CAS upholds suspension in Canadian horse abuse case

Background

In February 2024, allegations of horse mistreatment were filed against Canadian dressage riders Evi Strasser and Tanya Strasser. Equestrian Canada imposed a provisional suspension, which was extended globally by the FEI. The Strassers challenged the suspension before the FEI Tribunal which was dismissed.  They subsequently appealed that decision to CAS.

The appeal raised two principal issues: (1) whether the disciplinary action was time-barred, as some allegations dated back to 2018; and (2) whether the provisional suspension was disproportionate and unlawful. The appellants contended that under the old FEI rules (which were subsequently amended in 2022), there was a five-year limitation period and so these claims should be time-barred. Furthermore, they also claimed that the FEI had insufficient evidence for an immediate suspension, and argued that the suspensions had caused serious harm to their careers and reputation.

CAS decision

The CAS panel dismissed the appeal, upholding both the FEI’s suspension and its authority to investigate allegations regardless of the length of time that had passed. The reasoning rested on four key findings:

• The 2022 FEI General Regulations, which amended the old FEI rules, removed any limitation period for horse abuse cases. CAS found that these amendments applied immediately to all ongoing and future cases, not just to new misconduct. Accordingly, CAS held that these procedural amendments applied retrospectively to misconduct predating the rule change.
• While CAS acknowledged that indefinite prosecution windows may conflict with legal certainty and due process principles, the FEI’s zero-tolerance policy on horse abuse constituted an overriding public-interest justification in line with its duty to protect animal welfare.
• Provisional suspensions are protective, not punitive, and may be imposed where prima facie evidence exists and risks to animal welfare or sport integrity are present. The suspension in this case was upheld as a legitimate provisional measure pending the investigation.
• CAS emphasised that its role is not to second-guess FEI's policy choices (for example its zero-tolerance stance on horse abuse), but to test whether those policies are proportionate or arbitrary. Its role is not to substitute its own policy preferences for those of sporting federations. In this case, the proportionality test was satisfied.

Accordingly, the Strassers' appeal was dismissed and the FEI's suspension remained valid.

Key legal takeaways

The decision offers several lessons for sports law practitioners:

• Limitation periods: CAS accepted that FEI may lawfully abolish limitation periods for horse abuse cases, even retrospectively, provided this concerns procedural rules on time limits and not substantive definitions of misconduct.
• Due process: The panel acknowledged risks to fairness in defending stale claims but prioritised FEI’s policy goals, suggesting CAS may allow similar approaches in cases involving safeguarding, integrity, or welfare.
• Provisional measures: CAS reiterated that provisional suspensions are justified on a precautionary basis where there is prima facie evidence and a risk to the integrity/welfare of the sport, even absent conclusive proof. Harm to the athlete's livelihood and reputation, while real, is not determinative where animal welfare is at stake.
• Scope of CAS review: CAS emphasised deference to federations on regulatory policy choices, intervening only if rules are arbitrary, disproportionate, or contrary to public policy.
• Precedent value: The case broadens the scope for other sports bodies to justify retrospective extensions of disciplinary authority where serious welfare or integrity concerns exist.

Practical implications

For practitioners advising athletes, federations, or governing bodies, the ruling carries notable implications:

• Athletes can no longer rely on time-barred arguments in FEI horse abuse cases, and should instead focus on the sufficiency of evidence and proportionality challenges.
• Federations in other sports may view this case as authority for removing limitation periods where welfare or safeguarding concerns are at stake.
• Provisional suspensions are likely to be upheld where federations can show prima facie evidence of risk, meaning immediate suspension challenges face a high bar.
• Lawyers representing athletes should prepare for prolonged exposure to disciplinary risk, even from historical allegations, and focus on procedural fairness in investigations.
• Policy-makers within federations should note CAS’s endorsement of retrospective application of procedural changes, provided they align with overriding policy objectives.

Conclusion

This case marks a significant shift in the approach to disciplinary proceedings within equestrian sport and potentially across the wider sports law landscape. By endorsing indefinite investigative powers and provisional suspensions, CAS has signalled strong deference to federations’ welfare and integrity mandates. Practitioners should amend their litigation strategies accordingly, recognising that limitation arguments may carry diminished weight, while evidentiary and proportionality challenges may assume greater importance.