*Exclusive* Are the blood rules in FEI horse sport working – and how can we move forward?

The rules relating to cases of blood seen on sport horses while competing in the Olympic disciplines have long applied – and been the subject of debate. The FEI states the rules exist “to protect our horses, and there can be no grey areas when it comes to horse welfare”.

It’s important to note that not all cases of blood mean there is a welfare issue or that a rider has done something wrong. The FEI states “eliminations for blood-related reasons do not imply that there was any intent to injure the horse” and that many incidents are “minor or accidental”. But the consequences are different across the disciplines.

In dressage rules, fresh blood results in elimination. If the judge at C suspects blood on a horse during a test, they will be stopped and, if fresh blood is confirmed, eliminated. If no fresh blood is detected, they may continue.

Fresh blood in the horse’s mouth or area of spurs during the post-test tack check results in elimination, and blood found elsewhere on the body will result in an examination by a vet, who will advise on the horse’s fitness to continue in further competition.

But there are different procedures in showjumping and eventing.

The showjumping rules state that blood (fresh is not stipulated) on the horse’s flanks results in elimination. In cases of horses bleeding in the mouth, “such as where the horse appears to have bitten its tongue or lip”, officials may authorise the rinsing or wiping of the mouth, and allow the combination to continue. But any further evidence of blood results in elimination.

In eventing, the same approach is taken in the dressage phase as the above dressage rules.

For cross-country, the rules state “all athlete induced (spurs, bit and whip) blood must be reviewed case by case”; if the horse shows fresh blood, officials may authorise the rinsing or wiping of the mouth and horses may continue if no further bleeding. Cases of “significant blood” will result in elimination.

In the showjumping phase, blood on the flanks or mouth result in elimination – but the rules add that for “minor cases, such as where a horse appears to have bitten its tongue or lip” officials may wipe the mouth and allow them to continue.

These differences have often generated discussion and questions.

H&H asked the FEI why the rules differ, and was told the disciplines have their own individual sport rules under the relevant technical committee, and “historically, this has led to each discipline codifying their own rules on how cases of blood are handled”.

“The FEI believes that this is an appropriate approach given the significant differences between the disciplines and is generally well accepted by stakeholders,” said an FEI spokesperson.

“Blood is naturally emotive”

Andrew Gardner was a judging supervisory panel member for the dressage at the Paris Olympics and a ground jury member of the Tokyo Olympics. He is a former director of British Dressage and former member of the FEI dressage technical committee.

He told H&H that the judges’ responsibility is “very clear”.

“In dressage, if there is fresh blood on the horse, the judge at C has to apply the rule – and that’s all there is to it. Whether there is a lot of blood or a small amount, the cause is irrelevant to the action that has to be taken,” he said, adding that “horse welfare has to be the paramount element”.

But Mr Gardner added that in his opinion these situations can “sometimes lose context because the outcome is always elimination – but the cause is not assessed by a vet and the public is left to draw its own conclusion”.

“This may not always be fair or accurate,” he said.

“The word ‘blood’ is naturally emotive. It always needs assessment, but what worries me is the risk of inference that with blood there’s a suggestion of a welfare breach, and that can be wrong. We know that blood can be caused by unfortunate, but nevertheless innocent things, like a horse biting and catching its tongue or lip, a fly bite, or a graze. While this always needs to be checked, elimination can be a significant price to pay,” he said.

“However if a rider inflicts harm, that is very different and must be dealt with, and everybody would agree.”

Former international rider Nick Burton was president of the eventing ground jury at the Tokyo Olympics, and officiates at five-star events. He told H&H he can see why there are differences in the rules.

“In eventing we know there is more risk because horses are jumping and there is the chance for impact – but I can see the argument for the rules being the same,” he said.

“No matter what the discipline, at no point should it be acceptable that a horse continues to compete while bleeding, there’s no decision to make.”

Mr Burton has officiated at high-profile events where horses have been stopped for blood. In eventing cross-country, when the ground jury stops a horse, it is checked by a vet before any decision is made on whether it can continue.

“In one case, the horse was checked and it had a very minor graze that wiped clean, and the horse was restarted,” said Mr Burton.

“I’ve also had a situation where a horse was checked and the bleeding continued, so the rider was eliminated. In those cases we have an interview with the rider and they receive an FEI warning card, because the FEI needs to know about these things – and if that’s a recurring situation then obviously something is going very wrong.

“The ground jury has a lot of responsibility, and welfare is the highest priority, but we’re also very aware of the perception of what we’re doing with these animals – and whether that looks OK. If I went to a circus or zoo and saw animals bleeding, I wouldn’t be happy to see that.”

The recording of blood offences

Another discussion point is how blood cases are recorded. A yellow card or warning is not always issued, and is based on the “specific circumstances of the case”.

The eventing rules state that for all “minor cases of blood induced by athlete in the mouth or related to spurs, a recorded warning [which is different to a yellow card] will be issued” – and serious cases indicating abuse, will be dealt with under the abuse of horse rules.

