15/12/2025
At the end of November, the Florence Court of Appeal upheld a conviction for animal abuse against a defendant accused of administering anti-inflammatory drugs to horses in the absence of any genuine therapeutic necessity.
This is the new and highly significant development, as it marks one of the rare instances in which a trial court has applied clearly and consistently an interpretative approach already set out by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, but which until now has too often remained a dead letter in courtrooms.
For Italian Horse Protection (IHP), which for years has denounced the abuse of pharmaceuticals in the equestrian world as a structural form of animal mistreatment, the Florence ruling represents a crucial step forward: legal theory finally becomes judicial practice.
In the reasoning underpinning the conviction, the Court of Appeal aligned itself with a 2024 ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which had established a fundamental principle: the administration of drugs without a therapeutic purpose constitutes animal abuse in itself, even in the absence of a clinically ascertainable injury.
According to the Supreme Court — and now also according to the judges in Florence — it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the horse developed a specific pathology or sustained a specific injury. The harm is implicit in the conduct, because it consists in subjecting the animal to treatments that are:
devoid of any medical or health-related justification,
contrary to the protection of the animal,
harmful to its ethology and its psycho-physical balance.
In other words, a horse’s health does not coincide with the mere absence of wounds, but with respect for its natural limits.
The most significant aspect of the jurisprudential approach — taken up in the Florence decision — concerns so-called equine doping.
The Supreme Court has clarified that administering drugs in order to push a horse beyond its natural capacities exposes the animal to stress, suffering and additional risks, thereby compromising its overall well-being. This constitutes a form of manipulation that harms the animal’s health in a broad sense, even when it does not produce immediately visible effects.
This approach is fully consistent with what IHP has been asserting for years: the improper use of drugs is not a “grey area”, but a normalised form of violence, often disguised as sporting management or routine stable practice.
The Florence Court of Appeal ruling has a significance that goes beyond the individual case:
it demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s interpretative approach can and must be applied by trial courts;
it strengthens the possibility of criminally prosecuting widespread practices that are rarely sanctioned;
it provides a concrete point of reference for the legal actions and reports supported by IHP.
For the organisation, which works daily to rescue abused horses and to expose systems of exploitation that undermine animal welfare, this decision represents an operational precedent, not merely a theoretical one.
It also sends a clear message to the equestrian world: it is not necessary to “break” a horse in order to abuse it. It is sufficient to bend it pharmacologically to purposes that have nothing to do with care.
The Florence conviction marks an important shift because it affirms a principle that IHP considers central to its mission: the horse is not a tool, but a sentient being, and any practice that artificially alters its abilities violates its dignity.
The challenge now is to ensure that this interpretative approach does not remain an isolated virtuous exception.
For IHP, the path forward is clear: to continue monitoring, reporting and intervening so that the law fully recognises what ethics and science have long affirmed.
A horse’s welfare is not measured at the finish line. It must be protected beforehand.