In this exclusive article for H&H subscribers, equestrian journalist Pippa Cuckson digs into some of the key points up for debate surrounding the use of double bridles in grand prix dressage and touches on the politics surrounding those discussions
In 45 years as an equestrian journalist, I can recall nothing so polarising as the current debate surrounding the use of double bridles. A bitting combination that was for so many centuries considered refined and aspirational is now at the heart of a public relations crisis with welfare concerns taking centre stage.
The topic is so politically sensitive that the FEI is reluctant to elaborate on its continuing obligatory use of double bridles in international grand prix dressage competition, despite the deteriorating “optics” from the public viewpoint.
Instead it keeps its head down when a senior figure goes “off message”. During the Paris Olympics FEI head vet Goran Akerstrom briefed Reuters that several riders had been warned for alleged “blue tongue” where their use of double bridles had contributed to restricted oxygen supply of their horses’ tongues. This has never been clarified, confirmed or denied by FEI HQ.
However, H&H did not anticipate that the FEI would fail to directly answer any double bridle-related questions at all, when we aimed for more insight into the current situation.
Instead the overarching response from the FEI spokesman said: “At the meeting [in Lausanne} on 1 October, the key stakeholders agreed on a unified vision for dressage. The aim is that, through balanced and systematic education, horses are trained and ridden to be calm, supple, flexible, confident, and responsive, fostering a deep and positive connection with the rider. The FEI is committed to achieving this. Doing so requires a holistic approach rather than just focusing on individual topics, such as specific pieces of equipment.”
Our questions posed to the FEI included the experimental classes proposed by its own dressage committee. The FEI also failed to comment on why available scientific research into the use of double bridles is deemed insufficient; whether its long mooted multi-sport round-table on double bridle modernisation will happen; Dr Akerstrom’s remarks in Paris; and if dressage rider qualifications needed review – currently no qualifications are required to enter a grand prix at CDI3* where a double bridle is mandatory.
While the FEI’s response was limited, one of the FEI’s stakeholder groups was willing to tackle this hot potato: David Hunt, president of the International Dressage Trainers Club, shares his thoughts later on.
The double bridle through history
Before looking further at the current use of the double bridle, it’s worth looking back at how it evolved. In the violent times of the Middle Ages, the curb or lever bit was viewed as a necessity for mounted warriors using a sword with only one spare hand for reins. The name “curb” has a mechanical derivation, from the Latin “curvus” – to curve or bend.
Then came the Renaissance. Nobles studied horsemanship as an art form, in the same mindset as drawing, philosophy and music. Antoine de Pluvinel (1555-1620) was the first master to adopt a kinder approach, pioneering the curb to enhance collection through subtle aids. Initially the second (curb) rein was held in one hand, giving a clue as to its new, non-combative intent.
FEI rules still say the objective (Art. 400) is “to preserve the equestrian art from the abuses to which it can be exposed and to preserve it in the purity of its principles…” But fast forward to our own era of immense societal change, and it looks moot.
Practices considered normal 30 years ago are now unacceptable to many, with improved knowledge of equine physiology and psychology, and changing views on the use of animals. This comes at the same time as dressage has diverged into a lucrative lifestyle business for producers and breeders, as well as a sport. This inevitably leads to suspicion over short-cuts taken in training.
The current situation
Those who would like to see the double bridle banned claim its leverage capability is currently used to prise rather than coax horses into shape; while exaggerating to make her point, at the Collectif Pour Les Chevaux conference in April, 1976 Olympic champion Christine Stuckelberger wondered why current athletes “have to ride with 100 kilos in each hand” instead of just “the weight of the reins”.
There is relentless circulation of images on social media associating the double bridle with hyperflexion; “blue tongues” caused by restricted oxygen supply; tight nosebands allegedly aimed at helping to conceal what is going on inside a horse’s mouth; and “conflict behaviours”, such as repeated mouth-opening to seek relief from pressure. A new study by Mette Uldahl and Prof Janne Christiansen recorded one horse opening its mouth 59 times during its 5min 30sec test.
It is only after many years of discussion that the FEI recently authorised a noseband tightness gauge, which will be rolled out next year. Then there is the use of sugar paste (also widely known as marshmallow fluff) for further concealment, which has been banned since 2021 but is still reportedly being used with no yellow cards as yet handed down.
It is worth noting that even a large horse may not have a big enough space inside its mouth to be able to comfortably keep its mouth closed around two bits. FEI rules set the minimum diameter of mouthpiece at 12mm for a curb, 10mm for bridoon and 12mm for a snaffle in horses. British-born, now US-based Dr Hilary Clayton has studied the equine mouth for 40 years. (Her first peer-reviewed fluroscopic study in 1985 on the effect of bits is still cited.) In another study, she found the average available space in a horse’s mouth is only 14mm for an average bit thickness of 15mm.