The FEI warning cards database for eventing shows 29 warnings issued between 12 April 2019 and 7 December 2024 for “minor” cases of blood – but these are also recorded as “abuse of horse”. When H&H questioned why they were recorded as abuse when they are “minor”, the FEI said the reference to abuse for these cases was an “input error and the warning list will be updated accordingly”.

In the showjumping official warning database one case appears; of “blood on the horse’s flanks” – and the separate warning cards list does not specifically mention any cases of blood, nor does the dressage warning card list.

In showjumping and dressage, all offences are categorised under “abuse of horse”, “incorrect behaviour” and non-compliance with headgear and sport rules. Both the showjumping and dressage databases list abuse of horse cases, but these do not specify any further details, and it cannot be assumed blood was involved.

Mr Burton said that where he has officiated and there have been blood-related stoppages, none have been abuse-related. But the blood offence on the FEI eventing warning card states “caused by the athlete”, and does not give an option for an injury caused by a graze on a fence, or a horse striking into itself, for example.

“These situations can be emotive, but as a ground jury we have to take action. I once had a rider refuse to sign the card because they said they didn’t cause the blood, and they probably didn’t, but they still received the recorded warning,” he said.

“It’s like a stain on your career”

The International Jumping Riders Club (IJRC) has been outspoken about the rules in showjumping, which will undergo a full revision in 2025. The elimination of Brazilian rider Pedro Veniss at the Paris Games for a “micro case” of blood on Nimrod De Muze’s flanks – taking the Brazilian team out of the competition – generated further discussion.

“No one wants to see a horse with blood on the sides, but the consequences of elimination are also bad for the image of the sport,” said IJRC president François Mathy Jr.

“To be eliminated from the Olympics, the perception is you must have done something really bad; the public will see this as mistreatment.

“Ours is an action sport. If there is a little scratch, no more than a bite from a fly, which is unintentional and requires no veterinary attention, elimination is a huge consequence and unfairly disproportionate.”

New Zealand showjumper Daniel Meech agrees with the IJRC that there should be other options available to stewards, such as issuing a warning, before elimination.

Daniel was eliminated from the Tokyo Olympic individual showjumping final when Cinca 3 was found to have what was deemed to be a spur mark, during the post-competition tack check. Photos showed that Cinca had no wound, rub or sore – and Daniel had never been eliminated for blood previously, or since.

“We do everything for the safety and welfare of our horses, trying to make their lives as comfortable as possible – we don’t want these things to happen. The mark was so small, it was almost a scratch. It wasn’t bleeding, it was an innocent, unlucky accident,” Daniel told H&H.

“In New Zealand we don’t have many showjumpers making the final of an Olympics, and although I wasn’t in the running for a medal, instead of a result, your record says eliminated. It suggests you’ve done something intentional, and that’s there for the rest of your life. It’s like a stain on your career, and you’re almost made to feel like a criminal.

“We work our whole lives for these moments. You have sponsors, owners, and then the public watching – there’s a big scandal, people hear ‘spur mark’ and start speculating.

“If someone is being aggressive or mistreating their horse they should be eliminated and dealt with. But when an accidental scratch disqualifies you from the biggest event in the world, it feels like there might be better ways to handle these things”.

The Swedish approach

Sweden’s national blood rules are the same across the disciplines and have been in place for around 10 years. Notably during the country’s rule revision every two years, the public has the opportunity to give input.

Under the Swedish federation’s rules, if blood is detected anywhere on the horse during competition, the rider must immediately stop and is eliminated. A judge assesses whether the blood has been caused by the rider or not – and if so, a further penalty is issued.

Robert Solin of the federation’s sport department told H&H Sweden’s rules work “very well” and that rider-induced blood cases are “very rare”. During this year’s FEI rules revision the federation proposed a similar system by making the blood rules the same across the disciplines – but this did not make it to the vote at the general assembly. The FEI said proposals to have a “one-size-fits-all” rule have “typically not received widespread support”.

Mr Solin acknowledged that in cases of blood not caused by the rider, it is challenging to cover all instances in a rulebook.

“No regulations are perfect, but they should be as good as possible. We are dependent on what society thinks and it’s really a matter of the existence of horse sport or not – that’s what’s at stake,” he said. “That’s why we want the FEI to assess the rules to make them equal, understandable and applicable – and officials and stakeholders need to know the rules.

“Officials need to be able to say to the public – and riders: ‘We made this decision for these reasons,’ because when decisions are put under scrutiny it is very important to have people that can explain them.”

Mr Solin said the FEI has made good progress on horse welfare and public perception, but highlighted the challenges the FEI faces.

“The FEI is an international organisation with more than 130 member bodies, and the way we view horses is not the same all over the globe. It’s very difficult to move forward sometimes, because it has to be a majority,” he said. “The question is how do you get all these nations to come together?”

Andrew Gardner believes the FEI and national federations “are making a big effort to address the current issues for the benefit of the sport and with the horse as the main priority”. But he questions whether in dressage blood cases should always be dealt with in the same way and lead to rider elimination, or in cases at the Olympics, potential team elimination.

