This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the integrity of the assessment process with the individual needs of a candidate who has demonstrated a significant knowledge gap. The Advanced Indo-Pacific Equine Sports Medicine Competency Assessment, like many professional certifications, relies on a structured blueprint for content weighting and scoring to ensure consistent and fair evaluation. The retake policy is designed to uphold these standards while providing a pathway for remediation. Navigating this situation requires careful judgment to avoid compromising the assessment’s validity or unfairly penalizing the candidate. The best approach involves a thorough review of the candidate’s performance against the established blueprint and a clear, documented application of the stated retake policy. This means identifying the specific areas where the candidate fell short based on the weighted sections of the exam and then communicating the precise requirements for retaking the assessment, including any mandatory preparatory steps or limitations on future attempts. This adheres strictly to the principles of fairness and transparency inherent in professional assessment frameworks. The weighting and scoring are not arbitrary; they reflect the relative importance of different competencies within Indo-Pacific equine sports medicine. The retake policy, in turn, is a mechanism to ensure that candidates achieve a satisfactory level of proficiency across these weighted areas before being certified. Adhering to these established procedures protects the credibility of the certification and ensures that all certified professionals meet a defined standard of competence. An incorrect approach would be to deviate from the established scoring and weighting by subjectively adjusting the candidate’s score or the requirements for retaking the exam based on perceived effort or extenuating circumstances not covered by the policy. This undermines the objective nature of the assessment and creates an unfair advantage for this candidate over future or past candidates who adhered to the standard process. It also fails to address the underlying knowledge deficit that led to the initial failure. Another incorrect approach would be to allow the candidate to retake the exam immediately without any specific remediation or without re-evaluating their performance against the blueprint. This bypasses the intent of the retake policy, which is typically to allow candidates time to address their weaknesses. It also risks the candidate failing again without having genuinely improved their understanding of the weighted subject areas. A further incorrect approach would be to impose additional, unstated requirements for the retake that are not part of the official policy, such as mandatory attendance at specific workshops not previously communicated. This introduces an element of arbitrariness and can be perceived as punitive, rather than remedial, and deviates from the transparent and consistent application of the assessment rules. The professional reasoning framework for such situations should prioritize adherence to established policies and procedures. This involves: 1) Objective assessment of performance against the blueprint and scoring criteria. 2) Clear understanding and application of the defined retake policy. 3) Transparent communication with the candidate regarding their performance and the path forward. 4) Maintaining the integrity and fairness of the assessment process for all candidates.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires a veterinarian to navigate the specific eligibility criteria for an advanced competency assessment while also considering the practical implications for their practice and the welfare of the horses they treat. The decision-making process must be grounded in a clear understanding of the assessment’s purpose and the regulatory framework governing such certifications. The best approach involves a thorough review of the Advanced Indo-Pacific Equine Sports Medicine Competency Assessment’s official documentation, specifically focusing on the stated purpose and the detailed eligibility requirements. This includes understanding the types of experience, training, and qualifications that are explicitly recognized by the assessment body. By aligning the veterinarian’s current professional profile and future aspirations with these defined criteria, they can accurately determine their suitability and the steps needed to meet any gaps. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the regulatory framework of the competency assessment, ensuring that any pursuit of the certification is based on established guidelines and a realistic evaluation of qualifications. It prioritizes adherence to the assessment’s stated objectives and prerequisites, thereby maximizing the likelihood of a successful application and demonstrating professional integrity. An incorrect approach would be to assume eligibility based on general experience in equine sports medicine without verifying the specific requirements of the Advanced Indo-Pacific Equine Sports Medicine Competency Assessment. This is professionally unacceptable as it bypasses the established regulatory framework for the assessment, potentially leading to wasted time and resources if the veterinarian does not meet the precise criteria. It also risks misrepresenting their qualifications to the assessment body. Another incorrect approach would be to focus solely on the perceived benefits of the certification, such as enhanced reputation or increased client demand, without a concrete understanding of whether they meet the eligibility criteria. This is ethically questionable as it prioritizes personal gain over accurate representation and adherence to the assessment’s standards. It fails to acknowledge that eligibility is a prerequisite for the assessment’s intended purpose. A further incorrect approach would be to seek informal advice from colleagues about eligibility without consulting the official assessment guidelines. While peer advice can be helpful, it cannot substitute for the definitive information provided by the certifying body. Relying on informal opinions risks misinterpreting the requirements, leading to an inaccurate assessment of eligibility and potential non-compliance with the formal assessment process. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with identifying the specific goals (e.g., obtaining the Advanced Indo-Pacific Equine Sports Medicine Competency Assessment). This is followed by a comprehensive information-gathering phase, which in this context means meticulously reviewing the official documentation of the assessment body. The next step is to critically evaluate personal qualifications against these requirements. If there are discrepancies, the professional should then identify actionable steps to bridge any gaps, such as pursuing further specialized training or gaining specific types of experience. Finally, the professional should make a decision based on a realistic assessment of their eligibility and the feasibility of meeting the requirements, always prioritizing adherence to the established regulatory framework.

