USEF MythBusters: What Happens After an Investigation Is Completed
Cases that go to a hearing are heard by a three-person panel tasked with applying rules objectively and thoroughly.
By Natalie Voss
"Why did the USEF staff give him/her that suspension?”
“This person got treated differently from someone else who did the same thing.”
“USEF picks and chooses how they handle violations.”
Look hard enough on the internet, and you’ll find statements like these about the US Equestrian case resolution process. Many of them are rooted in misunderstandings of how the system works.
In our spring 2026 US Equestrian magazine, we published an explainer on the way the investigation process works, detailing what happens when a complaint comes to our Regulation Department. However, many members have asked: “What happens next?”
Informal Resolutions
After the investigation process is complete, the Regulation Department works with the US Equestrian Legal Department to determine whether to move forward with a case. The process from here differs in many key ways from the criminal justice system, but one thing you may be familiar with from watching or reading legal dramas on television is that these decisions are all based on evidence. An investigator may believe the story of someone who comes to them to report a rules violation, but how the Federation chooses to proceed depends on the evidence investigators have gathered and the credibility of the witnesses who are willing to participate in the hearing process.
“Members alleged to have violated a rule have a right to a thorough investigation and a fair process,” said Sonja Keating, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel for US Equestrian. “Ensuring that our members are treated fairly and respectfully through the process is paramount. Through the investigation process, we are seeking all the facts surrounding the situation. We receive many reports that cannot be substantiated. This does not mean people are making false reports, it simply means that we do not have the evidence necessary to meet the legal burden of proof. Our cases must withstand legal scrutiny.”
When the investigation is complete and there is evidence to support a violation of Federation rules, US Equestrian may file a complaint and prosecute the case. This does not mean that all cases go before the Hearing Committee. For certain types of minor offenses, the person may be issued a warning. If the offense is more significant, the Federation may offer the person an informal resolution. The vast majority of cases are resolved this way, which is a good thing for members.
“An informal resolution enables both the member and the Federation to avoid the time and expense of a hearing and eliminates the necessity for what members may view as an adversarial process. This approach facilitates a more efficient resolution,” said Keating.
The penalties offered in the informal resolution process will depend on a range of factors — guidance from the rulebook, existing penalty guidelines, the person’s violation history (if any), and aggravating or mitigating circumstances found in the evidence. Because the penalty sought by the Federation is often a complex formula of all these factors, it’s not unusual for two cases with similar violations (the same drug or same rule violated) to result in different offered penalties. Those who readily admit to a violation and demonstrate regret can often mitigate the penalty to some extent.
“We understand members find this confusing,” said Keating. “What many people don’t realize is that one case may involve someone with repeated violations while the other is someone’s first offense, or the strength of evidence may be very different between the two cases — especially if witnesses become reluctant and will no longer participate in the proceedings. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon occurrence. We have an anti-retaliation policy to protect whistleblowers, but for many people, that is not enough to give them the comfort they need.”
Sometimes, the available evidence is such that USEF’s legal team offers a penalty that’s lighter than what they would like.
If the two sides cannot agree to an informal resolution, the individual alleged to have violated a rule has the right to request a hearing before the USEF Hearing Committee.
The Hearing Stage
The Hearing Committee serves as a pool from which a panel of three members are selected to hear a case that’s moving through the hearing process. One of the three panelists is an athlete. Committee members are appointed by USEF every two years, but the Federation is not involved in deciding which group of three will hear a specific case.
Dan Danford, attorney and member of law firm Stites & Harbison PLLC, serves as outside counsel for US Equestrian and oversees the hearing process. Danford said that Hearing Committee members already have extensive experience in the sport, so while the hearing process is likely new to them when they begin, their familiarity with rules and regulations provides them with a good guide on how to proceed.
Hearing Committee members get considerable onboarding from Danford, with emphasis on the need for confidentiality and impartiality in the process.
“It’s not the role of the Hearing Committee to find in the Federation’s favor,” said Danford. “Instead, it’s the role of the Hearing Committee to review the evidence and render the correct ruling under the USEF rules and bylaws.”
The Federation bears the burden to prove that the violation occurred. Simply bringing a case forward does not satisfy that burden. The Federation must introduce sufficient evidence to establish a violation.
The panel is instructed not to discuss the case with anyone before or after the hearing, and that they should walk into the hearing with an open mind. In fact, the panel does not receive any evidence in the case until the day before the proceedings begin and are encouraged to check any preconceived notions about the case at the door.
Before the hearing starts, the panel is sworn in, and each side has the opportunity to make an opening statement and to make objections to the procedure or admissibility of evidence. Both sides have a full opportunity to present their case by calling witnesses, offering evidence, and cross-examining each other’s witnesses. The rules of evidence and proceedings in these cases are not the same as one would find in a civil court. For example, administrative hearings have more leeway on rules about hearsay and other types of evidence.
Panelists are encouraged to question witnesses but are admonished to refrain from sharing personal observations or making statements about legal issues, such as the proper interpretation of a rule at issue. Danford often sees a mix of personality types on panels, with some panelists succeeding in asking probing questions, while others prefer to sit back and listen carefully.
Hearings generally run between two and four hours, although Danford says in rare instances he has known some to stretch over more than a day.
US Equestrian’s Bylaw 702 outlines the rights someone has as they move through the hearing process, which are standard for any type of administrative hearing.
“My goal as counsel to the Hearing Committee is, regardless of how people perceive the hearing process, to make sure the process is fair,” said Danford. “If a respondent ends up getting penalized for something, I can’t control how they feel about the reasoning of the panel, but what I can do is make sure they actually got a fair process.”
Safe Sport Cases Can Be Different
In the instance of a Safe Sport complaint, the process may look different because the Federation does not handle the investigation and adjudication process for all Safe Sport cases. In accordance with federal law, USEF maintains its own Safe Sport policies which govern bullying, hazing, and physical or emotional misconduct, and a complaint falling into one of these categories is often handled by US Equestrian. If the complaint involves any sexualized misconduct, including child sex abuse, non-consensual sexual conduct, sexual harassment, or intimate relationships in a power imbalance, it must be referred to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. If a minor is involved, it must also be reported to the authorities.
Cases referred to the national center are investigated and adjudicated by them. Safe Sport has its own processes and a wider range of potential resolutions. Once a case is resolved, either by a resolution or after arbitration, the final conclusion is relayed to US Equestrian, and the Federation is required to enforce it. The same applies to any interim measures, like suspensions issued while the investigation proceeds. The Federation is not involved in the investigation or adjudication process by design, since the 2017 federal law mandating Safe Sport requires that sexual abuse investigations be handled independently.
After the Hearing
After the hearing has concluded, the panel will discuss the case and come to a conclusion. Danford is available if they have a question about the technical elements of the rules but does not have a vote on the case. Once the panel reaches its ruling, Danford prepares a draft decision that includes the panel’s findings and the rationale for those findings, and the panel has the final say on the language of the decision.
In the past, only a limited synopsis of a decision was shared with the membership, and these mostly served to outline the alleged offense and penalties (if any). In January 2026, the Hearing Committee decided that, going forward, full decisions would be available to the membership after each hearing. These are similar to the documents published by the FEI and go into detail about the evidence the panel reviewed and the determinations they made that led them to their final conclusion.
Danford is hoping that more disclosure will help members understand how things work behind the scenes and will avoid misconceptions about the hearing process.
“The panel wants to give the respondent the best chance to make their case,” he said. “If the Federation doesn’t bring the evidence, these panels don’t hesitate to go against them. I don’t think everyone sees that.”