UIPM Decision

Why the UIPM EB decision to remove riding as
the 5 th event is legally baseless
The UIPM announcement of 4 November 2021 informed Modern Pentathlon participants
that the UIPM Executive Board had decided that horse-riding would not form part of the
Modern Pentathlon event in the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Summer Games.
The Decision
1. The UIPM official communication and accompanying open letter to pentathletes
both published on UIPM’s website on 4 November 2021 1 , disclosed that during a
virtual meeting held on 31 October 2021, the EB had ‘endorsed a series of
recommendations’ made by the UIPM Innovation Commission, including the
recommendation that horse-riding be replaced with another discipline for the 2028
Olympic Games.
2. The Open Letter expressly confirmed that the EB had made its ‘decision to replace
Riding’ and informed athletes that they would be ‘centrally involved’ in the consultation
regarding the replacement discipline.
3. There is no clarity in respect of the reasons for and terms of the decision as the
same has not been disclosed by UIPM. We need copies of the minutes of the
meeting held on 31 October 2021 and/or any other documentation relating to the
decision.
The EB’s breach of UIPM’s Constitutional Documents
4. The EB does not have the power to amend the UIPM Statutes and/or the UIPM
Rules on Internal Organisation. Additionally, in the present circumstances, the EB
does not have the power to amend the UIPM Competition Rules.
Statutes and Competition Rules
1 https://www.uipmworld.org/news/uipm-opens-consultation-replacement-riding-discipline-modernpentathlon
& https://www.uipmworld.org/news/open-letter-pentathletes

5. The following Articles and provisions make clear that the discipline of horse-riding
is integral to the sport of Modern Pentathlon and is incorporated into its Statutes
and Competition Rules:
6. Article 2.1 of the Statutes defines Modern Pentathlon as ‘the multi-disciplinary sport
comprising fencing, swimming, horse riding, shooting and running or any combination thereof’.
7. Article 3.2(j) of the Statutes provide the role of the UIPM is to ‘preserve and protect
health and wellbeing of horses by establishing appropriate codes of conduct’.
8. Paragraph 1.3.1 under Part A of the UIPM Competition Rules expressly provides:
‘The five disciplines of a Modern Pentathlon competition are organised in four events: fencing,
Swimming, Riding, Laser-Run (Shooting and Running).’ Riding is referred to therein as a
‘show jumping event’ and the Competition Rules make numerous references to horses.
9. Accordingly removal of horse-riding as one of the disciplines of the sport of
Modern Pentathlon would require amendments to the Statutes, not simply to the
Competition Rules.
10. It is clear throughout the Statutes (and the UIPM Rules on Internal Organisation as
set out at section (b) below) that only the General Assembly has the power to amend
the Statutes. This is based, inter alia, on the following.
11. The General Assembly is the supreme and legislative body of the UIPM. 2
12. It is the General Assembly that is empowered to amend the Statutes and the Rules
on Internal Organisation and the Competition Rules. 3
2 see Article 19.1 of the Statutes
3 see Articles 22.1 (10) & (11) of the Statutes

13. The Statutes may only be amended by the affirmative vote of a majority of 2/3 of
the Members present and entitled to vote at the General Assembly. 4
14. In between General Assemblies, UIPM is governed by the Executive Board. The
Executive Board is competent to take decisions on any matter not provided for in
these Statutes, or in the event of force majeure. 5
15. It appears that the EB has unilaterally made the decision to remove horse-riding
from Modern Pentathlon. Any purported ‘decision’ could only be effective if it
amounted to an amendment of the Statutes identified above.
16. For such amendments by the EB to be valid under the Statutes, the EB would need
to demonstrate that it was exercising a valid power to amend the Statutes. Such
power is expressly limited to the General Assembly.
17. It is therefore clear that the decision made by the EB is procedurally flawed,
unlawful and thus invalid.
Rules on Internal Organisation
18. Notwithstanding the above, Article 6.1(a) of the Rules on Internal Organisation
entitles the EB to: (i) represent the General Assembly in the period between
meetings and decide on all necessary matters which cannot be postponed until the
next General Assembly; and (ii) amend UIPM Competition Rules in lieu of the
General Assembly only in case of force majeure and with a majority of ¾ of the
members of the EB.
19. As the proposed change to the disciplines is not to be implemented until the 2028
Olympic Games, it is clear that the issue did not have to be irrevocably, finally
resolved by the EB as a matter of urgency and could have reasonably been resolved
at the next meeting of the General Assembly.
4 see Article 33.1 of the Statutes
5 see Article 13.2 of the Statutes

20. Further, the EB has not established a force majeure event, meaning it cannot seek
to rely on this Article. Furthermore, and as noted above, removing horse-riding
would require amendments of the Statutes, not simply the Competition Rules, so
this limb would not apply.
21. Even if an event of force majeure could be made out in the circumstances, the
failure to mention an express power for the EB to amend the Statutes in Article
6.1(a) of the Rules on Internal Organisation demonstrates a clear intention that the
EB does not have the power to amend the Statutes. This remains the sole domain
of the General Assembly and is not overridden by Article 13.2 of the Statutes
between General Assemblies. 6
22. The EB therefore did not have the power or entitlement to make the decision it
made.
Procedural Requirements
23. The procedural requirements for validly submitting a proposal to amend the
Statutes to the General Assembly were not observed by the EB. Article 32.2 of the
Statutes provides that any proposed amendment shall be sent to all Members at
least 30 days prior to the General Assembly. The EB failed to follow this process
and therefore erred in the process of making its decision to remove horse-riding as
a discipline of Modern Pentathlon.
24. It is clear that any decision that follows is procedurally flawed and cannot be upheld.
Conclusion
25. For the reasons set out above, the EB clearly does not have the power to make
amendments to: (i) the Statutes; and (ii) the Competition Rules. These are expressly
6 Article 13.2 of the Statutes provides that the Executive Board is competent to take decisions on any
matter not provided for in these Statutes, or in the event of force majeure.

required to effect any decision to remove horse-riding as a discipline from Modern
Pentathlon.
26. Additionally, the EB failed to follow the correct procedure in proposing and
implementing such amendments to the General Assembly.
27. The EB’s decision to remove horse-riding as a Modern Pentathlon discipline is
flawed, constitutes a breach of UIPM’s statutes and therefore unlawful.
28. UIPM should recognise that the purported decision made by the EB to amend the
Statutes and Competition Rules to remove horse-riding as a discipline of Modern
Pentathlon is invalid and must therefore be rescinded.
29. If, following the rescission of the decision, UIPM seek to amend the Statutes and
Competition Rules to remove horse-riding as a Modern Pentathlon discipline, it
must follow the correct procedures and processes as required under UIPM’s
constitutional documents by:
(i) postponing the General Assembly meeting currently scheduled to take place
on 27 November 2021; and
(ii) properly reconvening the General Assembly meeting, providing the
participants with all motions and a final agenda at least 30 days prior to the
meeting, and further, with it being an election year, with nominations for
elections.
30. One trusts it will not be necessary, but should a satisfactory response not be
provided National Federations should pursue the question of procedural breach by
the EB before the competent judicial body, particularly the Court of Arbitration for
Sport.
Anthony Temple QC 10 November 2021
atemple@anthonytemple.com