Jumping Riders Pushing FEI to Relax Strict "Blood Rule" for Their Discipline

Dressage

Opinions

At the FEI General Assembly in Hong Kong next week, international show jumping riders are making a big push to have the "blood rule" relaxed from immediate elimination replaced by a "warning".

André Hascher is a team member behind R-Haltenswert, the independent organisation hired by the show organizers of the 2025 World Cup Finals to check upon animal welfare. He critically examines the implications of this change. He raises an essential question: How much responsibility does equestrian sport owe to its most important partner – the horse itself?

With show jumping being the most publicly visible and most lucrative discipline in FEI equestrian sport, the stakes are high.

Hascher wrote the following opinion piece:

"Backwards Into the Future?"

For decades, regulating permitted bridles and bits in show jumping — as well as implementing broader welfare standards for the equine athlete — has been an overdue responsibility of equestrian governing bodies.

Instead of tackling these long-awaited reforms, which should belong to the core duties of any sports federation, it now appears that a minimum welfare standard — the so-called “Blood Rule” in show jumping — may be weakened.

1) What does the “Blood Rule” entail?

The FEI introduced regulations stipulating that visible blood on a horse during competition could lead to immediate elimination. The rule’s purpose is clear: to protect the horse from further stress or injury once a wound or lesion is visible — an objective sign that tissue has been damaged or compromised.

The FEI’s own Equine Welfare Strategy Action Plan highlights welfare as a central principle, addressing issues such as equipment, injury prevention, and stress management.

From an ethical and animal welfare standpoint, the rationale behind the rule is self-evident: If blood is visible, it indicates tissue damage or irritation — whether caused by a bit, spur, noseband, or another form of pressure. The horse is no longer in an uninjured condition suitable for competition.

A horse showing blood may not only be in pain but is, at minimum, in a compromised physical state — making continued participation ethically indefensible. While bleeding is not the only sign of distress or injury, it is a clear and objectively verifiable indicator.

Added to this are frequent cases of bruising or tissue damage from excessive rein pressure — issues that already require stricter enforcement. In this light, loosening existing welfare safeguards would be irresponsible rather than progressive.

Equestrian sport still faces many unresolved welfare questions and often progresses too slowly because reforms require lengthy debate and political consensus. But in the case of visible blood, the facts are unambiguous: the minimum standard must remain elimination.

Beyond immediate ethics, the sport’s public legitimacy depends on credibility. Spectators and society at large will only continue to support equestrian disciplines if it is clear that horses are not treated as mere sporting equipment. The simple message “blood means stop” sends a signal that the governing system truly prioritizes the horse’s welfare.

The current Blood Rule also encourages better training, equipment choice, and riding technique, motivating riders and trainers to prevent injuries before they occur — an increasingly urgent matter as modern jumping courses become technically and physically extreme.

There is growing concern that only a small number of riders can complete such demanding tracks through true horsemanship, while others rely on ever harsher mechanical aids to stay competitive — a troubling trend for the sport’s image.

2) The proposed change

Recent FEI publications outline a draft rule change expected to be voted on in November 2025. The proposed revision would replace elimination in some cases with a “recorded warning” system.

For visible blood in or around the mouth, “mild cases” could be handled by wiping or rinsing the mouth, after which the horse-and-rider combination might continue without penalty, provided the veterinarian approves.

Only after two warnings within twelve months would fines or suspensions apply.

3) Ethics and welfare

When blood is visible, it signifies an existing injury — so why should the weight of that signal now be reduced?

Is it ethically defensible to allow a visibly injured horse to continue competing, with the risk that the lesion could worsen under further strain?

If wiping the mouth is deemed sufficient, how will officials ensure that deeper injuries — inside the mouth, tongue, or throat — are not overlooked? Research shows that severe bit- or bridle-related injuries are often not externally visible.

Would such leniency not diminish the incentive to adjust training methods and equipment to prevent injuries altogether? And what message does this send? That competition results take precedence over welfare? Weakening the rule threatens the ethical foundation on which equestrian sport relies for public acceptance.

How does this align with the FEI’s own motto — “the welfare of the horse is paramount” — if visible injury no longer automatically triggers elimination? If a horse already shows blood and is allowed to continue, who bears responsibility if the condition worsens — the rider, the veterinarian, or the organization itself?

In summary: any rule that no longer automatically eliminates a horse showing visible blood weakens a crucial safeguard designed to protect horses from being pushed beyond their limits. This is not a minor regulatory detail — it is a fundamental ethical question.

4) Our appeal

Equestrian sport stands at a crossroads. On one side, competitive pressure is greater than ever, equipment and techniques are becoming increasingly complex, and the public is watching more critically how animals are used in elite sport.

On the other, the FEI recently took a step toward greater welfare with its Equine Welfare Strategy Action Plan — making this potential rollback all the more contradictory.

At a time when equestrian sport must fight to maintain social acceptance, weakening the Blood Rule would send a risky signal. This is not about isolated cases, but about trust — trust from horse owners, spectators, sponsors, and society that horses are not treated carelessly or as expendable tools.

So what can we do to ensure that horses do not become the losers in this debate?

We urge readers to support petitions and initiatives that critically accompany the rule change and keep the horse’s welfare at the center of the discussion.

Every dilution of a welfare rule sends a message — one that affects the credibility of the entire sport.