Introduction
The phrase "on the bit" is misinterpreted by many dressage riders who compete under FEI rules.   As a result, they use the bit to achieve what they think of as a certain frame and fail to realize that this is not collection.  Many FEI judges and even FEI and national federation committee members also misinterpret the phrase.  They assume that it requires the physical presence of a bit, rather than the particular head position that the phrase actually defines.  As a result, when proposals are advanced for a rule change to permit the crossunder bitless bridle for dressage, the proposal is denied on the grounds that, without a bit, a horse cannot be "on the bit."  Such, of course, is not the case.   The desired head position is obtained more properly without any 'assistance' from a bit (Fig 1).  The misunderstanding results in the FEI and national federations being locked into a mind-set in which they are unwilling to permit a more humane option to their current mandatory requirement of one or more bits and a chain (Article 428).

 
Fig.1. Alexander Nevzorov and a bridleless young horse "on the bit"
(photo courtesy Lydia Nevzorova)

Definition of "On the bit."
The FEI's rules for dressage define the phrase correctly as a certain position of the horse's head (see Article 401.6 below).  In the last decade, many dressage riders have rediscovered something that was well understood in the 17th century, that the desired position of the head (and the rest of the body too) is not and should not be dependent on a bit.  There is an interesting explanation as to why, when the definition is correct, the name given to the objective is such an unfortunate one.  It arises from an error in the translation into English of the original French rules on dressage.  More on this later but, briefly, the French phrase dans le main calls for a certain delicacy of touch at the rider's end of the reins.  Unfortunately, the English phrase that was chosen ("on the bit") focuses attention on the horse's end of the reins.  This has led over time to the false assumption that a bit is required.  As the Italian proverb warns us "Traduttore, tradittore" (translator, betrayer). 

Article 401.6 of the 22nd edition of the FEI 'Rules for Dressage Events' describes and defines the sixth dressage objective as follows:
"In all the work, even at the halt, the horse must be "on the bit."  A horse is said to be "on the bit" when the neck is more or less raised and arched according to the stage of training and the extension or collection of the pace, accepting the bridle [emphasis added] with a light soft contact and submissiveness throughout. The head should remain in a steady position, as a rule slightly in front of the vertical, with a supple poll as the highest point of the neck, and no resistance should be offered to the rider."

The above definition refers to acceptance of the bridle, not the bit.   But the horseman's vernacular has resulted in usage of the shorter but ambiguous phrase "on the bit."  The vernacular has become the familiar name of the objective but it is neither the objective itself nor a good precis of the objective.  A phrase that would have been less ambiguous would have been 'up to the bit.'  This would have been more consistent with what I feel is the somewhat unrealistic hope that a horse should seek the contact rather than be constrained by it; that a horse should be encouraged to move up into the bridle (or bit) rather than have its head pulled back by it. 

Physiologically, I believe that when a horse is truly collected it is accepting the bridle (not just resigned to it) because rein tension is minimal, it is not in pain, and it is free to place its head in the position for any pace (including halt) that enables it to be a balanced athlete and best able to support the weight of the rider.  In other words, collection is achieved by the horse, not by the rider.  Collection is not something that comes about as a result of rein pressure, with or without a bit.  The rider should stay out of the horse's way sufficiently so that he/she does not interfere with the natural position of its head.  The rider needs to help the horse in other ways.  First, the training regime has to enable a horse to be fit enough and strong enough to maintain its own balance when carrying a rider.  Secondly, the rider himself or herself has to be fit enough to stay balanced.  Even a fit horse cannot balance itself (i.e., be collected) if the rider is unbalanced.

A Welsh dresser is a useful piece of furniture and is so called because it was used to prepare the meat for the table.  The same sense of 'preparation' is conveyed in the French phrase dresser la table meaning, to set or lay a table in preparation for a meal.  When a rider 'dresses' a horse she should be preparing it for something beautiful, not something painful.    

A more accurate English translation of the FEI objective would be 'on the aids.'  The plural form is necessary as we are speaking of all three aids.  In order of importance, 'seat' is the foremost aid, 'legs' next, and 'hands' least of all.  If the phrase 'on the aids' was adopted, the objective - which is to obtain collection, throughness and impulsion - would not be overlooked and it would free the objective from being inappropriately tied to the bit.

'On the aids' is I believe the best term but 'acceptance of the bridle' is second best and is in fact used in Article 401. 2.  Let's introduce it by backtracking to Article 401.1, the first sentence of which should be emblazoned over the door of every dressage barn:
"The object of dressage is the development of the horse into a happy athlete through harmonious education.  As a result, it makes the horse calm, supple, loose and flexible, but also confident, attentive and keen, thus achieving perfect understanding with his rider.  These qualities are revealed by:"

...and now I quote Article 401.2:
"The freedom and regularity of the paces.
ˇ The harmony, lightness and ease of movements.
ˇ The lightness of the forehand and the engagement of the hindquarters, originating from a lively impulsion.
ˇ The acceptance of the bridle, with submissiveness throughout and without any tension or resistance."

Incorrect translation leads to incorrect action
By riders:
It is somewhat revealing that the mistaken interpretation of "on the bit" is in the nature of a Freudian slip.  Riders are tempted by it to take a training short-cut in the belief that collection can be achieved by traction on the bit.  Yet every good horseman recognizes that correct head position (collection) comes from years of fitness training and that the primary aids with which to signal for collection are 'seat' and 'legs,' rather than 'hands.'  Acceptance of the idea that collection can be achieved with the bit leads to false collection.  In this situation, the horse's poll may be flexed but the horse is not collected and neither is he a happy athlete, free of tension and resistance.  As a result of too much 'hand' and not enough 'seat' and 'leg' the horse is being 'pulled together.'  The rider is using the ability of the bit to cause pain or the threat of pain to produce a superficial facsimile of collection that should deceive no one, least of all a judge.  The horse will be on the forehand and, contrary to the general principles of dressage, will be unhappy, tense, resistant, nervous and in conflict with his rider.  In its most extreme form, this approach to dressage results in the regrettable practice of overbending or "Rollkur."

The phrase "on the bit" is used 14 times in Chapter 1 of the 'Rules for Dressage Events.'  No wonder that, in the English-speaking dressage world, so much misdirected attention is paid to the bit.  The translator of the original FEI rules from French to English seems to have recognized the vernacular nature of the phrase because, on every occasion, it is fenced about with apologetic quotation marks.  He, or she, probably recognized that the phrase "on the bit" was not a literal or even an accurate translation of the original French idiom, dans la main (literally, 'in the hand') which is more appropriately translated as 'on the aids.' (Gahwyler & Drummond 2002).  On those four occasions in which the translator used the more accurate phrase 'acceptance of the bridle' or 'accepting the bridle' no quotation marks are used.

By committees
A faulty English translation of the phrase dans le main in the Object and General Principles of Dressage (Article 401) has led to the belief that a horse cannot be "on the aids" in the absence of a "double bridle with cavesson noseband."  But this requirement under "Saddlery" (Article 428) was surely intended to simply promote the achievement of the objectives, rather than to dictate the only way in which these objectives could be achieved.  By continuing to mandate a double bridle, the current saddlery rules imply that a horse cannot be a "happy athlete" unless it has two metal rods in its mouth and a chain under its chin.  Even at the time when the rule was formulated in 1921, this component of Article 428 was at odds with Article 401.1.  Did no one ever envisage that the objectives could be achieved by any other means?  Whatever is the answer to that rhetorical question, there is no doubt today that metal on bone is not the only way to promote "the development of the horse into a happy athlete through harmonious education."      

If the FEI dressage objectives can be achieved in some less painful way, which they undoubtedly can, then the saddlery rules should be amended.  It is no longer acceptable that the FEI should stipulate that a double bridle is compulsory and that proposals to permit the crossunder bitless bridle should be rejected.  

Using the crossover a bitless horse can still be "on the bit" in the true sense of that phrase.  The original French phrase places the emphasis correctly on "hands," in the sense of the least amount of "hand." The English translation places it incorrectly on the bit, as a means of achieving collection. The mistake has led to much misery for many horses and to heartbreaking disappointment for misguided riders.     

Confusion over semantics is aggravated in committee by a failure to acknowledge advances in the science of equitation.  Together this has led to a fearsome administrative obstacle to welfare reform, a barrier to improved safety, and a denial of a riderŐs right to the pursuit of happiness.

Above and Behind the Bit
Further elucidation of the phrase "on the bit"occurs indirectly in Article 416.2:
"Submission does not mean subordination, but an obedience revealing its presence by a constant attention, willingness and confidence in the whole behaviour of the horse as well as by harmony, lightness, and ease it is displaying in the execution of the different movements.

