped her. UK broadsheets also say on good authority that the issue has cost Dujardin a damehood.
But further down the line comes a FEI disciplinary decision: how long exactly will she be officially exiled from dressage?
Her current provisional suspension, imposed yesterday after the video came to light, is not a direct punishment at this very early stage. It is the normal procedure for standing someone down from competition while serious allegations are investigated and the legal process cranks into action.
The sanctions ultimately decided by the FEI legal department, or by the FEI’s independent Tribunal if she opts for a full hearing, could still be months away.
It is likely to comprise a ban of several years and a substantial fine. But how many? Possibly the same as the three-year ban on fellow dressage rider Leandro da Silva for manhandling his daughter’s tiny pony on another “private educational session” and laughing while so doing? Though maybe not as much as the 10 years still being served by US jumper Andy Kocher for using concealed electric shock spurs on multiple horses over at least two seasons.
In the past, the FEI has given credit for prompt admission of guilt, which Dujardin has already given, also saying she is “ashamed.”
But on the other hand, will the FEI disciplinary Tribunal want to make her an example, given the immense reputational damage done to equestrianism? In under a day the video has attracted relentless global media attention on a scale dwarfing any coverage of past rapping or blue tongue scandals and cross-country fatalities.
The incident meets the definition of horse abuse under Article 142 of FEI General Regulations (“any action or omission that causes or may cause pain or unnecessary suffering.”) There is a arguably a further case of bringing horse sport into disrepute under Article 164.12. That is a relatively new measure, applied rarely to date, but as the FEI strives to show zero tolerance it might add that to the charge sheet.
Unusually for an abuse incident, Dujardin is not denying the offence. That would be specious, given the unequivocal content of the video, and her clear remark, near the start of the clip, that the lunge whip she brandished was “so s*** at hitting them hard.”
Social media clearly thinks Dujardin should have a life ban. It may, though, need to brace itself for disappointment.
There is a set tarriff for abuse ranging from “low-end” and “mid-range” to “top end” (which can only result in a five-year ban at most) and “maximum.” While Kocher’s heinous offences were deemed to fall within the “maximum” classification and a life ban was therefore an option, even he got just 10 years. Its difficult to fathom that the Tribunal would put the claimed “one-off” aberration of Dujardin in the same category.
Many expected Kocher to get more than 10 years. But it’s feasible the FEI Tribunal had lost confidence at that key moment four years ago, because of a recent huge setback at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. FEI had previously banned an endurance rider for a record 18 years. Not surprisingly, he appealed and CAS threw out the FEI’s entire case on procedural and evidential points – notably that FEI had not proved the horse was nerve-blocked to conceal a stress injury that caused a fatal fracture during the race.
The horse community will be impatient for a Dujardin decision and baffled why it can’t happen ASAP. There is little public understanding about the necessarily ponderous pace of FEI legal process, especially regarding horse abuse. That is hardly surprising; for several years, most abuse cases were about endurance racing in the Middle East, and its decisions rarely circulated beyond that niche activity.
Legal delays can be caused by reluctance of witnesses or a lawyer’s stalling tactics – the alleged nerve blocking case dragged on for three-and-a-half years. However, that sort of delay should not occur with Dujardin, given the considerable undisputed information already in the public domain.
Another lawyer this afternoon suggested the delay in reporting the case to FEI would render it in admissible. However, there is ample precedent in previous Tribunal abuse decisions to allow video evidence of similar vintage to this case. Not being disciplined on a legal technicality would in any event be a very hollow “victory” for Dujardin’s team.
Historically, the Tribunal has shown appreciation of prompt admission of guilt and showing remorse. If you don’t, the Tribunal won’t hold back from criticising a rider’s lack of contrition.
It tends to rally against diversion tactics, such as accusing the protestor of vindictiveness (which, for the record, seems to have been done by just anout everyone other than Dujardin to date.) Any “motive” behind bringing clear evidence of abuse is of no concern to the Tribunal.
It has even scolded riders for criticising the person/s bringing the alleged abuse to light. In fact, under FEI endurance rules it even became an offence to NOT report abuse.
But, since the last headlining abuse case, there has been a development: the FEI Legal department’s now regular use of a “Consent Award.” This is a plea bargain facilitating a slightly reduced ban. It has been used mostly in anti-doping cases to free up Tribunal time and reduce the offender’s legal costs.
If that option was available in the Dujardin matter, it would deny the whistleblower their day in court – should they even want it, given the raft of victim-shaming on social media over the past 24 hours.
For Dujardin, a consent award would mean minimal publication of what else happened that day, being spared a further public drubbing by the Tribunal.
There are pros as well as cons for throwing yourself on the mercy of the Tribunal. There is much for her legal team to consider when the dust settles and Dujardin endeavours to transfer her legendary focus to a very different career-defining event.
