The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a case involving T., a rider accused of mistreating his horse, P., during an equestrian competition in Stuttgart from November 17 to 21, 1999. The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) alleged that T. intentionally induced hypersensitivity in the horse by applying a camphor-based substance under its protective bandages, a violation of FEI regulations prohibiting unnecessary suffering or discomfort. During a routine check, adhesive strips with traces of a white, camphor-scented substance were found and removed by T. Veterinary experts concluded the hypersensitivity was intentional, while T. argued it was natural, supported by testimony from other experts and witnesses. The FEI's ground jury disqualified T. and referred the case to its legal committee, which later suspended him for eight months and fined him CHF 2,500 for violating rules against mistreatment.
T. appealed to the CAS, claiming procedural irregularities, insufficient evidence, and disproportionate sanctions. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under FEI statutes and examined the case based on FEI regulations, including its general rules and veterinary code. While acknowledging that intentional hypersensitivity constitutes mistreatment, the CAS scrutinized the fairness of the FEI's legal committee hearing. It noted procedural flaws, such as an unexplained change in the committee's presidency and the rejection of T.'s request for additional expert examinations without justification. On the merits, the CAS found the FEI's evidence inconclusive, as witnesses and experts supporting T. testified the horse's hypersensitivity was natural. The CAS also rejected the FEI's reliance on circumstantial evidence to presume T.'s intent, emphasizing the need for clear proof under Swiss law, which governed the case due to the FEI's location in Lausanne.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld T.'s appeal, annulled the FEI's decision, and absolved him of all sanctions. The ruling highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and robust evidence in disciplinary cases, reinforcing the balance between enforcing animal welfare regulations and ensuring due process in sports arbitration. The case serves as a reminder of the critical need for transparency and fairness in adjudicating allegations of mistreatment in equestrian sports.