ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
Regulatory Integrity and Welfare in Horse Sport: A Constructively Critical Perspective.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary evaluates contemporary equestrian sport governance through the lens of equine welfare science. Drawing on evidence from the FEI Sport Forum 2025 debates, the IFHA Racing Integrity Handbook, media coverage of horse sport, recent scientific presentations, regulatory texts, and published research, we identify systemic shortcomings in how horse welfare is assessed, prioritised, and protected. Key issues include reliance on performance as a proxy for welfare, inadequate "fit-to-compete" protocols, neglect of horses' mental states, coercive tack and equipment practices (e.g., double bridles, tight nosebands, ear hoods), pharmacological and surgical interventions that mask pain, euphemistic regulatory language (e.g., whip "encouragement"), and inconsistent implementation of welfare rules. Through a series of case studies, from dressage and show jumping forums to racing integrity handbooks, we illustrate euphemistic language, defensive group dynamics, dismissive rhetoric towards evidence-based criticism, and a troubling "stable blindness" that sidelines the horse's perspective. We conclude that meaningful reform requires (1) embedding validated behavioural and physical welfare indicators into all competition and pre-competition protocols, (2) transparent, evidence-inclusive rule-making under a precautionary principle, (3) genuine engagement with independent equine welfare experts, and (4) establishment of empowered, impartial oversight bodies to ensure that stated codes of conduct translate into consistent, enforceable practice. Only by catering to the horse's subjective experiences and applying modern ethological and bioethical standards can equestrian sport retain its social licence and ensure integrity in all areas of competition management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.