The assessment process reveals a common challenge in professional competency evaluations: the interpretation and application of nuanced guidelines in a high-stakes environment. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the candidate to not only possess technical knowledge but also to demonstrate sound judgment in applying that knowledge within the specific ethical and regulatory framework of the Advanced Indo-Pacific Equine Sports Medicine Competency Assessment. The pressure of the assessment, coupled with the potential impact on equine welfare and professional standing, necessitates careful consideration of all available information and adherence to established protocols. The best approach involves a systematic review of the assessment guidelines, focusing on the stated objectives and the specific criteria for evaluating performance. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the purpose of the assessment, which is to gauge competency according to predefined standards. By prioritizing the official documentation, the candidate ensures their self-evaluation aligns with the assessors’ expectations and the underlying principles of the competency framework. This demonstrates a commitment to professional integrity and a thorough understanding of the assessment’s requirements, which are implicitly guided by the ethical standards expected within the Indo-Pacific equine sports medicine community. An approach that relies solely on anecdotal evidence from previous candidates or external forums is professionally unacceptable. This fails to acknowledge the official assessment guidelines as the definitive source of truth, potentially leading to a misinterpretation of standards and expectations. Ethically, it bypasses the established process for competency evaluation and could result in an inaccurate self-assessment. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to focus exclusively on personal past successes without considering the specific context and updated requirements of the current assessment. While past experience is valuable, each assessment has its own unique parameters and emphasis. Ignoring these specificities can lead to a misapplication of knowledge and a failure to meet the current evaluation criteria. This demonstrates a lack of adaptability and a potential overreliance on outdated or irrelevant benchmarks, which is ethically questionable in a competency assessment. The professional reasoning framework that should be employed involves a multi-step process. First, thoroughly understand the assessment’s stated purpose and scope. Second, meticulously review all official documentation, including guidelines, scoring rubrics, and any supplementary materials provided by the assessment body. Third, engage in self-reflection by comparing one’s knowledge and skills against these official criteria. Fourth, seek clarification from assessment administrators if any aspects of the guidelines are ambiguous. Finally, base all self-evaluations and preparation strategies on the official framework, ensuring alignment with the established standards of the Advanced Indo-Pacific Equine Sports Medicine Competency Assessment.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a conflict between the immediate financial interests of the owner and the long-term welfare and ethical obligations of the veterinarian. The veterinarian must navigate the owner’s desire for a quick return to competition with the horse’s underlying health issues, which could be exacerbated by premature return. The pressure to please a client, especially one with significant investment, adds another layer of complexity. Careful judgment is required to balance client satisfaction with professional integrity and animal welfare. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough, evidence-based assessment of the horse’s condition and a clear, transparent communication of the risks and benefits associated with different treatment and recovery plans. This approach prioritizes the horse’s welfare, adhering to the ethical principles of veterinary practice which mandate acting in the best interest of the animal. It also aligns with professional guidelines that emphasize informed consent and shared decision-making with the owner, based on sound medical advice. This involves recommending a phased return to work, contingent on objective reassessment and the horse’s response, rather than a definitive timeline dictated by the owner’s competitive schedule. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves agreeing to the owner’s timeline without sufficient veterinary justification, potentially leading to the horse’s re-injury or chronic issues. This fails to uphold the veterinarian’s primary duty of care to the animal and could be seen as prioritizing client demands over professional judgment, potentially violating ethical codes regarding animal welfare. Another incorrect approach is to provide a definitive, optimistic prognosis for a return to competition by a specific date, without acknowledging the inherent uncertainties and the horse’s individual recovery trajectory. This misrepresents the medical reality and sets unrealistic expectations, which can lead to disappointment and further pressure on the horse if it is not truly ready. It also fails to adhere to principles of honest and accurate communication. A third incorrect approach is to recommend aggressive, unproven treatments solely to meet the owner’s desired timeline, without adequate scientific backing or consideration of potential side effects. This deviates from evidence-based medicine and could expose the horse to unnecessary risks, violating the principle of “do no harm.” Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation. This should be followed by an assessment of potential treatment options, considering their efficacy, risks, and benefits, always with the animal’s welfare as the paramount concern. Open and honest communication with the owner is crucial, involving a discussion of the horse’s prognosis, realistic recovery timelines, and the implications of different management decisions. The veterinarian should clearly articulate the rationale behind their recommendations, empowering the owner to make informed choices while maintaining professional oversight and ensuring the horse’s best interests are met.

