I’m not going to get into a debate about what Bettina Hoy did or did not do–or might or might not have been thinking–when she made a second circle in last week’s Olympic eventing team show jumping round (see p. 49). I didn’t see it, because I was on the other side of the ring, getting ready to photograph her galloping through the finish and celebrating. And I got those shots. They’re just not as useful as they seemed at the time.

What Hoy’s decision to circle did was bring together an alliance not seen since D-Day 60 years ago–the United States, Great Britain and France, against Germany. Interestingly, it was Christoph Hess, the German who was president of the ground jury, who ruled against Hoy.

The three allies contended, successfully, to the Court of Arbitration for Sport that the Appeals Committee had no jurisdiction because Hoy’s action didn’t involve an interpretation of the rules. Everybody agreed that she’d crossed the start line, circled and crossed the start line again. They believed that the question of why she’d done it–the basis of the Appeals Committee’s decision–was irrelevant. John Long, the U.S. Equestrian Federation’s chief executive officer, said, “It’s a field-of-play issue and should be de-cided right there, not later on by a review committee,” he said.

So, I asked Long, what does the CAS ruling mean to equestrian sports? Does it mean that Appeals Committees aren’t necessary any more? Does it mean that the Appeals Committees at all kinds of competitions need to be chosen more carefully, to make sure their members really know the rules and aren’t just there ceremonially?

“Not at all,” said Long, explaining that he didn’t think the CAS decision signaled a need for a big change. “In this particular situation, it was not a problem with the rules. The problem was the way the rules were used. It was simply not a matter of interpretation.”

After the CAS announcement, Federation Equestre Internationale officials issued a statement that disagreed with the CAS board’s interpretation, a statement Long called “completely inappropriate. I think it is incredibly unfortunate that they would say that. In fact, I would go so far as to say it’s insulting to all of the countries involved.”

Bo Helander, the FEI’s secretary-general, said, “it’s a very touchy question of interpretation.” And they believed that under the FEI’s rules–as they’re currently written–the Appeals Committee did have jurisdiction, especially as the only question was whose fault it was and whether Hoy should be penalized. “This is a very guarded and limited disagreement we have,” he said.

But to Helander and others within the FEI, there’s a silver lining to this black cloud. “We welcome this decision in the sense that it really reaffirms and clarifies the importance of not being able to appeal field-of-play decisions,” he said. In other words, they’d actually like to rewrite their rules to clarify that riders and chefs d’equipe cannot challenge ground jury decisions regarding horses’ performances. There will still be a place for Appeals Committees, he emphasized, to deal with other rules issues such as eligibility, tack and equipment. “This clarifies the line,” Helander said.

Long said that the thing he regretted most about the controversy was that it had endangered the USEF’s relationship with the German federation, a relationship he said they’re working to mend. It also caused hard feelings between the nations’ riders (I’m told that the French riders haven’t spoken to Hoy or her teammates since). “This situation sure took the bloom off the rose,” he said.