At the Paris Olympics, US dressage rider Marcus Orlob was eliminated when his ride Jane was found to have a “very minor cut”, having knocked herself prior to entering the arena, resulting in the loss of the US team.

Mr Gardner asked if it “would be better” if in these instances a vet examined the horse, and if deemed to be “100% well”, they are allowed to continue.

“That could be a fair way all-round, and could be in the interest of the sport, without ever prejudicing the best care and respect of the horse. Hopefully this would allow the public to be confident in a process that puts the horse first but does not unfairly infer criticism without justification,” he said.

A British Equestrian spokesperson told H&H the current blood rules “largely do what’s required” taking into account the differences across disciplines.

“Ensuring consistency in the implementation and enforcement of those rules can be more of a challenge,” said the spokesperson.

“Riders should have clarity over how and when rules are implemented for a fair and transparent playing field with equine and human welfare of utmost importance. Equally, we must ensure there is support in place for officials, so they have the confidence to make decisions under extreme pressure and act on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of the horse.”

US Equestrian (USEF) believes there is an opportunity for a “degree of cross-discipline harmonisation” of the rules.

“With Marcus Orlob’s elimination it was disappointing as we could not finish as a team, but as we stated during the Games, we respect the rules and understand why the decision was made,” a USEF spokesperson told H&H.

“Without a drop score, it does present challenges, and we are open to having discussion on this rule going forward.”

Olympic dressage rider Laura Tomlinson believes there cannot be grey areas in rules.

“We need to be in a place where ultimate respect for the animal is shown, and that has to be that we’re happy to sacrifice success in those moments,” she told H&H.

But when elimination of a rider can result in the elimination of a team, Laura questions whether there could be a separate rule around blood on limbs caused by minor knocks or grazes.

“It’s a tricky one to sift apart and I can see why it’s cleaner to have a rule with no room for error. But when a horse can spook and nick itself for example, and you’ve spun a whole team, that seems brutal,” she said.

Laura, who has never had a blood-related elimination, said although she does not specifically worry about the possibility of an incident when riding, she thinks about public perception.

“People are desperate to capture a bad image or a little moment. At the moment I’m not at the very top in the sense that I’m not one of the few riders that everyone is watching, but I have been there before and I know what it’s like to feel completely scrutinised,” she said.

“Sport should never be prioritised over equine welfare”

Vet Hans-Christian Matthiesen, a five-star dressage judge and head of the International Dressage Officials Club, believes the blood rules in dressage are “quite clear” and for the outside world “easy to understand” – but said in the ideal world “we should have the same rules across the disciplines, and this is something we need to work on for the future”.

Mr Matthiesen added that although there is a difference between blood from a rider-induced injury and a horse injuring itself, communicating this is challenging.

“It’s still the same picture; a horse with blood on it in competition, and we don’t want that. That’s something we have to be really careful about,” he said.

“In some situations the horse might knock himself, or hit the fence, and we kind of accept that in the horse world. But that is difficult to defend with any good arguments, because although a horse might not be lame, even with a small scratch, they are likely to feel pain.”

Discussing how we communicate blood-related incidents to the public, Nick Burton believes riders and owners can play a role.

“I think they should take responsibility by putting out a statement and make a very clear message about their concern for their horse, and reassurance that their horse is OK. For me that would be quite powerful,” he said.

World Horse Welfare chief executive Roly Owers told H&H the charity feels the blood rules are “appropriate and working well”.

“Of course, there is room for improvement, as it is immensely difficult to create rules covering every eventuality and will not inadvertently penalise individuals who have just suffered bad luck,” he said.

“But the principle of the rules – that we should take a zero-tolerance approach to allowing horses to compete when they have open wounds – is sound in terms of protecting equine welfare and the image of the sport.”

He added that having the same rules for all disciplines would help with understanding – from inside and outside the sport..

“We acknowledge, however, that the magnitude of risk for a horse going cross-country is very different from that of a horse doing a dressage test – and any rule needs to be realistic,” he said.

H&H asked Mr Owers if blood-related scenarios can ever be deemed ‘OK’ or defended, for example when a horse knocks itself.

“No injury that breaks the skin and draws blood can be described as ‘OK’ and these occurrences should never be accepted as a by-product of the sport. Everything needs to be done to avoid injury to horses, no matter how it occurs,” he said.

“I acknowledge there will always be ‘bad luck’ stories. But sometimes an injury that doesn’t appear to be caused by something the rider ‘did’ may happen because of the way the horse is ridden or reacts to the situation – and this is often down to the way they have been prepared and trained.”

Mr Owers concluded that the most important point is that the “reality of the sport should never be prioritised over equine welfare”.

● What are your thoughts on the blood rules in horse sport? Write to us at hhletters@futurenet.com, including your name, nearest town and country, for the chance for your letter to appear in a forthcoming issue of the magazine

You may also be interested in: