Andrew McConnon Under Investigation for Horse Abuse Allegations: The Timeline, the Facts, and What This Means for Us All | Eventing Nation

After videos surfaced on social media on September 7 depicting, allegedly, CCI5* rider Andrew McConnon hitting horses in the face, both with open hands and with a whip or a rein, questions and rumors quickly began to swirl.

What happens when abuse is spotted? What is the process for a governing body to undertake during an investigation? Why do witnesses often feel afraid to speak out or report issues? And why are some incidents – seemingly to the public, at least dealt with differently than others when it comes to governing bodies such as the FEI?

These are questions that we wanted to answer, not only to bring clarity to this specific instance but also in the hopes of encouraging growth and change within our sport’s processes and governance in order to truly protect our horses.

Editor’s Note:

Before we dive in to our research, I want to make a quick statement:

Eventing Nation is not owned by a large company or a corporation, nor is it beholden to any governing bodies or associations. We are privately owned by a small group of individuals, including myself. 

By publishing a story that brings to light unsavory elements of our sport, we undertake a risk that, if eventing were to be done away with, we would be out of business. This business, this sport, is our livelihood, like it is for so many others.

I cannot emphasize enough that we want our sport to thrive and survive. However, we are unwilling to ignore monumental issues that face us today, so, while our intent is not to damage our sport, the fact remains that something must change. Something must be done – and what we can do is report on these stories factually, without bias or inflammation, and with respect and integrity. We also believe that the only way to give our sport a safe footing on which to guarantee a longer lifespan than it currently appears to have is to push for improvement from the inside – to pre-empt the public’s social license concerns by ensuring that unsavory practices are being appropriately dealt with by the industry itself in the first instance.

We believe we have done that in this report, which is not published to “get clicks” or encourage advertising revenue. We have a collective duty to protect our horses, to report factually and with integrity, and to protect those who are brave enough to speak up. These are the sole purposes of this report.

This report has been structured in three parts: first, a timeline we’ve constructed with the information we have been able to confirm via interviews with witnesses who requested anonymity (which EN has respected out of a desire to protect these witnesses from possible retribution), the USEF (United States Equestrian Federation), the FEI (International Equestrian Federation), and the USEA (United States Eventing Association). Second, a list of common questions we’ve seen and had conversations internally about, with as much information pulled from rulebooks and clarifications from the USEF, FEI, and USEA as possible. Third, a section on the issues this and other incidents brings to light. This final section will contain some of this writer’s perspective, however we have worked to bring this perspective in a balanced manner that encourages thoughtful dialogue.

The Andrew McConnon case

First, let’s clarify some facts surrounding the investigation of Andrew McConnon.

On September 7, an individual unaffiliated with Andrew or the sport of eventing published two videos on Facebook depicting a rider, alleged to be Andrew, hitting two different horses, one of which was eventually identified as a horse owned by the Strini family (who had already been recalled from his farm and returned home) repeatedly in the head with an open hand and either a rein or a crop.

This news came during the Defender Burghley Horse Trials in the UK, at which Andrew was competing with his own Wakita 54. He would subsequently go on to complete the event in Sunday’s show jumping phase.

Quickly, social media exploded. Additional photos showing welts on unidentified horses’ flanks were posted in comments, and other individuals came forward to share personal experiences with Andrew.

Additionally, in 2023, Andrew had been the recipient of funding on two occasions: once in June with the awarding of the Karen E. Stives Endowment Fund for Andrew and three other riders to compete in Poland at the Strzegom Nations Cup leg. This award was administered by the USET Foundation. The second was the awarding of the Rebecca Broussard International Developing Rider Grant in December. This award was administered by the USEA Foundation.

Timeline

Let’s start by clarifying the timeline of events here. EN has verified this timeline through witness and governing body/association interviews:

January 2021: An individual who wished to remain anonymous placed a call to the USEF to report an incident that had happened involving Andrew and abuse of a horse at a competition. The individual did not follow up with a full evidence report, which is what the USEF requires to open an investigation. It’s important to note here that since the report was not formally reported, this would not have been considered an open investigation. This will come into play later on. The USEF has confirmed that the report filed as mentioned further down in this timeline is the only report on record for this rider, stating: “USEF has made significant efforts to remove all barriers to reporting and launched an anonymous texting platform for reporting abuse. USEF documents all reports of abuse received and maintains such records. The report submitted earlier this summer is the first documented report of abuse associated with Andrew McConnon.”

