In light of the Charlotte Dujardin controversy there are two very general sides of the discussion: traditional horse people who believe the public doesn’t understand how horses need to be trained, and non-traditional horse people/general public who view it as unnecessary and for some even cruel to train with any method similar to this. So rather than continue to discuss the specifics of the Dujardin incident as many other trainers and consultants have already done, I’m going to discuss these two sides and identify how they have become so separate.
Let’s first understand the two sides. In the traditional horse training world (talking specifically about English style riding and training) the use of a lunge whip is common. Horses are trained using negative reinforcement and positive punishment. The horse is often trained on the lunge, with or without a rider, to improve balance and way of going. The lunge whip extends the arm of the trainer and allows them to chase the horse from a far distance with its length being anywhere from 160cm to 200cm (We have a constant debate surrounding the use of whips in racing, however the force applied from the tip of a lunge whip could be almost double that of a racing whip). These whips can also be used during ridden training, to allow the instructor to assist the rider in moving the horse. Because this training is fairly common, to the average equestrian and trainer, the video in question is not as shocking or cruel as it would be to someone unaware of this training style.
However, in contrast the positive reinforcement world has an almost complete removal of any whip from their tool box. The whip has so many negative connotations to both the trainers and the horse, many of whom have been trained traditionally and react very negatively to the whip that even the holding of one will fundamentally change the behaviour output and emotional state of the horse. To the general public, a whip is often viewed as a weapon, meant to inflict pain and discomfort.
“Some whips are designed to control animals by imparting discomfort by tapping or pain by a full-force strike that produces pain compliance” - first paragraph synopsis of the whip on Wikipedia taken 29.07.24
When the second two groups saw that video, they saw fear and pain in the horse, whereas some of the first group may have seen a horse that needed schooling and wasn’t respecting the trainer.
So why do the traditional equestrians tend to view incidents like these less negatively than others? One of the reasons is conformity bias. This is the tendency to agree with those within our social group, in this case it is within the traditional equine community. If the way you grew up training is reflected in the video, you won’t view it as negatively because it is favoured within the social group. The Halo effect can also affect how people view someone’s actions. It describes how someone’s position, good qualities and actions can cloud your judgement of acknowledging any negative behaviours. The young person riding the horse in the video may have felt this, they’re being trained by an Olympian so their actions being negative and harmful is overlooked. This happened in 2019 when Dujardin was disqualified due to blood present on the horse’s side due to the spur, the incident was massively overlooked and many people who called the incident out were shunned.
So what can we do to unify perception of incidents like these? We need to keep an open mind to the points people are making surrounding tools and methods like these. When someone says it’s abusive, don’t dismiss them outright. But at the same time, when someone says it is necessary, don’t dismiss them outright. To open discussion we must understand the other’s perspective. Consider the environment they learnt in and why they may believe that. Consider how they may have previously or currently train horses, and how that will impact their opinion of viewing this kind of training. Discuss your opinion openly and have your facts and feelings ready to calmly discuss why you train the way you do. Understand that you will not come to an agreement with that person immediately. Be open and willing for discussion if they have questions. Remember, at one point you were not training the way you currently are, and remember the people who helped you get to this place. It takes a lot of patience and empathy to change minds.
References
McGreevy. P.D, Hawson. L.A, Salvin. H, and McLean. A.N, (2013) A note on the force of whip impacts delivered by jockeys using forehand and backhand strikes Journal of Veterinary Behavior 8(5) pp. 395-399 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2013.03.003
NHS page about bias - https://nshcs.hee.nhs.uk/about/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/conscious-inclusion/understanding-different-types-of-bias/
Simply Psychology page about cognitive bias: https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-bias.html
Positive discussion of Dujardins elimination in 2019 due to bloody spur mark - https://dressage-news.com/2019/08/21/charlotte-dujardin-mount-st-john-freestyle-photo-report-on-amazing-performance-with-sad-ending/
Dujardin discussing with Horse and Hound about her elimination due to a bloody spur mark - https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/charlotte-dujardin-blood-elimination-rotterdam-europeans-reaction-694579
Dressage Hub discussing Dujardin’s history of blue tongue and bloody spur marks - https://fb.watch/tDq-w16VUT/
Wikipedia page on whips - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip
*For those interested, a study by McGreevy et al., (2013) found that the force given by a jockey can be around 46 N, and an estimation of a long whip could be up to 94 N of force.
Comments