Dressage – Is There a Welfare Problem, and Where is the Evidence?
In 2024, several commentators highlighted the notably low number of yellow cards issued in FEI Dressage when compared with Jumping and Eventing, particularly in relation to “Abuse of the Horse.” The same data prompted divergent interpretations: some argued that Dressage inherently produces fewer welfare infringements because whips are not permitted in competition and because the discipline involves lower speeds; others suggested that the disparity reflects inconsistent recording practices, a lack of transparency, and an over-reliance on informal warnings that never enter the public record (Cuckson, 2024a; Cuckson, 2024b; Eurodressage, 2024). Additional concerns have been raised about the reluctance to use judges’ comments or scores to flag welfare issues, potentially due to fears of rider backlash or the masking of problems in later performances (Helmink, 2024). Even at lower levels, there is a persistent difficulty in aligning observed conflict behaviours with the scores awarded (Hamilton et al., 2022), suggesting that the feedback systems within Dressage may not yet be robust enough to signal welfare concerns reliably.
Yellow Cards and Discipline Comparisons
When reviewing FEI yellow card data from November 2024 to October 2025, Dressage accounted for only 3% of events receiving a yellow card, compared with 6% in Jumping and 32% in Eventing. Yet of the yellow cards issued, none in Dressage were attributed to Abuse of the Horse, whereas 50% in Jumping and 84% in Eventing were.
Such stark proportions raise questions: Does Dressage truly present fewer welfare risks, or does the regulatory and observational structure of the discipline make such infractions less likely to be detected—or recorded?
Table 1: Number of FEI Events, Registered Riders and Horses, Yellow Cards (Adults only) and Abuse of the Horse Reasons in the Disciplines of Dressage, Jumping and Eventing for the Period November 2024-October 2025
| DISCIPLINE | REGISTERED RIDERS | REGISTERED HORSES | NO. OF FEI EVENTS | TOTAL YELLOW CARDS | ABUSE OF THE HORSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DRESSAGE | 3,908 | 5,104 | 168 | 5 | 0 |
| JUMPING | 24,309 | 52,031 | 696 | 44 | 22 |
| EVENTING | 5,473 | 8,813 | 236 | 76 | 64 |
Distribution Across Levels
In Jumping, yellow cards for Abuse of the Horse are evenly dispersed across levels, implying risks exist throughout the pyramid. Eventing demonstrates the opposite pattern, with markedly higher numbers at lower levels and in short-format competitions. These trends reinforce the role of discipline-specific demands: Eventing’s combination of speed, endurance, and variable terrain introduces unique welfare vulnerabilities, and its structured use of written warnings (not reflected in yellow card totals) also suggests a culture of early intervention.
Table 2: Number of Abuse of the Horse Yellow Cards Issued by Competition Level for Jumping and Dressage
| DISCIPLINE | LEVEL | YELLOW CARDS FOR ABUSE OF THE HORSE |
|---|---|---|
| JUMPING | CSI1* | 4 |
| CSI2* | 4 | |
| CSI3* | 1 | |
| CSI4* | 5 | |
| CSIO5* | 1 | |
| CSIAM | 2 | |
| CSIYH1* | 5 | |
| EVENTING | CSI1*-Intro | 21 |
| CSI2*-L | 8 | |
| CSI2*-S | 21 | |
| CSI3*-L | 2 | |
| CSI3*-S | 8 | |
| CSI4*-L | 2 | |
| CSI5*-L | 2 |
Eventing is unique in further breaking down Abuse of the Horse violations into the individual reasons, unlike Dressage and Jumping. 75% of yellow cards were issued for the Excessive use of whip, bit and/or spurs, with a further 12.5% issued for Bleeding after excessive use of whip, bit and/or spurs. Eventing also issues recorded warnings, which are not included in these tables, and may cover rider education, such as dangerous riding practices.
Table 3: Number of Abuse of the Horse Yellow Cards Broken Down by Reason for EventingDomestic Dressage Data Presents a Contrasting Picture
| REASON | NUMBER OF YELLOW CARDS |
|---|---|
| Abuse of Horse - Bleeding after excessive use of whip, bit and/or spurs (Eventing Rules Art. 526) | 8 |
| Abuse of Horse - Continued pressing of a tired Horse (Eventing Rules Art. 526) | 2 |
| Abuse of Horse - Dangerous riding (Eventing Rules Art. 526) | 1 |
| Abuse of Horse - Excessive use of whip, bit and/or spurs (Eventing Rules Art. 526) | 48 |
| Abuse of Horse - Excessive use of whip, bit and/or spurs (Eventing Rules Art. 526), Dangerous riding - Riding out of control (Eventing Rules Art. 525) | 1 |
| Abuse of Horse - Overriding (Eventing Rules Art. 526) | 2 |
| Abuse of Horse (GRs Art. 164.3 & Art. 142) | 2 |
Interestingly, when comparing FEI Dressage with British Dressage (BD), a different picture emerges. Under BD’s new equine welfare plan, the 2025 AGM reported:
427 eliminations, of which
84 were welfare-related (19.7%)
57 were soundness-related
15 involved blood
12 were other welfare concerns
Accounting for 0.14% of all starters
Here, the presence of clear welfare categories and transparent reporting enables a more nuanced understanding of issues arising in competition. While BD competitors likely skew toward lower competitive levels compared with FEI, the visibility of welfare outcomes provides meaningful insight that the FEI currently cannot match due to its more opaque reporting practices.