June 2023: Andrew and three other riders were given the Karen E. Stives Endowment Fund grant to compete in Poland.

July 2023: Andrew sat for an interview along with other athletes who had applied for the Rebecca Broussard International Developing Rider Grant.

December 2023: Andrew was awarded the Rebecca Broussard International Developing Rider Grant. This grant is awarded in the amount of up to $50,000 “for the educational development of an international quality rider based on competition in eventing on the global stage. The recipient of the grant will be selected by the grant committee based on performance record, interview, and involvement with the eventing community. The grant committee reserves the right to alter funding amounts based on their deliberations,” according to the USEA Foundation website. The USEA Foundation is the administrator of this grant, which is funded through charitable donations made by the Broussard Family Charitable Trust. While this grant is intended to offset expenses of competing at FEI events outside of the U.S., it was not given to Andrew specifically for use at Defender Burghley; this would have been at his discretion to use the funding as such. 

April-May 2024: An anonymous witness began to reach out to individuals within the sport seeking advice on how to handle a report on abusive behavior. They told EN during their interview with us that they were primarily met with ambivalence from the individuals, including officials and coaches, rather than support and backing. 

May 2024: A folder of evidence photos and videos, confirmed to be taken approximately from January to April 2024, was collected by several witnesses. These witnesses were also interviewed by EN in order to confirm ownership of the material. In the course of these interviews, the witnesses requested anonymity. This folder was sent first to the USEF, and then to the FEI during the month of May. 

June 2024: The USEF determined that, under the current writing of GR838, the report did not fall under their jurisdiction since the evidence was not from a USEF-licensed competition. At this time, reports of abuse happening on private property or a non-USEF-licensed competition are outside of the USEF’s purview. This rule will be modified effective December 1, 2024, but evidence and photos taken before this date will not be able to be brought forward for investigation, according to a USEF spokesperson.

June 2024: The USEF passed the incident report to the FEI, which regulates all reports of horse abuse related to FEI athletes. At that point (nearly two weeks after the initial email was sent), the FEI began communications with the witnesses.  At this time, there has been no action taken in terms of penalties or a suspension. The FEI confirmed that they had received the report and would begin collecting relevant information. This process, which included conversations with three other witnesses who had been named in the report, took several weeks, after which the FEI informed the witnesses that they would be preparing to open a case. 

June – August 2024: The FEI confirmed to the anonymous reporters that they would begin collecting information surrounding the allegations in preparation to open a case. During the period of the end of May through the end of August, multiple emails were exchanged between the initial witness and the FEI, and the FEI spoke on the phone with the four individuals named in the initial report. Throughout this period of time, the witnesses verified, the FEI took several days or even up to nearly two weeks to respond to emails, prompting the witnesses to follow up inquiring about the status of the investigation. Though we have not been able to confirm that Andrew has yet received a formal notification or charge letter, during this period of time he did become aware that the FEI was looking into the matter. He has indicated to EN that he is fully cooperating with their investigation, which is still ongoing. EN has also not been able to verify that a formal case has been opened yet, though witnesses confirm that the FEI did communicate that they were working on preparing one, and that the process would take some time. The witnesses expressed concern to the FEI about the time the investigation was taking, as by the end of August Andrew was preparing to compete at Defender Burghley. The witnesses also requested additional clarity from the FEI in terms of the investigation process and what would be needed to open a formal case. The next reply with an update on the investigation was provided from the FEI on September 11, though we are not privy to what that step is. 

September 7: Two videos were leaked onto public social media. The witnesses EN spoke with confirmed that it was not they who leaked the videos; they also confirmed that the videos getting leaked was not their intention, and that they had hoped due process would be served following the proper channels rather than taking to social media. EN reached out to the individual who first posted the videos on their social media, and this individual confirmed that they had been sent the videos anonymously and were not the original source. They had offered to post the videos publicly since they were not affiliated with the sport (the individual is an equestrian, but not an eventer), Andrew, or any of the witnesses. 

