For two decades, it was only a whisper. But not any more, thanks to an article in the August edition of the German equestrian magazine St. Georg entitled “Dressur pervers” (“Dressage perverse”), plus the editorial in the same issue and subsequent articles in two respected German national newspapers, Ssche Zeitung and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

These articles have brought into the open a debate about the training of dressage horses, especially by some of the sport’s top riders and their trainers.

These articles allege that some, including Olympic gold medalist Anky van Grunsven and husband/trainer Sjef Jansen, are sacrificing the principles of classical dressage training for blue ribbons and medals.

These principles of classical dressage riding are laid down in the FEI dressage rules, as the basis for judging every dressage test. But are the dressage tests still being judged in accordance with these rules?

The judges are denying responsibility for training methods that include the extreme rolling up of the neck (perfectly described in the jargon as “biting the chest”). They say they can only judge what they can see in the dressage ring. But are they? Is something missing in judges’ education? Or is the problem that some feel obliged to accept general tendencies and false ideals, if only to be invited for the next show? If so, they’re not doing justice to their responsibility to the sport.

Training methods have always been seriously debated in dressage circles. But in the days before dressage became a commercial sport, especially in Europe, and promoters wanted to make it TV-friendly, those discussions never included how to make the horse “spectacular,” instead of “correct.” When the purpose of dressage competition was purely to evaluate the horses’ training, the training journey was more important than the competitive result.

The ideal is for the judges to evaluate whether the horse has been trained classically, correctly, using the scale of training with rhythm, relaxation, being on the bit and having a constant contact to the horses’ mouth, submission, impulsion, straightness, and, finally, collection, in exactly this sequence. It’s a program that requires years to develop the horse’s muscles, to develop the strength he needs to carry out movements like piaffe and passage.

You can read this training scale in detail in the FEI dressage rules. They describe exactly the serious faults that can result from improper training. They even elaborate that in the piaffe and passage the hoof of the raised front leg should be only as high as the middle of the cannon bone of the opposite front leg. Any higher is not natural.

But that’s exactly what van Grunsven and Salinero (and Bonfire before him) get 9s and 10s for doing. Just look at the photos.

Of course, international judging didn’t begin to move away from the classical doctrines with van Grunsven and her horses. It began with Nicole Uphoff and Rembrandt, who began besting Christine St?erger and Gaugin de Lully in 1987, a year before they won the first of their two Olympic individual gold medals.

Judges and promoters saw in Uphoff and Rembrandt the chance to move dressage away from its first military, then elitist and slightly dusty image and to make big crowds enthusiastic. The founding of the musical freestyle (with the World Cup in 1986 and its Olympic inclusion in 1996) also eroded the standards, because of the artistic marks. The riders with the most spectacular freestyle rides have the best chances of winning today.

The phrase “genius and madness” was coined for Rembrandt. His tests could be similar to sitting on the edge of a bubbling volcano. But, the spectators loved it, so no one asked about the classical principles.

Gigolo and Bonfire followed, although Rembrandt and Gigolo (both trained by Dr. Uwe Schulten-Baumer) didn’t exhibit a passage and piaffe that appears so tense and mechanical, and they both stretched their necks and bodies in the extended gaits. Salinero does not stretch.

Even highly acclaimed judges try to explain their high marks for van Grunsven and her horses by arguing that her rides are the most spectacular. But there’s no mark on the score sheet for “spectacular.”

Who will speak up? The late Reiner Klimke was a vehement opponent of “biting the chest,” because it demands an unquestioning obedience and subjugation of the horse.

The German federation holds a contrary opinion too, one it published the evening the European Dressage Championships ended last month. It said, in part, that its

” ‘Guidelines for Riding and Driving,’ as well as the classical doctrines and the scientific literature from which the guidelines have been developed, has recognized these training methods as wrong. The German Federation stands up for its opinion that the extreme bending down of the neck and the pulling of the horse’s neck to the side is a false doctrine.”

Germany already has a law that expressly forbids any activity that causes the horse lasting pain or damage. Mariette Withages, chairman of the FEI Dressage Committee, noted at the European Championships that a year ago an FEI working group was established to work out rules that would allow FEI and national federation officials to conduct unannounced control visits at international riders’ stables. “Until these new laws are established, everybody can lock his stables, unless you turn up with the police,” said Withages.

Still, the responsibility for maintaining the classical doctrines will always rest with the judges. That responsibility is a reminder about the importance of educating and training international judges.

The marks given by the jury at the European Championships suggest that education about the classical standards is lacking or being ignored.

For example, van Grunsven and Salinero received scores of 2 to 5–“bad” to “sufficient”–after making mistakes in their two-tempi changes.

Another horse earned marks of 6, 7, 5, 6 and 4 (“fairly good” to “insufficient”) for the final piaffe on the centerline. The judges explained that they saw the movement from different positions, but the 4 and the 6 were from the judges at E and B, who would have seen the movement from mirror angles.

Yet another horse earned marks from 5 (“sufficient”) to 9 (“very good”) for the extended walk. One of the judges clearly was mistaken.

Those judges also had serious disagreements about placing some of the horses. In the Grand Prix, they placed Jan Brink from first to ninth and Beatriz Ferrer-Salat between fifth and 22nd.

Perhaps some of this disagreement can be explained by what’s called “VIP judging”–the benevolent judging of the stars. It’s a practice that the show organizers like, because they want those stars to enjoy the show and to come back next year.

To prevent “VIP judging,” the FEI would have to assign and pay the judges for all competitions, to remove any impression that the judges were working for the organizers or considering anything other than the judging standard when giving out their marks.

The time has come for dressage riders, trainers and judges to go back to the sport’s roots, to go past the commercial and national interests and re-embrace the principles and doctrines of dressage riding and training.