She told H&H: “Under these (average) conditions, the horse would not be able to fully close its mouth. This does not take account of the fact that the tongue normally covers the bars of the mandible [lower jaw] and cushions the effect of the bit on the bars.”
So why is the double bridle rule under question?
After the Tokyo Olympics, the FEI convened an Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission under equine behaviourist and scientist Dr Natalie Waran from New Zealand.
In 2022 one of its six initial recommendations was to stop mandating double bridles in grand prix dressage – quickly vetoed by the FEI’s own dressage committee (the DTC), the IDTC and International Dressage Riders Club who said “giving in to unwarranted or ignorant criticism is practically and ethically wrong”.
Attempts to revive this by Sweden and the Netherlands – two countries already allowing snaffles in national grand prix classes – were rejected in 2023 and 2024 on procedural grounds; doubles are categorised as a “sport” matter and not a welfare one.
Another recent stakeholder comment has irked the scientific community: that existing research into double bridles is not “meaningful” enough.
Cristina Wilkins was a Spanish high performance eventer before moving to Australia where she collaborates with renowned researchers Paul McGreevy, Andrew McLean and David Mellor. She said: “It is really easy to get distracted by attempts to discredit, misrepresent, overrepresent, and generally weaponise the research, to distract from the point at issue – to cause confusion and buy time.”
Cristina is presenting at a conference in Copenhagen on 18 November, hosted by the Danish ministry of agriculture. It’s a “who’s who” of prominent vets and welfare activists: other speakers include Professor Madeleine Campbell, chair of the British Equestrian Federation’s ethics group and the independent animal welfare committee that advises DEFRA; Mette Uldahl (chief consultant to Horse & Animal Welfare, Animal Protection Denmark) and Janne Christiansen; Julie Taylor, the “blue tongue” whistleblower 15 years ago and author of I Can’t Watch Anymore; Crispin Parelius Johannessen, the photographer whose images have fuelled the blue tongue debates on social media and in Scandinavian mainstream press; and Hans Christian Mathiesen, a vet and president of the International Dressage Officials Club, whose personal support for non-mandating the double bridle and revamping the way dressage is judged have not yet elicited any public support from his peers.
Many are regulars on the conference circuit, where dressage welfare topics inevitably feature. Yet FEI staffers and stakeholders rarely attend or even seem to know these events are happening. Two weeks ago the anti-hyperflexion campaigner Dr Eva van Avermaet addressed the annual conference of FEEVA (the 7,000-strong European federation of equine vets) in Lisbon. It is understood the FEI was represented, but has not fed back yet.
Would the snaffle option actually make a difference?
British Dressage (BD) CEO Jason Brautigam would welcome the FEI allowing the choice to use a snaffle at all levels – aligning with BD national classes.
“The shape of the horse’s mouth, experience of the rider, the type and temperament of the horse, must all be taken into consideration,” he said. “We therefore support making [using a double bridle] optional, to give riders the choice, but we should not be conflating this with welfare. The focus should be on better training, education, and awareness of the correct use of tack and equipment, backed up by scientific data, to prevent problems such as mouth lesions and ulceration.
“The question of whether the snaffle should be permitted at grand prix is therefore more about maintaining a level playing field and ensuring that contact with the bit can be judged consistently. Since making the snaffle optional, we have not encountered any issues in judging at elite level.”
Europe-based Equestrian Action Group (EAG) has also lobbied the FEI to accept what many feel is inevitable: “it is better to accompany this development constructively than to try to delay it”.
Unexpectedly, the FEI’s dressage committee has now said it would encourage organisers to run experimental grand prix classes in snaffles up to CDI3*. EAG member Antonella Joannou de Rham is a former Swiss dressage team rider keen to try. She is the first rider known to have ridden a Intermediare II at a CDI2* in a snaffle, at Crozet in September.
But rider competence will still be a factor, whatever the bit.
Is freedom of choice the answer?
Mette Uldahl prefers overall freedom of choice at all levels: “On the precautionary principle, it should be based on the rider’s decision to figure out which type of bit fits the individual horse the best. Also, many riders are not capable of riding at higher levels when they try.
“[Mouth] ulcer frequency increases at higher levels, so it would then be better for the horse not to wear a potentially stronger bit like the double bridle.
“Too many horses are presented [at shows] with a too high display of conflict behaviours. The reasons may be lack of rider skills, but we should also acknowledge that current sport formats encourage techniques in training and presentation that are harmful for welfare and soundness, but rewarded by the judging system.