September 8-9, 2024: After an email was sent from EN to the USEF’s press operations contacts, we were provided with two statements, the most recent of which was eventually published on the USA Eventing Facebook page:

Statement 1: “USEF takes reports of animal abuse very seriously and prioritizes the safeguarding of horse welfare. We have received the videos in question and the matter is currently under investigation with the FEI. To ensure the integrity of the disciplinary process, we have no further comment at this time.  

 For additional clarification, Andrew was not a recipient of any USEF grants or funding for the Burghley Horse Trials this past weekend.” 

Statement 2: “USEF takes all reports of equine abuse very seriously and prioritizes the safeguarding of horse welfare. We received an anonymous report at the beginning of the summer regarding U.S. eventing athlete, Andrew McConnon, and were sent materials showing abusive behaviors shortly after the report was made. After determining USEF did not have jurisdiction over the matter because it did not involve misconduct at a USEF competition, USEF promptly referred the matter to the FEI, where it is under investigation. The FEI’s jurisdiction and ability to pursue disciplinary action is broader regarding reported incidents of animal abuse occurring outside of licensed competitions. This matter is under the jurisdiction of the FEI and USEF will enforce any disciplinary action taken.

 Abuse in any form, at any time, is unacceptable in our sport, and the USEF Board approved a rewrite of GR838 (109-23) under the Welfare of the Horse Sub-Chapter at the Mid-Year Board Meeting in early June. This rule broadens the jurisdiction USEF can exercise over reports of abuse that occur away from USEF competition. It also provides an updated description of what constitutes unethical treatment of a horse and provides definitions for both “Participants” who are bound by the rule and a “Covered Horse” expanding the ability of USEF to protect horses. The rule change proposal went through an extensive review process. Stakeholders and affiliates across all breeds and disciplines provided feedback, which was instrumental in the creation of the final draft of the rule. The rule will go into effect December 1, 2024, and will apply to reports of misconduct off competition grounds that occur after the effective date submitted going forward.”

September 9, 2024: After an email was sent from EN to the FEI’s press operations contact, the following statement was provided:

“The FEI takes all allegations of horse abuse very seriously and has been made aware of the allegations against Andrew McConnon. We are currently investigating the matter and can therefore not provide any further information or comments at this point in time.”

Further inquiries to clarify elements of the allegations and the judicial process did not receive a comment, as stated further below. 

September 10, 2024: The USEA Foundation released a statement outlining the steps that were taken to qualify the Rebecca Broussard International Developing Rider Grant. The statement can be read here. 

September 10, 2024: EN requested additional information on the investigation process and why this case appeared to be handled on a different timeframe than the recent case of Charlotte Dujardin. We also requested to know whether or not a formal case had been opened yet on Andrew. The FEI declined to comment further on these requests beyond the statement below, citing the ongoing investigation:

“All reports received by the FEI are looked into and investigated depending on the evidence provided, on a case by case basis.

The process in place for disciplinary proceedings is outlined in the FEI General Regulations 2024 art. 163 ff. The FEI opens disciplinary proceedings if there are violations of the FEI Rules, and this is then adjudicated by the independent FEI Tribunal. The publication of suspensions and decisions is visible on the FEI Tribunal hub in the relevant sections.”

Common questions

Right now, we’re in a waiting game while we await the official updates from the FEI’s investigation. There are several questions floating around, which we’ll do our best to help clarify with the information we’ve researched and been provided.

Why wasn’t Andrew suspended immediately by the FEI? Why was he still allowed to compete? 

We aren’t sure. The most recent example of a similar case would be that of British dressage rider Charlotte Dujardin, who was provisionally (and, importantly, voluntarily) suspended while her investigation is ongoing. To date, the FEI has not published a similar statement with information such as notification dates and deadlines for this athlete to respond, as they did in Charlotte’s case. We sent questions regarding notification dates, deadlines, and other descriptions of the general investigation process to the FEI. They declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation. 

In viewing the FEI’s rules regarding discipline and violations, it seems that these cases are largely dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which they did confirm via the statement above. We looked up past reports of horse abuse-related cases and the FEI, and it does seem that in the past the report has come out upwards of a month after the case was initially opened. 

FEI GR164.13 identifies potential timeframes for suspension on account of Abuse of Horse, ranging from 3 months (minimum) and a fine of CHF 1000-1500 to Life, with a fine of CHF 15,000. 

FEI GR164.12 states that “In deciding on the appropriate sanctions to be imposed and whether to categorise the offence in question as “low-end”, “mid-range”, “top-end” or “max”, the body imposing the Sanction shall consider the following factors, together with any other relevant factors: (a) Whether the action or omission resulted in an unfair advantage to the offender or an Athlete. (b) Whether the action or omission resulted in a material disadvantage to any other person or body involved. (c) Whether the action or omission involved the maltreatment of Horses. (d) Whether the action or omission affected the dignity or integrity of any person involved in the sport. (e) Whether the action or omission involved fraud, violence or abuse or similar criminal acts. (f) Whether the action or omission was deemed to be deliberate.”

That being said, there very well could yet be a suspension coming, but at the time of writing this had not happened. USEF has also stated that they will also enforce any sanctions imposed by the FEI.

Couldn’t the USEF (US Equestrian Federation) or USEA (United States Eventing Association) have suspended him immediately?

Well, actually, not necessarily. Because of the current writing of the USEF GR838, since the abuse evidence and incidents were not reported as happening at a licensed competition, this meant the USEF had no jurisdiction over the matter. This rule will be changed on December 1, but will not apply retroactively. 

USEF confirmed this in an email to EN, stating (emphasis is ours): “USEF has the power to suspend an individual for abuse if USEF has jurisdiction over the matter and has followed its processes for imposing such disciplinary sanctions. All athletes are afforded legal rights during disciplinary proceedings. USEF will have jurisdiction over reports of abuse that occur off competition grounds beginning December 1, 2024, and for reports submitted thereafter.”

Now, the USEA is a little different. Despite the fact that the USEA is not actually a governing body – they are an affiliated association that contracts with USEF on regulation – their by-laws do state that they have the power to suspend a member.

The USEA by-law Article 1.10 reads:

“Censure, Suspension or Expulsion of Members: The Board of Governors may censure, suspend or expel any member for cause after a hearing at any meeting of the Board of Governors, provided such member has been given twenty-one (21) calendar days notice of such hearing in the manner set forth in Article VIII, herein. Any member suspended, expelled or dropped from membership pursuant to this paragraph may only be reinstated by the affirmative vote of the majority of the Board of Governors at any regular or special meeting.”

In terms of the USEA, CEO Rob Burk confirmed that his staff had no prior knowledge of the allegations and investigation against Andrew prior to September 7 and therefore could not have suspended Andrew on these grounds prior to obtaining this information. 

“As stated in the statement we put out, the first time that, to my knowledge, this information was brought to our attention about the videos of abuse was Saturday evening,” Rob told EN. “Saturday evening, as we say in our release, it was literally about one hour and 15 minutes later that we had notified the Federation about the information we received. I have checked with our staff, requested info from our Board of Governors, and as of right now I have no information showing that we received these videos earlier than Saturday.”

Rob stated that a request will be brought forward to the USEA Board of Governors this week to hold a hearing on this matter.

Had the USEA and USEA Foundation been made aware of the investigation sooner, Rob says, there could have been more action taken. However, he admits this is rather unprecedented territory, given that the Association has not historically had to deal with a case like this involving a grant recipient. 

Could the USEF revoke funding provided to Andrew in the past?

“An athlete would be ineligible to obtain funding from USEF if their membership is suspended or they are in bad standing,” a USEF spokesperson told EN in an email. At the time of Andrew’s submission for consideration for the Karen E. Stives Endowment fund (which is distributed by the USET Foundation), there was no inquiry of record that would have affected his eligibility.

In terms of the Broussard grant, the USEF has stated that they do not control funding from other organizations, in this case the USEA Foundation.

Rob Burk was unclear on the possibility of attempting to revoke grant funding, which was dispersed to Andrew on December 19, 2023, but he and the USEA/USEA Foundation will determine that as more information is gathered.

