With the Palace of Versailles as a backdrop, Pedro Veniss, a Brazilian rider, led his horse Nimrod de Muze Império Egipcio, a warmblood, through an impeccable jumping course in an Olympic qualifier, practically guaranteeing his country a place in the team competition at the 2024 Olympic Games in France.
But, when stopping the horse for a routine health inspection moments later, a competition official felt the animal and removed a white-gloved hand from the animal’s side, stained with blood.
The horse had suffered a scratch and was therefore in violation of a strict and long-standing rule that disqualifies any rider whose animal bleeds for any reason. Veniss —and, consequently, the entire Brazilian Olympic team— was immediately eliminated from the competition.
On January 1, this rule — known as the “blood rule” — will be significantly relaxed for equestrianism, following a year-long review process in which the FEI (International Equestrian Federation), which governs the sport, decided to switch from immediate disqualification for bloodied horses to a system that relies on stewards’ discretion, with the possibility of warnings similar to yellow cards and suspension for repeat offenders.
“This process has been inclusive, involving consultation with all relevant stakeholders — including athletes, national federations and experts from across sport,” Áine Power, the federation’s executive director of sport and games, wrote in an email. “The final decision reflects what the FEI believes is best for the horse and the long-term improvement of the sport.”
The decision, announced this year, caused great repercussion in the equestrian world. More than 100,000 people have signed a petition to stop the change, arguing that it amounts to leniency that allows the mistreatment of horses. On the other hand, some of the sport’s top athletes spoke out publicly in favor of the change, claiming that the old blood rule was draconian and unfairly treated minor accidental cuts and scrapes in the same way as abuse that causes bleeding.
The repeal of the rule seems, to some, a contradiction in a sport that, for years, has been strengthening protections for horses following abuse scandals — British dressage star Charlotte Dujardin withdrew from the Olympics after being caught on video repeatedly whipping a horse and suspended by the FEI, to cite one notorious example.
These critics of the rule change accuse the federation of bowing to pressure from deep-pocketed, influential figures to loosen the rules, and fear that the negative image will harm the viability of equestrian sport in general, at a time when public approval of working with animals, from circuses to carriage rides, has fallen sharply.
The move is “a huge step backwards”, Andrew McLean, the FEI’s official equine welfare consultant, wrote in trade publication Horse Sport, saying the international federation had gone against the recommendation of its animal rights group. “To me, there has never been a more bizarre and stupid example of digging one’s own grave.”
For others, like Brazilian Olympian Rodrigo Pessoa, who lost his place in the Olympic team competition due to what happened to Nimrod, this is a prudent change that takes into account the realities of working as a team with equine athletes, and does not equate an accidental injury with cruelty.
“When he was eliminated from the Olympic Games, four years of work, dedication and investment went down the drain,” said Pessoa. “The consequence was too great compared to the infraction, it was not equitable.”
Out of approximately 340,000 batteries in the last 12 months through October, there were 101 bleeding-related disposals, or less than 3%, according to data compiled by the FEI; four riders were eliminated more than once.
Allowing competition officials more discretion in determining whether an injury was accidental — for example, to consider whether a cut on the horse’s side was an incidental scratch or an injury caused by excessive use of spurs, or whether, in the case of blood in the mouth, the horse bit its own tongue, rather than having the rider use the bit too hard — Pessoa said, is not about allowing cruelty, but rather about promoting justice.
“Some people are saying, ‘Oh, they repealed the rule so they could hurt the horses’ — these are people who don’t understand the sport and don’t understand how these things happen,” Pessoa said.
Claudia Sanders, editor of Dressur-Studien magazine, an equestrian publication, who created the Change.org petition against the rule change, does not dispute that the old rule treated accidents and mistreatment in the same way. To her, that was the point: “We are responsible for the animal — even if it’s a small accident, we must stop it because horses can’t defend themselves,” she said.
“The reputation and future of the sport depend on ethical practices that respect our equine partners and recognize their contributions and limitations,” Sanders wrote in his petition. “Equestrian sports should not be a blood sport.”
For some riders, the public outrage ignores that, in some ways, the new rules are stricter, said Eleonora Moroni Ottaviani, director of the International Jumping Riders Club.
The new rules include a provision that suspends a repeat rider, rather than simply eliminating him from the competition heat. The new rules also require the jury, in consultation with a veterinarian, to clear an injured horse before it can compete again, something that was not required before. For dressage and competition disciplines, in which riders jump natural obstacles, the rules regarding blood remain the same.
“Bleeding and gore should not exist in our sport, but we do not consider the sanction to be proportionate” for the jump, Ottaviani said. The new rule, according to her, takes accidents into account, while being stricter towards aggressors. “When it comes to horse abuse, we have to prosecute the offender, and the rider has to stay out of our sport.”