The risk matrix shows a potential for significant financial loss and reputational damage due to a misdiagnosis of a rare neurological condition in a high-value performance horse. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the veterinarian to balance the immediate financial pressures of the owner with the long-term welfare and diagnostic accuracy for the animal. The complexity arises from the subtle differences in neurological presentation between species, particularly between common equine breeds and less common breeds that might exhibit unique pathological responses. Careful judgment is required to avoid premature conclusions based on common presentations and to ensure a thorough, species-appropriate diagnostic workup. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive diagnostic strategy that acknowledges the limitations of generalized equine neurological knowledge and actively seeks specialized expertise. This includes performing a thorough physical and neurological examination, followed by advanced imaging (MRI/CT) and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Crucially, it necessitates consultation with a veterinary neurologist or a specialist in comparative neurology, especially if the clinical signs deviate from typical presentations or if the horse belongs to a breed with known predispositions to specific neurological disorders. This approach prioritizes accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment, adhering to the ethical imperative of animal welfare and the professional standard of care, which mandates seeking specialized knowledge when faced with complex or unusual cases. This aligns with the principles of evidence-based veterinary medicine and the ongoing professional development expected of practitioners. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on common equine neurological disease protocols without considering the possibility of species-specific or breed-specific variations in presentation or pathology. This could lead to a misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis, resulting in suboptimal treatment outcomes and potential suffering for the animal. Ethically, this fails to uphold the duty of care to the animal. Another incorrect approach would be to recommend euthanasia based on initial, incomplete findings due to the perceived complexity or cost of further diagnostics. This prematurely dismisses the potential for successful treatment and fails to explore all reasonable diagnostic avenues, which is ethically unsound and professionally negligent. A further incorrect approach would be to proceed with empirical treatment for the most common neurological conditions without a definitive diagnosis. While sometimes necessary in acute situations, in this scenario, with the potential for rare conditions and high stakes, this risks masking symptoms, delaying the correct diagnosis, and potentially exacerbating the underlying pathology. This deviates from the principle of targeted and evidence-based treatment. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough assessment of the presenting signs, followed by a differential diagnosis list that explicitly considers species-specific and breed-specific variations. This should then guide the selection of diagnostic tests, prioritizing those that will yield the most definitive information. Crucially, the framework must include a mechanism for recognizing the limits of one’s own expertise and proactively seeking consultation with specialists when faced with diagnostic uncertainty or complex cases, particularly those involving rare conditions or high-value animals where diagnostic accuracy is paramount.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate economic pressures of a racing operation with the long-term health and welfare of the equine athletes, while also adhering to evolving biosecurity protocols. The veterinarian must navigate potential conflicts between owner expectations, trainer demands, and the ethical imperative to uphold the highest standards of animal care and disease prevention. Failure to implement robust biosecurity measures can lead to devastating outbreaks, significant financial losses, and reputational damage, underscoring the critical need for careful judgment. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a proactive and comprehensive approach to biosecurity, integrating it seamlessly into the daily management of the stable. This includes establishing clear protocols for new arrivals, isolation procedures, regular health monitoring, vaccination schedules, and stringent hygiene practices for both personnel and equipment. This approach is correct because it aligns with the fundamental principles of preventive medicine and herd health, which are paramount in maintaining the well-being of a high-performance equine population. Furthermore, it directly addresses the core tenets of biosecurity by minimizing the risk of pathogen introduction, transmission, and amplification within the facility. Such a strategy is ethically sound, prioritizing the health of the animals, and professionally responsible, safeguarding the reputation and economic viability of the operation through risk mitigation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves a reactive stance, only implementing biosecurity measures when a disease is suspected or confirmed. This is professionally unacceptable as it allows for potential transmission and spread before containment efforts begin, leading to greater economic and welfare consequences. It fails to meet the ethical obligation to prevent suffering and disease. