It did not take long for blue tongue to eclipse the Dujardin video as the hot topic of Paris dressage, both in mainstream and social media. From the start of Grand Prix dressage on July 30, numerous “sightings” were widely shared, along with concern the riders of these horses would go unpenalised and win medals.
Blue tongue (or to use the correct clinical term, cyanosis) results from a constricted oxygen supply associated with rollkur and/or other severe use of the bit. The non-equestrian media is interested in it now. Several major news organisations published well-sourced articles over the weekend.
The FEI’s head vet, Goran Akerstrom, and the president of the International Dressage Officials Club, Hans-Christian Matthiesen, have mentioned the difficulty in spotting blue tongues at long distance, especially if the judge is wearing sunglasses. Another barrier to detection is that as the horse leaves the arena in walk on a long rein, blood circulation and hence pinkness is restored in ample time for the post-ride check.
Matthiesen has floated solutions such high resolution videoing of tests, with a review before the score is confirmed. Akerstrom seems to rely more on developing measures to reduce the likelihood of cyanosis; though if blue tongue is almost impossible to spot in the first place, how will we tell that a tongue is less blue than before?
While this procrastination continues, the FEI must urgently address how to sanction blue tongue (and other horse abuse) in the here and now where evidence is clear. There is no point discussing any fancy new warning card system when dressage barely issues any under the current one, I assume for fear of offending some big names.
In FEI eventing and show jumping, verbal/written warnings and the separate category of yellow cards are dished out like tickertape relative to other horse sports. Recipients are published promptly on the FEI’s online “warnings” platform where they remain for 12 months.
Yet you will struggle to find more than six yellow cards from more than 160 CDIs staged around the globe noted in the dressage section for the past calendar year. Three are for abuse, though what sort of abuse it doesn’t say. In the previous four years there were just 15, i.e. 3.75 a year, none for abuse but quite a few for “incorrect behaviour,” FEI-speak for being rude to officials.
Moreover, there is no mention of official warnings in dressage anywhere on the online portal. I believe dressage choses simply not to publish them. This spares rule-breakers any embarrassment, and offers no deterrent to others. Moreover, while anyone receiving two yellow cards in 12 months is automatically suspended for two months, no such totting-up applies to “warnings,” except in eventing, which recognised this oversight and introduced its own special measure (see below.)
If the public can’t see who has been “warned” then it also cannot see if any riders are causing blue tongue on a regular basis, though that does not stop many from making a guess.
The FEI has a “one size fits all” process for sanctions on the field of play. It does not properly account for dressage’s facility to simply “mark down” conflict behaviours when scoring the test movement by movement. This convenient alternative to issuing a warning is something an objectively judged sport like jumping cannot do.
Such mark-downs can still result in a winning score. The dressage rider then goes home with his prize money and rosettes, and his disciplinary record “clean,” unlike riders in other FEI sports. The public is none the wiser because we can’t inspect the score sheets, either.
It is of continuing bewilderment that FEI HQ and senior dressage personnel do not comprehend the urgency of not only applying zero tolerance to abusive riding, but being seen to do so. (For all the grandstanding about social licence and ethics, how many decision-makers actually get it? Which bright spark, for instance, thought it appropriate, in the current febrile climate, to post a video tribute to rollkur pioneer Anky van Grunsven on the FEI’s Facebook page a couple of days ago?)
Not surprisingly, it has taken an incident at Paris for these shortcoming to come into focus.
In the past, many unsolicited images of alleged blue tongues at CDIs have been sent to FEI HQ, though no action has resulted, sometimes due to unproven allegations of photoshopping.
On July 30, Akerstrom inspected photos from the FEI’s official snapper and indeed found evidence of blue tongues. The ground jury then met “several” riders – widely reported as five, all unnamed – and gave them each a warning with the threat of a yellow card next time. They continued in the competition with no penalty.
None of this was revealed until August 5 when Swedish news outlet Goteborgs-Posten – not the equestrian press – carried a short interview about it with Akerstrom. Reuters, the global news agency, had a reporter at Versailles and followed up. Akerstrom noted that the photo evidence, while clear, was “split second” and not enough to warrant a suspension. (A suspension is not among the powers of the ground jury, in fact.)
FEI HQ usually controls information flow to all media, so it seemed odd that the head vet had flown solo with such a ground-breaking announcement. Paris was, after all, the first acknowledged instance of any riders – never mind Olympians – being called out by the FEI for blue tongue.
I hoped the FEI would at least say Goteborgs-Posten had got it right, if not planning a more general press release. I contacted the FEI press office next day and asked how the FEI would monitor blue tongues in future; if FEI should now trust evidence from independent professional photographers at CDIs; and to confirm the warnings had actually been issued as I was prohibited from looking them up myself.
In reply I was told last Wednesday (August 7) that FEI personnel at the Paris Olympics “are taking some much deserved time off and will not be available for further comments in the coming days.” I heard no more, aside from being sent some background information issued in April.
