In response, Parra issued a statement saying that he“is deeply saddened that the horse was injured” but he denies any allegation of cruelty, abuse, gross negligence, recklessness or any other inappropriate conduct in the handling of the horse. He is questioning the motives of the allegations and said that he intends to take action to address the damage being caused by Miranda and E. Allen Buck, who is a trainer and consultant to Miranda. This action may include filing charges against both of them.In his response, Parra has pointed out the unpredictable nature of horses, which means that sometimes in the course of training things do happen but these cannot necessarily be blamed on a particular training method. In the case of William, Parra says the horse became distracted and then reared and fell.

What is also at issue here is that Miranda signed a liability contract before Parra took on the horse for training, which is designed to exempt Parra and his staff from lawsuits. However, if gross negligence can be shown, the contract would not be enforceable.

However this case turns out it raises many questions that everyone in the dressage world is sure to be considering. I would suspect that nearly every trainer can think back on a situation in which he or she tried a particular training technique with disastrous results and got lucky that the horse wasn’t hurt. That owners go after trainers when things do go wrong is one thing, but what does it mean with an animal rights organization such as the SPCA is technically the one filing charges? If held up to scrutiny by such organizations, how many training techniques and “gadgets” used would be considered abusive and could open one up to criminal charges?

In today’s high tech world where videos and photos can be instantly captured and broadcast around the world, it will become harder and harder for training techniques and methods to be hidden from outside view. And maybe that is as it should be. There are probably a number of techniques and gadgets that ought not to be used. On the other hand, there are some techniques that can be very effective and harmless when used by skilled trainers but that would appear abusive to those who don’t understand training or those particular techniques.

These are challenging questions for trainers but also for owners who share in the responsibility of looking out for the interests of their horses. What might really be needed is some serious discussion about the ethics of training, something that doesn’t seem much discussed these days. In a 1972 book written on ethics for business executives, Harlan Cleveland suggested that administrators – and this might work for trainers as well – ask this question before committing to any particular course of action: “If this action is held up to public scrutiny, will I still feel that it is what I should have done and how I should have done it?”

Ethics courses for business executives and public administrators frequently advise that any action taken should be such that the manager who takes it can justify why that action was taken. If applied to training, one might say that a trainer ought to use no technique that he or she cannot fully explain why it is being used and how it works to achieve the desired result. One other important element here relates to the consequences of actions. Ethics courses for managers also advise them to consider all potential courses of action and the potential consequences. Again, if applied to training, this would suggest that trainers consider all possible techniques for achieving a result but then also consider all the possible consequences – both negative and positive – before deciding which technique to apply. It is a lot of thinking for sure, but maybe we all need to step back and reflect a bit more.