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on individual animal treatment without considering the broader herd health implications. This overlooks the interconnectedness of animals within a stable and the potential for asymptomatic carriers to spread disease. It is ethically deficient as it neglects the collective well-being of the group and is professionally inadequate in addressing the systemic risks of infectious disease. A further incorrect approach is to prioritize cost-saving measures over essential biosecurity protocols, such as skimping on diagnostic testing or appropriate isolation facilities. This is ethically reprehensible as it places financial gain above animal welfare and is professionally negligent, as it significantly increases the likelihood of disease outbreaks and their associated costs. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a risk-based decision-making framework. This involves identifying potential biosecurity threats, assessing their likelihood and impact, and then implementing targeted control measures. Regular review and adaptation of these protocols based on emerging scientific evidence and local disease surveillance are crucial. Open communication with owners, trainers, and staff regarding the rationale and importance of biosecurity measures fosters compliance and shared responsibility.

Scenario Analysis: Preparing for a high-stakes competency assessment like the Advanced Indo-Pacific Equine Sports Medicine Competency Assessment presents a significant professional challenge. Candidates must balance their existing clinical workload with the intensive study required to master a broad and specialized curriculum. The challenge lies in developing a structured, efficient, and compliant preparation strategy that maximizes learning without compromising patient care or violating professional conduct guidelines. Effective time management, resource selection, and adherence to ethical study practices are paramount. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a structured, phased preparation timeline that integrates comprehensive review of core competencies with targeted practice using official assessment resources. This strategy begins with an initial assessment of knowledge gaps, followed by a systematic study plan that allocates dedicated time for theoretical learning and practical application. Prioritizing official study guides, past assessment blueprints (if available and permitted), and reputable academic literature ensures alignment with assessment objectives. Incorporating regular self-assessment and seeking feedback from peers or mentors further refines understanding. This method is correct because it is proactive, systematic, and directly addresses the assessment’s requirements while adhering to professional standards of diligence and continuous professional development. It ensures that preparation is thorough, efficient, and ethically sound, avoiding superficial cramming or reliance on unverified materials. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to rely solely on informal learning and anecdotal advice from colleagues without consulting official preparation materials. This fails to ensure that the candidate is studying the correct content and depth required by the assessment. It risks overlooking critical regulatory requirements or specific Indo-Pacific equine sports medicine nuances that are not commonly discussed in general practice. Another incorrect approach is to dedicate minimal, last-minute study time, assuming prior experience is sufficient. This is professionally irresponsible as it does not demonstrate due diligence or a commitment to mastering the specialized knowledge assessed. It can lead to a superficial understanding and a failure to meet the rigorous standards expected of advanced practitioners. A third incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on theoretical knowledge without engaging in practical application or simulated assessment scenarios. This neglects the practical skills and decision-making abilities that are integral to competency assessments in sports medicine, potentially leading to a candidate who knows the theory but cannot apply it effectively under pressure. Professional Reasoning: Professionals preparing for advanced competency assessments should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes systematic planning, evidence-based resource utilization, and ethical study practices. This involves: 1) Understanding the assessment scope and format thoroughly by consulting official documentation. 2) Conducting a self-assessment to identify strengths and weaknesses. 3) Developing a realistic, phased study schedule that balances learning with existing responsibilities. 4) Selecting preparation resources that are authoritative and directly relevant to the assessment. 5) Incorporating regular review and self-testing to gauge progress. 6) Seeking feedback and engaging in collaborative learning where appropriate and permitted. 7) Maintaining ethical conduct throughout the preparation process, ensuring patient care is not compromised and that all study methods are compliant with professional guidelines.

The scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent uncertainty in interpreting diagnostic results, especially when they are equivocal or point towards multiple potential diagnoses. The veterinarian must balance the need for timely and accurate diagnosis with the ethical obligation to avoid unnecessary or potentially harmful interventions. This requires a systematic approach to data interpretation and a commitment to evidence-based decision-making, all within the framework of professional conduct and client communication. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive review of all available diagnostic data, including imaging and laboratory results, in the context of the horse’s clinical presentation and history. This holistic interpretation allows for the formulation of a differential diagnosis list, prioritized by likelihood. Subsequent diagnostic steps or treatment plans should be guided by this prioritized list, aiming to confirm or rule out the most probable conditions first. This approach aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the horse’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as it seeks to identify the most likely cause of illness efficiently and avoid unnecessary procedures or treatments. It also upholds professional standards by ensuring decisions are data-driven and logical. An incorrect approach would be to immediately initiate a broad, aggressive treatment regimen based on a single, potentially misleading, diagnostic finding without further investigation. This fails to acknowledge the possibility of alternative diagnoses and risks administering inappropriate or even detrimental treatments. Ethically, this could be seen as a failure to act with due care and diligence, potentially causing harm and incurring unnecessary costs for the owner. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss or downplay concerning but non-definitive diagnostic findings in favor of a simpler, less concerning diagnosis, especially if it aligns with the veterinarian’s initial assumptions. This can lead to delayed or missed diagnoses of serious conditions, violating the duty of care and potentially resulting in significant negative outcomes for the horse. It represents a failure to objectively evaluate all evidence. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to proceed with invasive or expensive diagnostic procedures without clearly communicating the rationale, potential benefits, and risks to the owner, or without considering less invasive alternatives first. This can undermine client trust and may not be the most ethically sound or cost-effective path, potentially leading to a situation where the owner feels misled or that resources were not used wisely. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with thorough data gathering and clinical assessment. This is followed by systematic interpretation of all diagnostic information, leading to a prioritized differential diagnosis. Treatment and further diagnostic plans are then developed based on this prioritized list, with continuous re-evaluation as new information becomes available. Open and transparent communication with the owner throughout this process is paramount.

