Eric Lamaze wants them. But should there be changes to international equestrian rules?

In the wake of the disqualification of Tiffany Foster's horse, Victor, at the Olympic Games earlier this week, some members of the Canadian equestrian team are bucking for changes to the rules. But will they get them? and, as importantly, should they?

There can be little doubt that the ruling was a bitter pill to swallow. You can't help but feel terrible for Foster, who was appearing in her first Olympic Games. Not only that, she had made it all the way back from a broken back, suffered just before the Beijing Olympics. She was devastated, teammate Eric Lamaze claimed officials were "destroying Tiffany's dream," and the Canadians had to contest the team portion of the jumping event with three entries, instead of four.

Equine Canada, the body that oversees the sport in Canada, originally issued a statement that endorsed the protocols that led to Foster's disqualification. That, apparently, ticked off Lamaze, and soon after, a clarification was offered.

According to the Globe and Mail, Lamaze had threatened to skip the upcoming Spruce Meadows competition, over Equine Canada's original stance:

Victor was deemed unfit to perform in the team competition last Sunday, when veterinarians discovered a scratch above one of the horse's front hooves.

Victor was not in any peril, they ruled, but the injury led to a temperature rise in the horse's leg. As horse jumping novices have learned due to this controversy, a horse's front legs are generally more sensitive if the temperature is higher than normal. So, rather than Foster and her horse being DQ'd because officials feared for the horse's safety, it was because the sensitive leg might lead to Victor wanting to avoid rubbing the leg on jumps and therefore putting out more vertical effort than normal.

It was a terrible break for Foster and the Canadian team, but is it enough to warrant a change to the protocol?

Ask Lamaze and he'll tell you it does. Hard not to see where he's coming from. Somebody close to him had their Olympic aspirations dashed, in dramatic fashion.

But let's check the other side of the coin. If the issue is an unfair advantage being given a competitor, does it matter how innocent the circumstances? How heartbreaking the disqualification would be?

Or should the decision be made in a vacuum devoid of those possibilities?

Victor was not purposely made more sensitive, say, with the application of a foreign substance to make his forelegs warmer. That was the case in Beijing, when a number of competitors were kicked out after being caught having rubbed a chili pepper compound on their horses' legs, to raise the temperature and make their mounts more sensitive.

Those were cases of deliberate tampering. By all accounts, Foster's was not. Just that her horse got a little nick, by accident, leading to the temperature increase and ultimately the decision to discount the horse.

However, if you let this case slide and give the competitor a pass, with what we are told is an advantage, simply because of the circumstances surrounding that advantage being attained, it's possible a bit of a nasty door might be opened.

One where underhanded competitors in the future might nick up their horses and then claim "he must have done it in his stall, overnight" in order to have officials decide that happenstance is to blame, not skulduggery. If you think there aren't competitors out there in this great big world capable of or willing to do such a thing, you haven't been paying attention.

Let's be clear. That is not in any way meant to have anyone questioning the voracity of the Canadian claims here. Victor came by that scratch accidentally; there isn't anyone out there saying otherwise and no reason at all to doubt it.

If the bottom line is that a horse and rider gain an advantage when such an injury occurs, that's the issue. Not how heartbreaking the disqualification might be to the people involved.

It's unfortunate that in protecting the competitive fairness of an event, there is human disappointment and dismay.

You can't help but have your heart torn out by the plight of Tiffany Foster. In the end, however, it appears she is the victim of bad luck at the worst possible time. She deserves our commiseration. Had the rules been different, she may have not had her dreams evaporated. It's just arguable that a change to those rules is in order.

Perhaps a hint can be found in Equine Canada's original response to the decision. Which was to support the rules as they are. It was only after Lamaze's expression of dismay that they backed off, varnishing their original response just a little bit.

If the case can be made that the advantage given a competitor by a horse with sensitive forelegs is really minimal, if not negligible, that's a whole new ball game. But in all that's been said in the case of Tiffany Foster and Victor, that's one argument that hasn't been vocalized with any great frequency or emotion.