Petition against the FEI "Blood rule" in dressage competitions

M

majoky

New User
Joined
14 August 2008
Messages
9
Location
Germany
www.dressur-studien.de
There is a great outcry against the so-called "FEI Blood rule" and an international petition has been launched recently. It has already been signed by many international riders i.e. Laura Bechtoldsheimer, Klaus Balkenhol, Steffen Peters and Walter Zettl.

http://no-fei.com/

"We ask the delegates of the FEI General Assembly to denounce the so called “Blood Rule”. A bleeding horse in a dressage test must always be rung out and disqualified as before. Dressage has to be sport which embodies the harmony between rider and horse. A bleeding horse can not compete in a dressage test, no matter how “minor” or “heavy” the bleeding injury is. Dressage is not a blood sport, no matter if the bleeding is accidental or proof of a training issue."

I don't know if this has been posted before. Maybe you would like to sign :-)
 
In a nutshell, a horse will be inspected if any blood for a minor injury is seen on it. Providing the bleeding stops the horse can continue the test.

I read this as meaning a cut from the mouth or spur mark.
 
Yes, that's it in a nutshell.
Adelinde Cornelissen has experienced that last year (there is a thread somewhere in the H&H forum, too) - her horse bled (mouth) and she had to quit the competition.
The new rule as the FEI wants to put it would be that a vet decides if the injury that led to the bleeding is a minor injury or not. If he decides "minor" she could restart again.
Regarding that dressage should be more elegant and lighter and the riders aids more subtle and invisible the higher the horse is educated this rule is sheer irony.
 
amymay said:
If you look at the petition it explains everything quite clearly.
Click to expand...
Sorry for being thick (apparently). All I could see on the petition site was the text above in various languages. As I read it, the text above doesn't say what the "Blood Rule" is that they want denounced, but rather what they want in its place. Do I have this wrong? :confused:

ETA: Ok, I see from what majoky wrote and what you wrote earlier, the "FEI Blood Rule" allows (or proposes to allow) horses that are still bleeding to compete provided the injury that is causing the bleeding is sufficiently minor (or something like that). However, that wasn't stated in the petition - hence my question.
 
Last edited:
fburton said:
Sorry for being thick (apparently). All I could see on the petition site was the text above in various languages. As I read it, the text above doesn't say what the "Blood Rule" is that they want denounced, but rather what they want in its place. Do I have this wrong? :confused:

ETA: Ok, I see from what majoky wrote and what you wrote earlier, the "FEI Blood Rule" allows (or proposes to allow) horses that are still bleeding to compete provided the injury that is causing the bleeding is sufficiently minor (or something like that). However, that wasn't stated in the petition - hence my question.
Click to expand...

Under the banner heading of the horse with the bleedin mouth is a set of buttons. One entitled Information 'Blood Rule'.
 
amymay said:
Under the banner heading of the horse with the bleedin mouth is a set of buttons. One entitled Information 'Blood Rule'.
Click to expand...
Thanks, got it now! (I missed the relevant part of the banner because it was displayed in a tiny font.)

ETA: Signed.
 
Last edited:
I'm in two minds about this now. I mean, the original rule could mean that a horse who, I don't know, nicked their quarters in the way of a horse being a horse, and then a scab got knocked off, wouldn't be allowed to compete. The new ruling seems to appear to be made for these sorts of cases, where the horse's welfare is not compromised by him continuing in his competition.

I mean, say the horse chewed a splinter or something, and such an injury is liable to start bleeding again under the elevated blood pressure that would normally be associated with competition... is that really cause to prevent a horse from continuing in world class competition, if a vet can be satisfied that the horse isn't under any welfare compromise?

There seem to be too many other complicating factors here. I totally agree that any whip, bit, spur or equipment injury is unacceptable in its entirity, but there are 1001 other reasons why a horse may bleed - I mean, a horsefly will draw blood - some of these reasons are no good reason at all to force a healthy horse and rider to retire.

...unless I am missing some obvious point, I actually agree with the amendment?
 
I've read several of the sites explaining the rule, all on the "against" side, and I'm still a bit confused about some details. It appears to me that currently, there is no distinction made between blood that is probably related to the rider or the tack (such as spur marks, blood in the mouth), and blood from, say, an insect bite on the bum. Is this the case? I would agree that there shouldn't be any tolerance of blood resulting from the rider's aids, but I'd be worried about implementing a rule that would mean automatic elimination for a fly bite...
 
I've signed, its more likely to protect horses from rough handling than trying to cover every reason why a horse might bleed.

If there's blood then your out seems the best option.
 
spookypony said:
I've read several of the sites explaining the rule, all on the "against" side, and I'm still a bit confused about some details. It appears to me that currently, there is no distinction made between blood that is probably related to the rider or the tack (such as spur marks, blood in the mouth), and blood from, say, an insect bite on the bum. Is this the case? I would agree that there shouldn't be any tolerance of blood resulting from the rider's aids, but I'd be worried about implementing a rule that would mean automatic elimination for a fly bite...
Click to expand...
The rule "If the judge sees blood - you are out" already exists and it applies to competitors of all degrees. If there is blood on the pony of a beginner during a competition he will be ruled out. What the FEI tries is to create an exception for the best of the best (the best equipped horses, perfectly trained and groomed, with the best international riders available on their backs): If a horse bleeds in an international competition or a championship for whatever reason the rider should be allowed to start again if a vet declares the injury as a "minor" injury. This is ridiculous (following the idea that Grand Prix riders should know their job and can control seat, hand and spurs...) and it opens the floodgates to possible manipulation, too. Horse performs badly? Just one hard tick with the spur, minor injury, have a break and restart later?
 
It sounds to me like this once, the language then needs to be more precise? The proposed rule change, as given on the Eurodressage page linked above, says "resume" the test, not "restart" the test. I agree that there shouldn't be one rule at top levels, and another at lower levels, and that blood resulting from the rider's aids shouldn't be tolerated; however, the amendment proposed further down on the same page stikes me as not quite precise enough---shouldn't the judge have a bit of leeway, for example, to ignore the fly-bite mentioned above? Not sure what the answer is, as not a lawyer!
 
When I was judging on the panel some a few years ago, the welfare rule was brought in. We were "empowered" by this to stop any competitor whose horse was marked by whip, spurs or bit but it was at our discretion. The idea behind it was to try to demonstrate that injuries caused directly by hamfisted or clumsy riding resulting in an injury to the horse (however minor) would not be tolerated.

I then witnessed a rider working in at the regional championships wearing rowelled spurs who continually jabbed her horse in the ribs on one side, virtually at every step he took, so much so that blood was clearly visible and the skin was obviously broken.

I approached a very senior list one international judge who was standing watching and drew this to his attention. Apparently this injury had been caused by the girl's trainer the previous day which somehow made it acceptable and she was allowed to compete. No doubt the Union flag stitched to her jacket also had something to do with the blind eye that was turned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top