The USEA Foundation issued a statement on the evening of September 10, which can be read in full here. “As part of the grant application process, any rider with open investigations or violations, including Yellow Cards, is automatically disqualified from consideration. At the time this Grant was awarded in December 2023, there were no records or available information that would have rendered the rider ineligible for the Grant,” a portion of the statement says. 

What issues does this incident and others like it bring to light for eventing and equestrian sports?

Editor’s Note: This section contains some opinions held by the writer.

Over the past four days, EN has spoken with over ten people about this case, stemming from anonymous witnesses who filed the report, to others who shared anecdotal evidence as to their experiences with this specific rider, to governing body representatives and USEA representatives.

What has stood out to us the most is the fear and shame the witnesses who reported the abuse faced as they considered coming forward, as well as the lengthy time frame during which the FEI was slow to respond and build a case. 

From the ambivalence one witness alleges they were met with when approaching other individuals who hold places of authority in the sport, to allegations that this rider did not permit videoing of rides or insisted on deleting videos after taking them, to the general feeling of ostracization that any person who reports abuse feels, this case is unfortunately not a lone example of an ongoing issue within equestrian sports. 

In fact, it was not these witnesses’ intention for the videos to go viral on social media, or even to share them publicly. The fact that the videos were shared has served two purposes: one, it brought attention to the matter quickly. Two, it launched a frenzy of incorrect information about the circumstances surrounding the videos and the timing of them, as well as the implications of Andrew receiving grant funding.

The videos, photos and evidence collected from people who came forward about Andrew and his program, however, show that in Andrew’s case, this is most likely not an isolated incident. We also know that, while Andrew is the unfortunate current example of incidents of horse abuse, this is an issue that many riders have witnessed from professionals, trainers, and their fellow riders. At the end of the day, this is not solely about Andrew and what happened with his horses. It’s about a philosophy of “brutal” training that was widely accepted and has, of course, evolved but can still be seen in the methods of some riders. It’s also about a failure to regulate emotions when things go awry in training – something that we have all struggled with at one point or another. 

We all know that equestrian sports sit at a critical juncture in terms of their future. Every individual who has come forward with evidence publicly has been met with ridicule and threats, stemming from a viewpoint that every negative story damages the sport. And truthfully, to look at the other side, the accused athletes have also been met with ridicule and threats. 

We live in a country where the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” sits at the foundation, but in the court of social media this process is often forgotten. Rather, the ones who report are often the ones who are shamed with immediacy, and the accused are met with a firestorm of criticism (yes, in many situations warranted) and a departure of sponsor and owner support. In Andrew’s case, several sponsors have publicly denounced the videos and dropped their support. The same happened with Charlotte Dujardin. 

Yes – due process must be served. This process was put into place to enforce horse welfare standards. Andrew, while not having made a public statement yet, has confirmed to EN that he is fully cooperating with the FEI’s investigation after we gave him the opportunity to send us a response. 

The truth is, the FEI IS undertaking their due diligence to address this matter. We want to believe that this process works, but without clarity and expediency it becomes difficult. 

My question is: why has it taken so long? Any legal process and investigation takes time, this is true. However, every minute an investigation takes, horses suffer. The witnesses who step forward suffer. And yes, the accused suffers as well. 

Additionally, what does not sit well with the public is a lack of information. Here are some areas we have identified as areas of opportunity surrounding this concept and beyond:

Increased transparency with enforcement and regulation: While it is true that ongoing investigations cannot generally be spoken on, there should be additional transparency as to the steps of the investigation process and what penalties are in play. These are searchable in the FEI’s rules, but the information is difficult to understand and make sense of.

Expediency with handling investigations and reports: We are not privy to the steps the governing bodies take during these investigations, and while we understand the process takes time when done correctly, I would still call for greater expediency when dealing with cases of horse or human abuse in particular. The fact that the witnesses I spoke with have had to take it upon themselves to follow up repeatedly and wait days and weeks for responses does not sit well. 

