A word from your President…
Dear members,
Blood can be fun! You don’t need to be a big fan of Halloween to enjoy a Bloody Mary or listen to Blood, Sweat & Tears (yes, the band that sang “Spinning Wheel”, a song that some of you may remember from history lessons). However, blood is no fun at all when it plays a role in the equestrian world. There are many opinions on the matter, briefly described as the ‘blood rule’, which will be discussed and voted on at the FEI General Assembly in Hong Kong later this week. In fact, the term itself, which has become a general term in the current discussion, is misleading. There is not just one “blood rule”, but rather rules for each discipline. The one that has been receiving particular attention recently is the showjumping rule.
First things first: the current discussion. As the FEI states in a briefing document in preparation for the GA, the current FEI Jumping Rules do not include provisions to verify a horse’s fitness to compete in subsequent competitions following a case of blood. This illustrates the general perspective. The FEI has the athletes (the two-legged ones, of course) at heart. If a horse bleeds in a qualifier but the rider wants to ride this horse in the Grand Prix the next day, this would be possible if the rule change is agreed. The FEI argues that most blood is detected after the round is finished. So far, so good. However, perhaps the focus should be broadened. It is often believed that blood in the mouth of a showjumping horse is caused by the horse accidentally biting its tongue or lips.
Given that the equipment used in showjumping classes often consists of dozens of shanks, bits, nosebands, and ropes, it is understandable that the public questions the ‘lip or tongue-cause’ explanation that is often given. Moreover, showjumping classes broadcast by non-stakeholder-controlled institutions (i.e., not FEI TV or other streaming platforms funded by the horse industry) usually show slow-motion sequences after the round has finished. They often use close-ups focusing on the horse’s face. If blood is visible, the public may question this, especially if the horse that bled in the qualifier goes on to win the big prize two days later in the Grand Prix. It takes considerable communication skills to provide an answer that satisfies public opinion.
With the proposed rule change, horses bleeding from the mouth or nose (we all remember the shocking pictures broadcast worldwide from the Tokyo Olympic Games in 2021) will no longer be disqualified. The horses should be checked by stewards and veterinarians, and if they deem the horse fit to compete, it can continue. However, bleeding on the flank, which sounds much better than bleeding caused by the rider’s spurs, is still a reason for elimination. It seems that the FEI feels the need to justify this rule change. ‘The proposed revision does not reduce the level of protection for horses (it actually improves it), nor does it consider bleeding to be inconsequential’. In cases where the ‘lip or tongue-cause’ is not applicable, recorded warnings should be given to riders who receive two warnings within one year. They will be fined CHF 1,000 (USD 1,235 or EUR 1,075) and suspended for a month. I hope the public will be able – and willing – to understand this.
Secondly: Different disciplines have different rules. In dressage, for example, there is a zero-tolerance policy regarding blood during competitions. This is easy for both stakeholders and the public to understand. Does that make sense? The case of US team rider Marcus Orlov, whose horse Jane was bleeding from a small cut on the cannon bone of her hind leg in the Olympic Grand Prix 2024, shows how tough this rule is. The rider certainly wasn’t involved in causing the injury, but the bell was rung and the team was eliminated.
As we all know, eventers have three days of competition, which makes this a three-day -involving-three-different-sets-of-rules-event (sorry for using so many hyphens, I am German, apologies). In dressage, fresh blood leads to elimination. During the cross-country phase, the Ground Jury decides on a case-by-case basis how to deal with blood detected in areas where it might be induced by the rider. In the final showjumping phase, minor bleeding might not be penalised, but horses bleeding from the flank(s) and/or mouth will be eliminated.
And what about the audience? We can only hope that they are educated enough to understand the distinction. Or will they scream out “bloody …”?
Why am I writing this long text? To remind you of the FEI General Assembly, which you can follow online. I don’t want to be too gloomy, nor do I want to imply that any of the stakeholders do not understand that the welfare of the horse is paramount. This little reminder should make us all realise how important rule revisions can be for our future. It is also good to know who came up with which arguments in the discussion in Hong Kong for future text to write or for any comments that we be asked for.
In Germany, we already have an online petition called ‘Save the No Blood Rule’, which has been signed by more than 58,000 people so far.
That’s all for now – I’m off to listen to the U2 classic, ‘Sunday Bloody Sunday’.
Best wishes,
Jan Tönjes
President IAEJ
