UC Davis cuts entire equestrian team — then furious parents investigated ⁠92%

By Benjamin Brown⁠0%

6/28/2026, 5:45:22 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Special Pleading, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 30.1% saturation with 151 hits. Analysis detected 1,256 faulty-reasoning hits from 501 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,894 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.40% of the article peer group.

Despite winning its third conference championship in March, a California university abruptly ended its top-ranked equestrian program — leaving student-athletes stranded without a team and a college to attend. 
University of California, Davis announced its shocking decision to cut equestrian as an intercollegiate sport in January, citing an external review from Collegiate Consulting that analyzed the cost of the program to justify its decision, The Chronicle reported. 
Parents said the team was heartbroken about the decision, which left student athletes in limbo as the deadline to transfer to another program had already passed. 
Some students who were recently recruited to the team have since been turned away and denied regular admission to UC Davis. 
While the university largely cited budget constraints to eliminate the program, emails and documents obtained by parents and provided to The Chronicle paint a much different picture — revealing school leadership was still recruiting and soliciting donations up until a month before the announcement, despite holding internal conversations planning to axe the program for the past year. 
An independent audit of the university’s report is also coming under fire for allegedly misrepresenting the true cost of the equestrian program, which supporters argue would actually net the university up to $700,000 annually. 
The was seemingly confirmed in August, when an athletic budget spreadsheet said axing the program was approved pending an external review, according to the outlet. 
But that third-party analysis was completed after the university announced its decision to end the equestrian program sparking outrage from parents and student-athletes. 
Supporters of the team are now pushing back, telling The Chronicle that UC Davis athletics director Rocko DeLuca was merely looking for an excuse to frame the program as too expensive. 
“I don’t understand why they’re not reinstating the team,” said Sigrid Elschot, a parent of an equestrian athlete. 
“We don’t even have a locker room.” 
Schwarz also said the report didn't take into account that many of the students pay out-of-state tuition, and estimated the university could bring in up to $700,000 annually. 
UC Davis issued a statement back in April, defending its decision to cut the program. 
“We believe that all policies and practices were followed and that decisions regarding the Equestrian program were made appropriately and with the best interests of the UC Davis community in mind,” the university said in a statement. 
The school is conducting its own review to determine the reliability of the financial information that was used to evaluate the program and the fundraising practices — but its findings won’t be released until June 30, the equestrian team’s final day, The Chronicle noted. 
Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters 
California Post News: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn 
California Post Sports Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X 
California Post Opinion 
California Post Newsletters: Sign up here! 
California Post App: Download here! 
Home delivery: Sign up here! 
Page Six Hollywood: Sign up here! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.6%Benjamin Brown: 6.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Benjamin Brown: 5.2%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.5%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.8%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.5%Benjamin Brown: 14.1%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect28.5%This article: 5.2%Benjamin Brown: 2.1%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion5.2%This article: 8.8%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Benjamin Brown: 3.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 30.1%Benjamin Brown: 20.6%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias30.1%This article: 17.2%Benjamin Brown: 4.3%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 3.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.4%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.6%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.4%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.6%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Benjamin Brown: 2.1%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem6.2%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.0%Benjamin Brown: 4.5%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority15.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.0%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.9%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.8%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.2%Benjamin Brown: 10.1%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization4.2%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.3%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.4%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.4%Benjamin Brown: 8.3%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion23.4%This article: 7.4%Benjamin Brown: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question7.4%This article: 4.6%Benjamin Brown: 3.8%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.6%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.6%Benjamin Brown: 1.5%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.6%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.0%Benjamin Brown: 5.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%Benjamin Brown: 2.4%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.3%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 20.2%Benjamin Brown: 1.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading20.2%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.6%Benjamin Brown: 2.5%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote10.6%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.4%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.8%Benjamin Brown: 12.1%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice8.8%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 1.1%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 0.1%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Brown: 3.6%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Benjamin Brown: 1.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.4%

501 words analyzed.

Speakers

9speakers32%attributed speech340writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of California, Davis • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageSigrid Elschot • 18 words • 100.0% coverageSigrid Elschot • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageUC Davis • 15 words • 0.0% coverageUC Davis • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageThe California Post App • 14 words • 100.0% coverageCalifornia Post News • 10 words • 100.0% coverageCalifornia Post Sports • 8 words • 100.0% coverageCalifornia Post Opinion • 3 words • 100.0% coverageCalifornia Post Newsletters • 6 words • 100.0% coverageCalifornia Post App • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

UC Davis

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words32% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.9 ptsWriter: 12.9%UC Davis: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%UC Davis: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%UC Davis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.