By Grace Maxwell

To speak with someone who does not compete in the hunters and listen to their impression of the sport, the current messaging from USEF seems to indicate a widespread problem with bad actors endangering the lives of horses with illegal administration of scheduled controlled substances. 

But if you talk to someone like me—someone who competes in the hunters—you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of participants devote immense time, money, and effort to giving their horses the very best of everything. We’re just as disgusted as anyone by the disturbing rumors that circulate in the sport’s most elite circles. 

Why We Need Rules And What They’re Supposed to Protect

Where money is involved, some people will always push the limits. That’s why governing bodies exist—to protect the integrity of the group. In equestrian sport, that responsibility falls to USEF, which oversees drug testing and enforces medication rules.

Recently, the messaging around the sport’s dark underbelly has become more prominent. USEF has enacted initiatives to retroactively hair test for euthanasia drugs and other substances that threaten horse welfare, citing credible evidence these practices exist. But watching the stream of press releases, I can’t help feeling like it’s Elmer Fudd chasing Bugs Bunny—a lot of rabbit hunting, but no rabbit.

Let’s look at the data. By the numbers, here’s what I found:

For Fiscal Year 2024:

• Revenue from drugs and medication per audited financials: $5,650,478
• Cost of “Banned substance collection, testing” $3,732,687
• Total samples collected: 10,536 (consistent with prior year)

To make a fair comparison, I requested USEF’s 2024 testing records and excluded any cases marked “no violation,” which indicate that a valid medication report had been properly filed.

• 182 findings at a cost of $20,509.27 per finding
• 82 permitted substances in excess of the allowed concentration, or 45% 
• 67 for substances listed as permitted with medication reports, so either failure to file a med report or use of a substance that is not dangerous to horses and has medical use when not appropriate, or 37%
• 33 for substances that are not permitted even with a medication report or 18%

If you believe there’s a rampant horse welfare crisis hidden within these numbers, the data simply doesn’t support it. The logical takeaway is that the real issues may lie outside the current rules of USEF. 

If It’s About Welfare, Let’s Talk Science

If horse welfare is the primary focus, then the concern should center on what substances are used—not when or how they’re reported. After all, methocarbamol isn’t more harmful to a horse at 1 p.m. than it is at 9 a.m., and Zyrtec without a medication report is no more dangerous than Zyrtec with one.

Frankly, I don’t care if I lose a class to someone who failed to report their senior pony’s metformin appropriately if it means more regulatory resources can be deployed to the stories of horses having their hearts stopped in the tack stall. Perhaps I am unique in that opinion. 

Of the substances found that were not permitted even with a medical report, the most common was trazodone, followed by 7-carboxy cannabidiol, which is a CBD metabolite. USEF’s penalty guidelines break down sanctions into categories from 1 (overages of quantitatively restricted medications) to 4 (non FDA approved for horses and performance enhancing) and based off the sanctions determined by the commitees who had full context, not a single one met the seriousness of a level 3 or 4 violation, so all findings were in the realm of either timing or dosage mistakes or substances with legitimate therapeutic value that are prohibited. In other words, nearly $4 million was spent to uncover nothing more than timing errors, dosage slips, or legitimate therapeutics… not a single case of actual horse abuse.

Who’s Actually Getting Tested and Why That Matters

So, what’s the deal, then? Is the narrative of bad actors doping our equine athletes blown out of proportion, or is our current testing methodology great at catching more or less irrelevant administrative issues and extremely inefficient at catching the truly serious issues? 

Upon speaking with two testers who agreed to comment anonymously, I was intrigued to learn that neither was given assignments of horses to test. They simply were required to sample a certain number per day, and typically selected pleasant-looking animals attached to people who seemed like they wouldn’t make a scene or ruin the tester’s day. Class winners that stayed for photos and entries that went later in the day were chosen less frequently for scheduling purposes. It seems that you can quite effectively limit how often you are tested by winning big night classes and being a real jerk to the testing technicians.

This approach raises a difficult question: are we even testing the right horses? If the system naturally avoids confrontation and convenience dictates selection, then the most serious offenders may never be tested at all. That’s not a flaw in enforcement. It’s a flaw in design, or a reflection of a system that was designed for one goal and has not adjusted with the changes in desired outcomes. A fair, data-driven testing process should prioritize accountability, not ease.

Is our system accidentally selecting against the population of horses where seriously concerning things are happening, or is the rumor mill just churning out content the same as always? 

Until the Federation considers whether policies developed with the primary goal of fairness in sport are best applicable to the evolution to policing horse welfare, USEF’s drug testing program risks becoming more about appearances than protection. True horse welfare isn’t upheld through costly investigations that find no abuse. It’s built through transparency, education, and trust. If USEF wants to lead that change with a significant fee increase earmarked for these initiatives, more of the same risks a longer list of sanctions on people trying to do the right thing while the rumored bad actors continue to win.