This contrast demonstrates that Dressage is capable of generating clear welfare data when systems are designed for it. The absence of similar reporting at FEI level therefore limits the ability to make evidence-based claims about welfare risk.
Tack, Equipment, and the Demands of the Discipline
Dressage enforces stricter control of permitted tack and equipment in both warm-up and competition than Jumping or Eventing (FEI, 2025). This might suggest reduced opportunities for abuse. Yet welfare risk is not solely a function of equipment—it emerges from the interplay between equipment, rider skill, emotional state, and discipline-specific pressures.
Research exploring rider fitness and physiological demands indicates that the required rider attributes differ across disciplines, but direct comparative research remains limited (Douglas et al., 2012). Emotional states further complicate this picture: rider anxiety can be transmitted to the horse (Keeling et al., 2009), and in fast-paced environments like cross-country, cognitive overload may impair rider judgement, contributing to higher instances of excessive use of aids as riders focus on completing the course.
Observation Time and Warm-Up Behaviours
A frequently overlooked factor is the amount of time horses spend under formal observation. Event horses are watched for longer due to the multi-phase nature of the discipline. Dressage horses, by contrast, may compete for only a few minutes—but often warm up for far longer (Frippiat & Votion, 2024), sometimes exceeding the duration of the test itself. Warm-up practices vary widely (Chatel & Williams, 2021), and it is in these less regulated spaces that concerning behaviours—whether caused by training methods, tension, or equipment—may occur.
Thus, although Dressage involves lower-speed work and fewer overt risks than Jumping or Eventing, the extended warm-up environment may present welfare vulnerabilities that are not currently captured in sanctions or reporting.
Evidence from Behavioural and Pain Ethograms
Research using the Ridden Horse Pain Ethogram (RHPE) shows that elite Dressage horses display fewer indicators of pain than Event horses (Dyson & Ellis, 2020; Dyson & Pollard, 2021), and fewer still compared with riding school horses (Dyson et al., 2020). This appears reassuring. However, RHPE data also demonstrates:
Conflict behaviours do not reliably affect scoring outcomes (Jastrzębska et al., 2017; Hamilton et al., 2022);
Behaviours differ markedly between warm-up and competition (Kienapfel et al., 2021).
Taken together, this suggests that Dressage’s judged environment may mask underlying behavioural or physical issues, particularly if problematic behaviours decrease once horses enter the ring.
Hyperflexion, Blue Tongues, and the Double Bridle Debate
The controversy surrounding hyperflexion complicates Dressage’s welfare narrative. While Eventing has issued yellow cards for rollkur-like hyperflexion (Cuckson, 2024a), Dressage has not, despite research presenting contradictory findings about its effects on welfare and performance (König von Borstel et al., 2024).
Similarly, documented cases of blue tongues in Dressage horses (Marlin, 2025; Marlin et al., 2025) indicate that rein and bridle pressures—despite being applied at lower speeds—may still cause significant discomfort.
The 2022 Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission recommended making double bridles optional based on welfare evidence (EEWB Commission, 2022). Yet governance inertia has slowed implementation (Uldahl & Mellor, 2025). More recent studies show that tack choice interacts with multiple factors, including rider variability (Christensen et al., 2021; Faithfull et al., 2025; Mackechnie-Guire et al., 2025), reinforcing that equipment alone does not determine welfare outcomes.
Upcoming FEI rule changes—allowing snaffles up to CDI3* from 2026 onward—represent progress, but only partially address the underlying concerns.
Conclusion: Is There a Welfare Problem in Dressage?
Based on available evidence, it is not possible to conclude definitively that Dressage has fewer welfare risks than other Olympic equestrian disciplines. While injury rates and RHPE indicators may appear lower, the lack of transparent, standardised reporting of warnings and welfare-related observations at FEI level creates a data gap that makes genuine comparison impossible.
Dressage’s low yellow card numbers may signify:
genuinely lower welfare risk,
insufficient detection,
inconsistent stewarding practices,
or under-reporting due to cultural, regulatory, or political pressures.
Greater transparency and alignment in how welfare concerns are recorded across disciplines—yellow cards, warnings, eliminations, and behavioural indicators—would enable the equine industry to establish whether Dressage’s welfare reputation is deserved, or whether underlying issues remain obscured. Until then, the evidence remains incomplete.
