Is dressage a form of animal cruelty?

[magical thyme]

11. Anne's horse had a problem with his coffin bone

(major hoof bone) which showed up on x-ray when she first bought him. The vet at the time said he didn't expect it to be an issue.

From what I read, they had him on anti-inflammatories through his training and competition life to prevent problems from developing. Over time, his performance in became erratic and began to deteriorate and his competition scores declined. That is when Anne decided to sell him.

That, to me, is abuse. Anne certainly knew her horse was unsound and knew he was on drugs, although my guess is she had no idea of the type or extent of the drugging, not to mention the risks involved (all 4 drugs slow the heart rate and depress respiration).

In any event, a horse should not need to be drugged on a regular basis to do a job, period. On occasion it can be helpful to use either a painkiller (if exercise will help recovery) or a tranquilizer (if a horse has been stall bound for an extended period, to prevent re-injury or further injury due to excess exuberance) temporarily while rehabbing.

But this was not that kind of situation. The horse's performance was deteriorating means he was suffering increasing pain and injury. He should have been retired, either to pasture or light trail riding. The nature, not to mention character, of the pain killers, too, suggest severe pain.

The buyer was also a client of Ebeling and for a pre-purchase exam used the vet that Ebeling recommended. That vet listed 2 sedatives used for the x-rays (which are typically used in combination to keep the horse calm and still). During a pre-purchase of an expensive horse, the vet will typically take a blood sample for the buyer. The specimen is kept frozen in case a drugging dispute arises. In this case, a dispute arose and the buyer had toxicology tests run on the specimen, which showed 3 sedatives and one sedative/analgesic (pain killer) in the horse's system. Ebeling's vet says he knew nothing of the extra 2 drugs. Ebeling claims to know nothing of them either, but clearly one of them did and Ebeling was the one who stood to gain from the sale (while the vet stood to lose his reputation and possibly his license from his actions).

Anne was dropped from the case and Ebeling settled out of court.