03/11/2025
𝐁𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩!
It’s a long one BUT very important one regards the blood rule, so grab a cuppa of tae and read on.
When Germany speaks, the FEI should listen. The German Equestrian Federation (FN) has refused to back the FEI’s proposal to relax the so called “blood rule” in showjumping, calling it “incompatible with the principle of horse welfare.” Austria and Denmark have taken the same position. Three major federations, all saying the same thing, this isn’t progress it’s a problem.
The decision will be voted on 7 November in Hong Kong, when more than 130 national delegates gather for the FEI General Assembly. On the agenda is whether visible blood on a horse will still mean immediate elimination or merely a recorded warning and a rinse.
Under the current rule, any horse showing blood on the flanks or in the mouth is eliminated. The only leeway is if a horse clearly bites its own lip or tongue once the steward may wipe it, and the horse can continue. Simple. Understandable. Welfare first.
The new version would introduce “recorded warnings.”
•If the blood comes from rider action or equipment, spurs, bits, tight nosebands the rider would get a written warning.
•If it’s judged “self inflicted” or “natural,” the horse could continue without sanction once a vet declares it fit.
•Only after two warnings in a year would a fine and brief suspension follow.
The FEI insists this aligns jumping with eventing, where discretion already exists. Supporters call it “proportionate.” The International Jumping Riders Club (IJRC) argues the current rule is too rigid, that it punishes honest riders for trivial scratches.
But “trivial” and “blood” don’t belong in the same sentence.
For the Germany FN, the rule change “conflicts directly with the principle of horse welfare.”
Denmark says it “does not take into account the interests of the horse.”
Austria warns it “weakens animal protection and endangers credibility.”
They’re not alone. Over 46 000 signatures now sit beneath a petition launched by Dressur Studien, urging the FEI to leave the rule untouched and to strengthen it in other disciplines where exceptions still exist.
That many voices don’t gather for a technicality. They gather because they know what happens when you start justifying visible injury.
This isn’t the first attempt. In 2011, a similar plan was floated to soften the dressage blood rule. The backlash was immediate, global, and successful. Riders, vets, and fans said what they’re saying now, the line is there for a reason.
The current debate was reignited after Paris 2024, when Brazil’s Pedro Veniss was eliminated during the team qualifier for a faint smear on his horse’s flank barely visible until a steward’s glove picked it up. His teammate, Olympic champion Rodrigo Pessoa, called the decision disproportionate. The IJRC took up the banner.
Their frustration is understandable; elimination at that level is devastating. But the answer isn’t to dilute the rule. It’s to accept that the rule protects the horse and the sport’s integrity, even when it hurts in the moment.
𝐁𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧
Call it a nick, a rub, or bad luck if you like. If a horse is bleeding, we stop. We don’t debate it while the clock’s running.
That’s not sentimentality; that’s good governance. Visible blood means tissue damage. Maybe minor, maybe not but enough to show stress or friction where there shouldn’t be any. Continuing under saddle adds risk of deeper injury, infection, or pain.
FEI officials talk about being “proportionate.” But fair to who? The rider who clipped a medal because their horse nicked itself or the horse that can’t speak up?
Stewards will now be expected to decide in seconds whether bleeding is “natural” or “rider caused,” whether the horse can continue, and how much blood is too much. All under Olympic pressure. That’s not fairness that’s chaos waiting to happen.
Equestrian sport survives on trust, from the public, from sponsors, and from its own grassroots. Every photo of a horse finishing a round with blood on its mouth or sides chips at that trust. It doesn’t matter whether the vet calls it “minor.” To the audience, it looks like suffering and perception shapes permission.
At a time when animal use sports are under increasing scrutiny, the FEI cannot afford to appear casual about welfare. As one welfare analyst wrote recently, “The social licence to operate is not renewed automatically; it is earned daily by putting the animal first.”
𝐈𝐟 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥, 𝐟𝐢𝐱 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬
If the FEI genuinely wants to avoid “unjust eliminations,” start upstream:
Better tack regulation. Tight nosebands, severe bits, and ill fitting spurs cause most mouth and flank injuries. Enforce existing standards and publish measurements.
𝗣𝗿𝗲- 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁-𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸𝘀. Proper veterinary inspection, not a glance and a wipe gives real data and protects horses quietly, without spectacle.
𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬. Riders whose horses repeatedly show mouth or flank lesions shouldn’t collect warnings; they should collect suspensions.
𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Teach that blood is a symptom of something to correct, not a PR issue to manage.
That’s proportionality that means something, because it prevents harm before it happens.
On 7 November, delegates will decide whether welfare remains a principle or becomes a paragraph. Germany, Denmark and Austria will vote no. Others may waver. The FEI will talk about “modernisation,” “alignment,” and “fairness.”
𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬.
Blood means stop.
No debate, no warning system, no cosmetic wipe downs. Because if we lose that clarity, we lose the moral ground that keeps this sport alive.
𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞, 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.
Photo Credit: RHP ( thank you for the prompt to to talk about this and photo)
