Dressage villain Charlotte Dujardin recently found out 24 is too many. So what is acceptable? Fifteen? Eight? Three?
For the first time in living memory, dressage has been in the news after footage emerged of one of the sport’s British Olympians, 39-year-old Charlotte Dujardin, repeatedly whipping a horse while training a junior rider. Dujardin was quickly banned from this summer’s Olympics by the International Federation for Equestrian Sports (FEI), while she’s been deserted by her sponsors.
Stephan Wensing—the lawyer representing the 19-year-old who filed the complaint, several years after the footage was filmed—said six-time Olympic medal winner Dujardin had treated the horse like “an elephant in a circus.”
"It's not fun to ruin a career,” he continued. “[The complainant] doesn't feel like a hero. But she told me this morning this had to be done because she wants to save dressage."
Now, the act of saving dressage from itself may be a very noble aim. But across the reporting, one curious detail has stood out to us. Namely, the repeated detail that Dujardin had whipped the animal “over 24 times” in the space of a minute.
It’s a stat that begs one obvious question, which as yet we haven’t seen answered.
Just how many times is it acceptable to whip a horse in the space of one minute?
Twenty three? Eight? Three? Or really just none at all, because attacking a sentient creature to help you win a competition it could never agree to enter is kind of a lame thing to do?
I hit the phones and after multiple rejections, found someone who agreed to help me answer this tricky question: Claire Bass, senior campaigns director at the Humane Society International.
VICE: Hi Claire. First up, what is the HSI position on the video of Charlotte Dujardin?
Claire Bass: The video clearly shows cruelty being inflicted on that horse, which is exhibiting fear behaviors. It's kicking out, it's got no escape, it's trapped in this ring, being whipped to coercively train it into behaving in a certain way.
When you put it like that, it doesn’t sound great.
My understanding is that Charlotte Dujardin has what's called a lunge whip, which is meant to be used behind the horse to encourage it to travel in a certain direction. But in this case, it’s being used to strike the animal on his or her very sensitive legs.
Are there instances where hitting a horse with a whip could be justified—like, if the horse is being badly behaved?
We would never believe there’s a justification for inflicting pain on an animal. Dressage claims it’s meant to be about creating a sense of harmony between the horse and rider. If the only way that can be achieved is by putting the animal in a state of fear—that it might be physically harmed by a whip, or a spur, or whatever else—that's totally unacceptable.
What if the horse is kind of ruining the rider's chance of winning a dressage tournament? The Olympics is a pretty big deal?
No, absolutely not! In any other sport that doesn't involve animals at the Olympics, it's up to the athlete to decide how hard they push themselves. The horses involved aren’t there of their own volition. They have no way of opting out; their only option is to submit to avoid violence. The welfare of animals is vastly more important than the chances of a person winning a medal.
What if the rider only has a one-hour slot before they have a dinner reservation, but the horse isn't playing ball. Would a whip or two be more palatable in this instance?
No! I don't think there's any instance where we would condone the use of pain to bring these animals under control. Horses are large, powerful animals, and getting them to adhere to these really strict routines that we see in dressage—performing quite unnatural behaviors—is clearly really difficult. The question we should be asking is not: ‘In what circumstances is it acceptable to inflict cruelty on an animal if we want to win a medal?’ It’s: ‘Should we be forcing these animals to perform in these ways at all?’
But if it’s close to being a winning horse—a gold medal-winning horse—isn’t there an argument that using the whip is for its own good? Tough love, to help it win a medal?
That's a very hypothetical question, isn't it? Reality tells us that, even if you’re a winning horse, it doesn't necessarily guarantee you a happy retirement. You don't have to look very far in other equine sports to see really tragic cases involving horses that have won their owners’ hundreds of thousands of pounds—possibly millions—in prize money.
Okay. I think you make a very persuasive argument.
When animals are used in high-level competitions like the Olympics, the stakes are really high. Sadly, what we keep seeing in the dressage world is trainers and riders going that step further, and using cruelty as a training method. In these situations, the potential for abuse is obvious, because animal welfare is at odds with human ambition. Exposés like this lift the lid on pervasive cruelty. This is far from the first exposé of animals being abused in dressage.
So Claire, when all is said and done, how many times is it acceptable to whip a horse in the space of one minute?
Dujardin was using the whip to cause fear and pain in order to exert control; in that context, the answer is zero times.
–– –
So there you have it. Turns out the answer to the question:
Just how many times is it acceptable to whip a horse in the space of one minute?
Is precisely zero times!