The control framework reveals a complex scenario involving potential public health risks associated with equine diseases that can transmit to humans. This situation is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate needs of animal welfare and sport performance with the broader imperative of safeguarding public health. The veterinarian must navigate a landscape of regulatory obligations, ethical considerations, and scientific uncertainty. Careful judgment is required to ensure that actions taken are both medically sound and legally compliant, minimizing the risk of disease spread while upholding professional standards. The best professional practice involves a proactive and collaborative approach to disease surveillance and reporting. This entails immediately notifying the relevant veterinary and public health authorities upon suspicion of a zoonotic disease. This approach is correct because it aligns with the fundamental principles of veterinary public health, which mandate reporting of diseases that pose a risk to human health. Specifically, under the framework of veterinary regulatory medicine in the Indo-Pacific region, there are established protocols for reporting notifiable diseases to government agencies. These agencies are equipped to implement broader public health measures, such as tracing contacts, advising on containment strategies, and informing the public, thereby fulfilling the veterinarian’s ethical and legal duty to protect the wider community. An incorrect approach would be to delay or omit reporting due to concerns about the impact on the competition or the reputation of the sport. This failure to report breaches regulatory requirements for notifiable diseases and undermines the public health interface. It creates a significant ethical lapse by prioritizing commercial or sporting interests over public safety, potentially leading to wider disease transmission and a more severe public health crisis. Another incorrect approach would be to attempt to manage the situation solely through private veterinary intervention without involving public health authorities. While private veterinary care is essential for individual animal health, it is insufficient for controlling zoonotic disease outbreaks that have public health implications. This approach fails to leverage the resources and authority of public health bodies, which are mandated to manage such risks at a population level. It also neglects the regulatory obligation to report suspected zoonotic diseases to the appropriate governmental bodies. A further incorrect approach would be to rely solely on anecdotal evidence or the assurances of horse owners without conducting appropriate diagnostic investigations and reporting findings. While owner input is valuable, professional responsibility dictates that suspected zoonotic diseases must be investigated using established diagnostic protocols and that findings, particularly those indicating a public health risk, must be formally reported to the relevant authorities. This approach bypasses crucial regulatory steps and risks mismanaging a potential public health threat. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a structured approach: 1. Identify potential risks: Recognize signs or circumstances that suggest a zoonotic disease. 2. Consult regulatory guidelines: Familiarize yourself with the specific reporting requirements for suspected zoonotic diseases in the relevant Indo-Pacific jurisdiction. 3. Gather evidence: Conduct appropriate diagnostic investigations to confirm or rule out the suspected disease. 4. Communicate and report: Immediately notify the designated veterinary and public health authorities, providing all relevant information. 5. Collaborate: Work with authorities to implement control measures and ensure public safety. 6. Document: Maintain thorough records of all investigations, communications, and actions taken.

The evaluation methodology shows that assessing clinical and professional competencies in equine sports medicine requires a nuanced approach to decision-making, particularly when faced with ethical dilemmas and potential conflicts of interest. This scenario is professionally challenging because it pits the immediate financial interests of the practice against the long-term welfare and ethical obligations towards the horse and its owner, while also considering the integrity of the sport. Careful judgment is required to navigate these competing pressures and uphold professional standards. The best professional approach involves prioritizing the horse’s welfare and the integrity of the competition above all else. This means conducting a thorough, objective assessment of the horse’s condition, documenting all findings meticulously, and providing the owner with a clear, unbiased report of the horse’s suitability for competition. This approach aligns with the core ethical principles of veterinary practice, which mandate acting in the best interest of the animal patient and maintaining professional integrity. It also upholds the spirit of fair competition in equine sports. An approach that prioritizes securing the sale by downplaying or omitting significant findings would be ethically and professionally unacceptable. This constitutes a failure to act in the best interest of the patient and a breach of professional honesty. Such an action could lead to the horse being entered into competition while unsound, risking further injury and potential long-term damage, and potentially violating competition rules regarding horse welfare. Furthermore, it undermines the trust placed in veterinary professionals by owners and sporting bodies. Another unacceptable approach would be to refuse to provide a report or to provide a vague, non-committal assessment without clear findings. This avoids direct confrontation but fails to fulfill the professional obligation to provide accurate and comprehensive information to the client. It leaves the owner in an uncertain position and does not adequately protect the horse’s welfare or the integrity of the sport. This can be seen as a dereliction of professional duty. Finally, an approach that focuses solely on the owner’s stated desire to sell, without independently verifying the horse’s fitness for the intended purpose, is also flawed. While client communication is important, the veterinarian’s primary duty is to the animal’s welfare and professional ethics. Blindly adhering to the owner’s wishes without independent clinical judgment compromises the veterinarian’s role as an objective assessor of health and fitness. The professional decision-making process should involve: 1) Clearly identifying the competing interests and ethical obligations. 2) Conducting a comprehensive and objective clinical assessment. 3) Documenting all findings accurately and thoroughly. 4) Communicating findings clearly and honestly to the owner, explaining the implications for the horse’s welfare and suitability for competition. 5) Adhering to professional codes of conduct and relevant sporting regulations. 6) Prioritizing the animal’s welfare and the integrity of the sport in all recommendations and actions.