The case involves a dispute between W., a high-level show jumping rider, and the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) over allegations of horse abuse during a competition in Aachen, Germany, on June 15, 1999. During an inspection, officials found two small plastic pieces in the front right boot of W.'s horse. Although no injuries or sensitivity were detected, the FEI Ground Jury disqualified W. from the competition, and the FEI Appeal Committee extended the disqualification to the entire event. The FEI Judicial Committee later imposed an eight-month suspension, a fine of CHF 2,500, and procedural costs of CHF 5,000, citing violations of FEI regulations. W. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural unfairness and the inadmissibility of evidence, including a polygraph test he submitted.
The CAS addressed three key issues. First, it ruled that polygraph tests were inadmissible under Swiss law, though statements made during the test could be considered as personal declarations without additional weight. Second, it affirmed the right of the accused to present counter-evidence, given the severity of potential sanctions. Third, it emphasized the principle of proportionality, requiring penalties to align with the offense's seriousness. The CAS reviewed witness testimonies and the absence of physical harm to the horse, concluding there was no conclusive evidence of intentional abuse. While the plastic pieces were concerning, the eight-month suspension was deemed disproportionate, and the penalty was reduced to six months. The fine and procedural costs were upheld.
The case highlighted the legal responsibilities of riders under FEI regulations, which presume the rider is responsible for any mistreatment of their horse unless proven otherwise. W. failed to rebut this presumption, as he could not prove someone else was responsible for the plastic pieces. The panel found the act could constitute abuse under FEI rules, as the pieces could cause discomfort, even if unintentional. The reduction in suspension considered the lack of serious harm to the horse and the practical impact on W.'s ability to qualify for the Sydney Olympics. The panel also allowed the FEI to publish the ruling, as CAS appeal awards are public unless both parties agree to confidentiality.
Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld W.'s appeal, reducing the suspension to six months while maintaining the fine and procedural costs. The decision underscored the balance between enforcing animal welfare standards and ensuring procedural fairness, emphasizing the need for penalties to be reasonable and justified. The ruling reflects the complexities of sports arbitration and the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions.