Text © World of Showjumping

The FEI Sports Forum 2025 kicked off in Lausanne on Monday, and the last session of day one was dedicated to this year's full revision of the FEI Jumping Rules. A panel consisting of Stephan Ellenbruch – Chair of the FEI Jumping Committee, Todd Hinde – FEI Jumping Director, Francois Mathy Jr – IJRC President, Cesar Hirsch – FEI Level 4 judge/FEI Level 4 steward, who served as overall Chief Steward at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, Irene Verheul – Director of Jumping Amsterdam and Secretary General of Equestrian Organisers, as well as Henrik Ankarcrona – Swedish Chef d'Èquipe, outlined some of the proposed changes that currently are being discussed, with the assistance of Jessica Kürten – Chair of the FEI Athletes’ Committee – who was moderating the session. 

One of the topics of discussion was the FEI Jumping Rules article 241.3.30 which regulates eliminations due to blood on the horse’s flank(s). The IJRC has requested to discuss the rule, calling for more proportionality between a violation of the rule and the sanction being applied.

Ellenbruch started by highlighting that it’s important to differentiate article 241.3.30 from article 242.3.1. Article 241.3.30 regulates elimination due to blood on the flank(s), while 242.3.1 regulates mandatory disqualification for marks indicating excessive use of spurs or of the whip anywhere on the horse – in the case of a violation of article 242.3.1, additional sanctions may also apply. 

Ellenbruch pointed out that article 241.3.30 is indeed needed, as it has proved effective with cases going down significantly since it came into force. “I can’t deliver statistics here, but I know from my own experience, blood cases happen rarely,” Ellenbruch said, adding that most cases are due to the use of hammer spurs. “I do understand that the Jumping Riders Club or the jumping riders want to discuss the consequences of the rule. The question, for me at least, is not do we need the rule or not? Yes, we still need the rule – I am absolutely convinced about that. The question for me is not to change the procedures. But I do understand that there is a wish to discuss the consequence,” Ellenbruch said. “Maybe we can do that, whatever the conclusion is in the end – that depends on what the federations will vote for at the General Assembly.” 

“Of course, we need this rule, because neither the riders, officials, or the public want to see a horse with blood coming out of the ring – let’s be very clear about that,” Mathy Jr. said, before he went on to explain that what the IJRC wants to avoid are similar situations to the one at the 2024 Olympic Games where Brazil’s Pedro Veniss after jumping clear was eliminated from round one of the team competition, dropping his team right out of contention to qualify for the final due to the much debated Olympic format with teams of three and no drop-score. “But, worse than that; this rule was made to protect the sport and the consequences of this rule was in this situation the opposite,” Mathy Jr. said. “Because we know what the rule is, but when the people read in the press ‘rider eliminated’ ‘blood’ it appears as a welfare issue, or horse abuse, and it was very clear that it isn’t. That’s really what we are trying to achieve. We have a scratch, and a direct elimination in that situation is something we want to address because we think it is unfair. One of the main principles in law is that you have to have proportion between the violation and the sanction, and in this situation we have a problem I think with the straight eliminations.”

Mathy Jr. said there are two ways to address the issue; either to change the protocol for what in Veniss’ case was referred to as a ‘micro lesion’, or to change the rule – replacing elimination with other sanctions, such as a warning for a first-time violation of the rule, a yellow card for a second violation and finally a suspension that lasts for a certain amount of time for a potential third offence. 

Ankarcrona highlighted that if a rider causes blood, there has to be repercussions. “We cannot have that, and I think we all agree,” Ankarcrona said – adding that an elimination as a consequence is hard and that the fairness of the rule can be debated, using the Veniss-case as an example. “If we change the rule, I think it’s going to be harder than it is today. Maybe not for the first time, but let’s say we go for a yellow card for the first time – would I pick that rider then for a championship? Because if the rider gets a second one it must be a harder punishment, right? So, in a way I think it’s good because it shows that we take it seriously. It can be accidental; you won’t be eliminated, but you get a yellow card – if it happens again something more will happen. I think it’s an interesting way of looking at it.”

Hinde emphasised that currently it’s all about getting feedback from the stakeholders as to whether this is something to discuss further. “It’s a discussion to be had,” Hinde said, adding the FEI knows the rule in its current version is working, but that the sanctions for a violation could be subject to debate. “It’s more looking at what are the options of different sanctions, not necessarily what you put forward with the IJRC is the exact proposa,  but looking at what we could do if there were different sanctions.”

Asking the inevitable, a representative from the Dutch federation said: “I understand all the points you put forward, especially from the riders’ perspective, but how do you explain it to the public? Because those are the biggest criticisers of our sport. And in dressage it’s straight forward, blood is out – no discussion whatsoever. And how do we explain to the public at shows, or the media, that in jumping ‘maybe it’s not so bad’ – how are we going to explain it?”

“For me, it’s very important that we keep the rule as such and that we keep the procedures,” Ellenbruch replied. “Even the procedures are totally clear, and we have a protocol for that. I hear sometimes the concerns that stewards would look for blood. Actually, we should all agree on one thing: The normal case is that the horse is leaving the arena without blood, and if there is no blood then there is no blood – so don’t search for anything. But if there is a case, then we have to go back to the discussions we have had, and the keyword is social license to operate – it is what it is. We are living in times where it will be very, very difficult to explain that to the outside world. And not only to the outside world; even to the inside world – there are people who will not understand that. That is a little bit my concern. Once again, I would love to keep the rule, I would love to keep all the procedures, but I am open to listen to proposals. The better is obviously enemy of the good, I think the rule as it is does still make sense. If there is a better way with finding different ways to sanction riders, let’s discuss it – maybe we come to the conclusion there is a better way, then we should do it, maybe we come to the conclusion not. But we have to bear in mind that the headline is always the social licence – it is what it is, and it will be very difficult to explain that.”

“What I understand, is that Francois and the Riders Club’s proposal is not to weaken the rule,” Hirsch said. “He’s not looking for that, he is looking to redefine it in a way – because that is a risk we cannot take. We cannot take the risk of weakening the rule, because we will be sending the wrong message.”

The FEI Sports Forum was the first joint stage for discussions between all stakeholders on the revision of the FEI Jumping Rules, the finalised version of which will be submitted to the vote of the FEI General Assembly 2025. The FEI Rules Revision Policy 2025 outlines the main dates in this process and can be consulted here.