“I see findings of an [mouth] ulcer as a historical marker of the horse having had a past problem, which it was forced to alleviate by leaning or allowing too much pressure from the bit.”
Dr Clayton observed: “Of course, there is the prevalent opinion that the ability to perform the high level movements in a snaffle is a virtue, but this ignores the added skill required for correct use of the double.
“I wrestle with whether horses should be penalised because their oral conformation makes it difficult to wear a double bridle. Horses with a long tibia, making it difficult to get the hind limb under the body, or horses with a downhill build making it difficult to raise the forehand are judged on how they perform – not on how they might perform if they had better conformation.”
A dressage stakeholder’s response to key questions
To finish, David Hunt, president of the International Dressage Trainers Club tackles some frequently raised points related to the double bridle debate below. He was the first British rider to win all three grands prix at a major international (Rotterdam in 1988, with Maple Zenith) and is also on the FEI’s Judges Supervisory Panel.
Why is the double bridle not a “welfare” matter?
“Here is the frustration: less than ideal contact, acceptance of the bridle or self-carriage has been conflated to mean welfare risks or abusive riding and that is not the case.
“Training horses is a process; contact, self-carriage, engagement etc. are all things that have to be taught and it is not always an easy, straight-line procedure. Some people are more skilled and others are not, some horses catch on more quickly, some don’t.
“But an unskilled rider does not rise to the level of a welfare issue. We all started as beginners! How can we expect to attract people to our sport or encourage the development of equestrian skills if the learner is relentlessly criticised? Everyone is constantly learning, even the most successful rider will agree. That is the challenge and joy of dressage.
“Of course, when someone embarks on this journey they must do so responsibly which includes, among other things, seeking qualified guidance, identifying suitable horses to learn on, and being realistic about their level of skill.
“I find it curious that those who are so adamant about not using negative training techniques with horses take such a different view when trying to motivate riders and use shame and humiliation so frequently.”
Why continue to mandate using the double bridle?
“The ability to use a double bridle correctly and importantly to train a horse to accept and understand it reflects the highest level of equestrian competence and therefore should be tested at the elite level.
“Yes, it is part of the tradition but it is also a specific skill. The Dressage Handbook – Guidelines for Judging sets out how acceptance of the double bridle must be evaluated. It calls for the main contact to be maintained with the snaffle rein with a lighter contact on the curb rein. If the rider presents a test with the curb rein completely loose, a deduction of one point should be made [from the collectives]. However, if the rider presents a test with the main contact only being with the curb bit and the snaffle rein loose [a deduction should be made from every movement].
“To eliminate the testing of this skill would be a dumbing down (and long term would reduce the incentive to achieve the skill). We recognize that this goal is not achievable for all riders and some horses. All elite level sport is exclusive by nature and depends on a favourable combination of training and genetic potential (both physical and temperamental).”
Why can horses with open mouths or behind the vertical still get good scores?
“In the test a consistently open mouth or the nose behind the vertical will not/should not be rewarded with a high score. This is very clear in The Dressage Handbook – Guidelines for Judging. However the handbook also states “When judging whether a horse is correctly accepting the contact…, it is not enough to look only at the head and neck. Judges need to look at the whole horse, its position and carriage and in particular, the way it moves.”
“Judges do not overlook problems with contact or self-carriage, but must score the totality of the exercise. However problems with head carriage or contact are always noted in the comments.
“We caution against placing too much weight on photos as they are only a moment in time and typically do not provide sufficient context.”
Is the new noseband gauge a step forward?
“The noseband has a legitimate function. The Principles of Riding, German Equestrian Federation state: A noseband completes the bridle. It ensures a quiet position of the bit in the horse’s mouth and that some of the influence of the bit is indirectly transferred onto the bridge of the nose. It must be neither too tight nor too loose. A noseband provides a degree of restriction to the mobility of the jaw, but it must never completely prevent it. To ensure that the horse is able to chew on the bit with relaxed tongue muscles, it must have enough freedom in the jaw.
“The operative words are TOO tight or TOO loose. It is OK for the noseband to function to discourage movement of the jaw but not prevent movement. The optimal tightness will be individual for each horse and therefore the rider should be given maximum leeway to do what suits his/her horse best within these guidelines.
“There are many studies which have shown that both a too tight or too loose are associated with increased mouth lesions. Attempting to standardize things is neither productive nor realistic.”
You may also be interested in:
*Exclusive* How horse abuse is penalised in sport – and the challenges of bringing a case before the FEI Tribunal
Snaffle grand prix classes proposed as double bridle debate continues
Double bridles create less pressure than snaffles in elite dressage horses, research finds
‘Riders should have the choice’: fresh debate on double bridles in dressage
Double bridle debate continues – as FEI dressage committee has its say
