A new study published in the journal Animal Welfare has found that social media discussions surrounding high-profile equestrian welfare incidents reveal deeply polarised views about what constitutes acceptable horsemanship and where poor practice crosses the line into abuse.
The research, led by Erica Cheung, Professor Daniel Mills and Beth Ann Ventura, analysed 416 anonymised social media comments posted in response to two widely publicised incidents involving elite riders. One incident involved repeated whipping during a dressage training session, while the other focused on the use of the whip and spurs during an international showjumping competition.
Rather than assessing the incidents themselves, the researchers examined how people responded online, providing valuable insight into public attitudes towards horse welfare, traditional training methods and the future social licence of equestrian sport.
Two very different perspectives
The analysis identified two distinct and opposing narratives.
One group viewed the incidents as clear welfare concerns, expressing empathy for the horses involved and questioning the continued use of aversive training methods such as whips and spurs. Many argued that the behaviour shown represented abuse and called for stronger welfare standards across equestrian sport.
The second group defended the riders and traditional training practices, arguing that the incidents reflected poor horsemanship rather than abuse. Comments often justified the use of the whip as necessary for safety, discipline or effective training, while expressing concern that public criticism could damage the reputation of equestrian sport.
More than disagreement
The researchers suggest the differing responses are not simply differences of opinion but reflect wider social and cultural influences.
They propose that tribalism – strong loyalty to a particular social group – and moral disengagement – psychological processes that allow people to justify behaviour that may conflict with their own moral values – may help explain why discussions around horse welfare become so polarised.
Examples identified in the study included:
- justifying potentially harmful practices as necessary training
- comparing whip use with natural horse behaviour
- blaming the horse for the situation
- distinguishing between “poor horsemanship” and “abuse” rather than considering the horse’s experience.
The authors suggest these psychological mechanisms may make it more difficult for welfare improvements to be accepted, particularly when traditional practices are deeply embedded within equestrian culture.
Implications for equestrian sport
The study highlights the growing importance of social media in shaping public perceptions of equestrian sport.
The researchers found that many non-equestrian commentators viewed the actions of elite riders as representative of the industry as a whole, while many within the equestrian community were concerned that public criticism could threaten the sport’s reputation and social licence to operate.
Rather than increasing understanding, discussions frequently became confrontational, with little evidence of constructive dialogue between opposing viewpoints.
Building better conversations around welfare
The authors conclude that improving horse welfare will require more than scientific evidence alone.
They argue that meaningful progress is more likely if discussions move beyond confrontation and acknowledge the emotional, cultural and social factors that influence people’s beliefs. They advocate for respectful, evidence-based conversations that focus on shared goals for improving horse welfare, rather than reinforcing divisions between different groups.
The research also highlights the importance of grounding equestrian practice in modern welfare science while recognising the cultural traditions that influence attitudes within the horse world.
As public scrutiny of equestrian sport continues to grow, understanding why people disagree so strongly about welfare issues may become an increasingly important part of achieving positive change for both horses and the future of the sport.
Click here to read – Cheung E, Mills D and Ventura BA (2026). “At what line does poor horsemanship cross the line to abuse, for you?” Social media discourse around high-profile incidents in the performance horse world reveals polarised views on animal welfare. Animal Welfare, Volume 35, e38. Published by Cambridge University Press.
