Text © World of Showjumping

When the Ground Jury eliminated Brazil’s Pedro Veniss from the Olympic team qualifier in Versailles, it added fuel to the fire in the already heated debate concerning the FEI Jumping Rules art. 241.3.30. The rule states that should there be blood on the horse’s flank(s), the Ground Jury must enforce elimination. Further elaboration on how cases of blood on the horse’s flank(s) should be handled can be found in the FEI Stewards Manual for Jumping annex XVI.

Veniss had just delivered one of the most important clear rounds of his career, in the team qualifier at the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, when he shortly after was eliminated by the Ground Jury due to minor blood on the right flank of his horse Nimrod de Muze which was detected during the post-competition check. Left with only two of three results, as per the FEI Regulations for Equestrian Events at the Olympic Games, Veniss' elimination dropped the Brazilian team right out of contention to qualify for the final. 

“With the rule being applied and enforced as it was in Pedro’s case, I ask myself what our international federation is doing? Is the FEI trying to keep this sport alive or is it trying to bury it?” FEI Athlete Representative and Veniss’ teammate Rodrigo Pessoa asks. “Which headlines does an elimination like this cause, and what are the repercussions? It’s time to have an honest and open discussion about this rule, and its consequences.”

The FEI Jumping Rules art. 241.3.30 has been debated for years, and Pessoa – an eight-time Olympian – is one of those that strongly believes there needs to be change. “The principle of proportionality is completely absent in this rule,” Pessoa points out.

The principle of proportionality is completely absent in this rule

“In this particular case, the sanction – elimination – was not at all proportional to the violation that had been established by the Ground Jury,” Pessoa says. “We were looking at not even a minor droplet of blood transferred on to the Chief Steward’s latex glove – from a nearly invisible scratch right on the edge of the girth, where a rider does not even touch with the spur [Editor's note: Click here to see a screenshot of the horse's flank and the Chief Steward’s glove taken from a video from the post-competition check]. Nevertheless, it was judged and punished equally to actual abuse or overuse of the spur. However, those are very different violations, which require different sanctions.”

“An acceptable approach would be that the sanction is an appropriate reaction to the violation of the rule. That’s not the case here. Whether you go 200 kilometres over the speed limit, or 20 kilometres, matters. The first offence will put you in jail, the second will get you a ticket. In Pedro’s case, he went to jail when he should have gotten a ticket. In my opinion, a warning or a yellow card would be more appropriate and proportional than eliminating in a case like this where the violation is both incidental and minor.”

“Furthermore, this leads me to question whether the designated Ground Jury members who make these decisions are qualified to do so? In my opinion, the decision should be taken by an experienced veterinarian together with the Ground Jury. The whole process from examining the horses to eliminating should not be in the hands of the stewards, Chief Steward, or the Ground Jury alone,” Pessoa says.

Qualified professionals should make the call, and some kind of context has to be applied

“Qualified professionals should make the call, and some kind of context has to be applied. Are we talking about excessive use of spurs, or an incidental use, or even a horse that jumps on the right or the left side of the fence and hits the standard, the wing, or the flag, which causes a minor cut that then also results in elimination? In this day and age, we are able to go back and look at a round via video – and see if there was excessive use of the spur, or not, and then decide on the appropriate sanction,” Pessoa points out. 

“Of course, we need rules to protect the welfare of the horses, but that also requires that the FEI uses a minimum of resources on installing common sense and horsemanship in their officials. You can’t leave the supervision of the rules with those that only know how to follow a rule black and white, and who want to catch and kill,” Pessoa says.

“The FEI is non-stop referring to horse welfare when creating and enforcing their rules. However, there is such inconsistency from the FEI’s side – which this case is an example of,” Pessoa says.

There is such inconsistency from the FEI’s side

“To illustrate this inconsistency: In the individual qualifier, the Ground Jury President correctly used the opportunity to ring the bell during an ongoing round when it obviously was no longer safe for the rider and her horse to continue – as per the Jumping Rules article 241.4. However, in a similar situation in the team qualifier where one of the riders clearly was not up to the level – putting the horse in situations that were not safe – the bell was not rung,” Pessoa points out. “Simultaneously, in that very same team competition, we have a rider jumping a clear and safe round being eliminated because of a tiny imprint of blood – which has nothing to do with jeopardizing the horse’s welfare.” 

“‘Deux poids, deux mesures’ as we say in French.”

With the Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission’s final report as a backdrop, a recent FEI rule proposal suggests that the international governing body is preparing to take their regulations concerning examination of horses and the presence of blood one step further. As part of the FEI’s 2024 Rules Revision Process, one of the proposals put forward by the FEI includes edits to art. 1045 in the Veterinary Regulations. 

The rule as currently proposed by the FEI will permit a wider examination of the horses, with the following suggested wording: “Any part of the Horses’ body, boots, bandages and/or other tack may be examined by Stewards and/or OVs at any time during the Period of the Event.” It further details that the examination should check for “the presence of blood on any part of the Horse’s body” – not only the legs, flanks or mouth. 

Stakeholders should raise any concerns they might have now

National federations and other stakeholders have until 21 August to submit their feedback to this proposal, which has been put forward by the FEI as a direct result of the action plan based on the Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission’s report. The action plan was unanimously approved during the FEI Board’s meeting in June, where the Board also established a dedicated Equine Welfare Fund of CHF 1 million for its launch. 

“Stakeholders should raise any concerns they might have now, in order to get their feedback taken into account ahead of the FEI General Assembly 2024,” Pessoa says. 

“Once again, Pedro’s elimination illustrates why we need the drop-score as a safety net,” Pessoa continues. “It has to be there, because now what did the Ground Jury do? It’s not just one rider who gets eliminated; the entire country and team suffers the consequences.”

The drop-score must be there to protect

“One single person’s decision has repercussions for the equestrian industry in the entire country that gets eliminated; think about the investments that have been made prior to these Olympics to get these teams there. Something like this will make sponsors and owners abandon the sport and go to do other things. The prejudice that comes with a decision like this can be gigantic. The drop-score must be there to protect; we have to have four riders on a team with three of the results counting.”

“There are also two further issues with the current format that demand slight modifications,” Pessoa says. “The first is the fact that the riders that only compete individually have a huge advantage. Whereas the team riders at this stage already have jumped two rounds, those competing only for the individual medals come with completely fresh horses. That’s not a level playing field. It should be obligatory for the individual riders to participate in the team rounds, even if not counting towards any results.”

These are issues that need to be resolved before LA 2028

“Secondly, all ties for the medals must be broken with a jump-off,” Pessoa says. “Now we had a situation where the Netherlands lost a medal by 0.57 seconds to the French. I think it’s clear we can’t let the combined time decide when we are jumping Olympic-sized tracks – this is not a speed competition. As to a jump-off for the medals, I’m open to discuss whether one rider should go for the team or more – but these are issues that need to be resolved before LA 2028.”

13.8.2024 No reproduction of any of the content in this article will be accepted without a written permission, all rights reserved © World of Showjumping.com. If copyright violations occur, a penalty fee will apply.