Better protection and support for witnesses and victims: There is no world in which an individual should not feel safe, supported, and protected to come forward. The experience of these witnesses and countless others is an example of this. If you do not feel safe reporting something, more incidents go unreported. It should not matter how “big” the name is you’re reporting. It is up to the governing bodies to determine whether the severity of the allegations warrants an investigation, but bringing this information forward should not be met with ambivalence from those the victims and witnesses are seeking out for advice. 

Compassion: Yes, compassion to those accused – even when that’s the last thing we feel like offering and even when forgiveness feels, understandably, like something that has to be earned. It’s easy to immediately feel a flurry of emotions when something emerges on social media, and particularly when that “something” is a video that’s as hard to watch as the ones we’ve seen over the last few days.

The thing with anger, though, is that it immediately looks for an outlet through which to disseminate itself, and often, that outlet takes the form of vitriol at either the accused or the accuser, as we’ve seen most notably in the Charlotte Dujardin case (but which has also been enormously prevalent in acts of whistleblowing well beyond the scope of our industry – for example, the pushback against many victims who came forward in the Me Too movement).

We’re certainly not going to add our voices to the brigade of folks who refer to many fair rebuttals against wrongdoing as “witch hunts”, but what we do implore you to do is this: when you see something that sparks these negative feelings in you, take a moment to process how you feel, and then think about the most productive way you can react to it. Often, sharing to spread awareness of wrongdoing is impactful. In many cases, videos can be shared far and wide across social media and never once actually submitted to the appropriate safeguarding channels. In this process, damage can be done to both accuser and accused while little due process is actually followed.

A look in the mirror: I’ve seen several posts stating that others have witnessed abuse or even participated in it themselves – whether that’s in a moment of emotional reaction or because of incorrect early training that they’ve worked to improve upon. I appreciate this sense of self-awareness, because I recognize how difficult it is to self-critique in this way. I also appreciate that in many cases, people may be afraid to “ruffle feathers” or “rock the boat” for a number of reasons – because, perhaps, they know that they, like so many of their industry compatriots, may have an isolated incident or a string of incidents in their past, and also, perhaps, because they fear that the bottom may fall out of this precarious industry if those inside it begin to pick holes in it.

But it’s exactly those of us inside it who have the greatest responsibility to protect the future of the thing we love, and we can only do that by acknowledging these hard truths about both the industry at large and our own actions within it.

There exists a fine line between firm training and discipline and flat-out abuse, and over the years, that line has shifted incrementally and constantly. I don’t have an answer for how to fix the problem of what is or isn’t okay, but I do know this: the starting point is an honest reevaluation of our methods, and owning, even if just in a frank conversation with ourselves, where we’ve personally gone wrong in the past. Only then do we stand a chance of doing better – and we must, too, remember that outside of our small world, there’s no quantifiable reason for any of this to exist, which quickly undermines any argument that any specific method is the only way to train a horse to do something. If there isn’t a strong argument for why the horse should need to know how to do the thing in the first place, how can we argue that abusive methods are a justifiable way to get there?

This is not just about Andrew, or Charlotte: As a journalist in our sport, I’ve known Andrew for a long time, and have reported upon his progress as he’s risen through the ranks over the course of a decade – and yes, I’ve also cheered him on and praised him on many occasions in doing so. This article has been an extremely tough one to write, because our world is a small one, and the shock of having your perception of a person turned on its head is a sharp, harsh one. I’m also very aware that human nature is nuanced and complex and very seldom binary, and so trying to understand what causes a person to act in a certain way – and a way that’s anathema to how they appear in the surface is a complicated, often contradictory journey. But what’s key here is that this piece of reporting, as in all cases like this, is not personal – it’s not a place for psychoanalysis or personal vendettas or hurt feelings. It’s about, at the end of the day, all of us, and our sport, and the way that we can, as individuals and as organizations, do better and be better and represent our horses and their welfare as thoroughly as possible. It has to be about the horse first, and the sport second – and only by taking care of the former can the latter thrive.

While my name is on this story, the work that went into it is due to the efforts and input of the entire EN team. Many thanks to Tilly Berendt, Allie Heninger, and the rest of the team for helping with research and input on how we were presenting this story, and for contributing their own words to this story. Also, thank you to Justine Griffin of The Tampa Bay Times and Heels Down Mag for her consultation efforts.