I suspect the media was never meant to know about the “Paris five” and would not have known but for a switched-on Swedish journalist hearing a rumour and asking Akerstrom directly.
That’s not all. FEI ground juries in all sports have misread and misunderstood rules in the past, so its fair to query if the procedure followed in Paris was even correct.
Under FEI General Regulations (GRs), a warning is not the correct sanction for horse abuse. A blue tongue equals abuse, and under the GRs the minimum response is a yellow card.
In Paris, the verbal or written warning appears to have been used as a wrist-slap with a threat of yellow card if there is a “next time.” That is not its stated purpose. A warning is expressly for “cases of minor violations committed unintentionally and without significant consequences.” By no stretch of the imagination is that even a diluted definition of abuse, and by no means can blue tongue be deemed insignificant.
The FEI head vet clearly indicated we are talking about abuse when he referred to blue tongue causing “harm” and being “unacceptable” in his interviews with the Scandanavian press.
Moreover, he quoted from the official definition of abuse (Art 142 of the GRs) – something that can cause “pain or unnecessary discomfort” – in his piece with Reuters. This says (in its original English:) “The concern on those pictures were the blue tongues, likely caused by high rein tension,” Akerstrom said, adding that the double bridles which are mandatory in top-level dressage tournaments also played a role in cutting off oxygen from the the tongue, causing “pain or unnecessary discomfort.”
If blue tongue can be considered “a minor violation… without significant consequences,” what stops any rider arguing in future that this is also what it represents in their case. The FEI may have just made the policing of blue tongue even more challenging.
By the way, has anyone else picked up on the other aspect of that quote in the Reuters report? The FEI dressage committee remains adamant that keeping mandatory double bridles in top level Grand Prix is solely a sports matter and “not a matter of wellbeing/welfare.” Yet the FEI’s chief vet has just gone on record that double bridles DO play a role in cutting off oxygen from the tongue!
Maybe he has been misquoted; maybe remarks were lost in translation and my theories are baseless. But please don’t say I didn’t try to check!
(This article is about the sanctions available to deal immediately with horse abuse on the field of play. More serious offences can be referred to FEI legal who can impose fines and short suspensions under a fast-tracked system, with some cases going to the FEI Tribunal with the real prospect of a ban of years. That is a blog topic for another day. And you won’t be surprised to see dressage conspicuous by its absence in those listings, too.)
Applicable FEI rules
FEI General Regulations. APPENDIX A – Definitions: Abuse of Horse: An action or omission which causes or is likely to cause pain or unnecessary discomfort to a Horse, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
- To whip or beat a Horse excessively;
- To subject a Horse to any kind of electric shock device;
- To use spurs excessively or persistently;
- To jab the Horse in the mouth with the bit or any other device;
- To compete using an exhausted, lame or injured Horse;
- To “rap” a Horse.
- To abnormally sensitise or desensitise any part of a Horse;
- To leave a Horse without adequate food, drink or exercise;
- To use any device or equipment which causes excessive pain to the Horse upon knocking down an obstacle.
GRs Art. 164.2 – Warning . An oral or written warning is appropriate in cases of minor violations committed unintentionally and without significant consequences. A Warning may be issued by the President of the Ground Jury, the Chief Steward, or the Technical Delegate during the Period of Jurisdiction. The FEI Tribunal, FEI Headquarters and/or any other appropriate body may also issue a Warning at any time.
In the discipline of Eventing, a Recorded Warning may be issued for certain rule violations. If the same Person Responsible [in eventing] receives three Recorded Warnings within a 2 year (twenty four month) period, the Person Responsible shall be automatically suspended for a period of two (2) months after official notification from, or on behalf of, the FEI Secretary General
GRS Art. 164.3 Yellow Warning Card. (a) A Yellow Warning Card may be issued to a Person Responsible by the President of the Ground Jury, the Chief Steward or the Technical Delegate during the Period of the Event Jurisdiction for the following offences:
• Abuse of Horse
• Incorrect Behaviour by the Person Responsible and/or Incorrect Behaviour by a member of their entourage. For the purpose of this Article, the term “entourage” shall mean the Person Responsible’s parent, spouse or partner, family member, coach, trainer, groom, crew or other person directly connected with the Person Responsible and includes the owner(s) of the Person Responsible’s Horse.
• Non-compliance with applicable Sport Rules
• Non-compliance with Protective Headgear Rules
(b) The Yellow Warning Card may be delivered either by hand or by any other suitable means. If after reasonable efforts the Person Responsible cannot be notified during the Period of the EventJurisdiction that the Person Responsible has received a Yellow Warning Card, the Person Responsible must be notified in writing within fourteen (14) days of the Event.
(c) A Yellow Warning Card may be issued in addition to any other Sanction(s) that may be issued in accordance with these GRs and/or the relevant Sport Rules.
(d) If the same Person Responsible receives one (1) or more Yellow Warning Card(s) at the same or any other International Event within one year of the delivery of the first Yellow Warning Card, the Person Responsible shall be automatically suspended for a period of two (2) months after official notification from, or on behalf of, the FEI Secretary General.