The degree of submission is also manifested by the way the horse accepts the bridle, with a light and soft contact and supple poll, or with resistance o or evasion of the rider's hand, being either "above the bit" or "behind the bit" respectively."

 
Fig. 2. Resistance ("above the bit").
Mouth open, lips retracted, bit applying pressure on tongue, bars of mouth & front edge of first cheek teeth in lower jaw.  Photo: Lydia Nevzorova

Fig. 3. Evasion ("behind the bit").
Poll pressure, mouth open, tongue retracted, bits applying pressure on bars of mouth, curb & chain applying thumbscrew action on lower jaw. Photo: Theresa Sandin & "Horses For Life"

Once again, a vernacular phrase that emphasizes the bit is used to describe two positions of the head, both of which are incompatible with collection, being either in front or behind the vertical .  Resistance is expressed when a horse moves or tosses its head upwards ("above the bit") or when bit pressure is needed to prevent it doing this, as when a horse is "pulled together" into the desired frame (Fig.2).  Evasion is expressed when bit pressure causes a horse to lower its head, bend its neck and bring its chin close to its chest ("behind the bit").  This ducking of the head used to be known as boring (Self 1946).  Though the term is seldom used today, the evasion is more common than ever (Fig. 3).  Sadly, dressage judges do not always penalize riders whose horses exhibit these behaviors.  Yet the FEI "Rules for Dressage Events" clearly indicate that they should, both during the test and the warm-up.

The logical way for riders to avoid such resistance and evasion is to remove the cause.  As the cause is bit-induced pain, removal of the bit is the preferred solution.   In this way, the "Object and general principles" of dressage (Article 401) can be achieved.  Recognition needs to be given to the physiological fact that, regardless of how mature a horse is, how much training it has had, and how fit the rider (all factors of importance), no horse that is in pain can be a happy athlete, calm, collected, supple, loose and flexible.  But by removing the bit, one removes a potent source of pain.  By so doing, rider/horse discord can be banished, the horse will become a happy athlete and even average riders will finally experience the harmony of "heaven on horseback."

It would be quite difficult, without the annoyance and pain of a bit, for a dressage rider to persuade a horse to go "above" or "behind" the bit, as this is an unnatural position of the head for the sort of paces required for dressage.   It is relatively easy without a bit and with the necessary fitness to succeed in having a horse go "on" the bit (Fig 1) as this is a natural position.  It is exactly where a horse will choose to place its head when it is perfectly fit, balanced and accommodated to the weight of a rider on its spine, i.e., when the horse is properly "dressed," collected and in self-carriage.

FEI Rules should enhance welfare
Removal of the cause is also required in order to achieve the objectives stated in  Article 416.2.1.  "Putting out the tongue, keeping it above the bit or drawing it up altogether, as well as grinding the teeth and swishing the tail are mostly signs of nervousness, tenseness or resistance on the part of the horse and must be taken into account by the judges in their marks for the movement concerned as well as in the collective mark for 'submission.'"

The presence of a bit in a horse's mouth is the most common cause of a horse lolling its tongue.  It is the only cause of a horse defending itself from the bit by placing the bit under its tongue or by retracting the tongue so that the tip lies behind the bit.  The bit is also by far the most common cause of a horse grinding its teeth, swishing its tail, or exhibiting nervousness, tension and resistance.  Bits frighten horses and are the most potent cause of a horse becoming unhappy, excitable, "highly strung," apprehensive, spooky and generally unmanageable.  I have documented over 100 clinical signs of bit-induced negative behavior.  Removal of the bit restores calmness and that "constant attentiveness," "willingness" and freedom from "the paralyzing effects of resistance" that are referred to in the general principles of dressage. 

By maintaining their rule that one or more bits are mandatory for dressage, the FEI are responsible for causing unnecessary and avoidable pain.  By penalizing riders whose horses exhibit negative behaviors caused by mandated equipment, the FEI are adding insult to injury.  It is as though every young man was obliged by law to shave with a cut throat razor, a safety razor not being permitted, and to be fined if - as a result - he cuts himself.

A humane, safe and effective alternative to the bit, the crossunder, has been available for the past decade.   More and more crossunders are coming on the market every year, all over the world.  During this time the concept has been thoroughly field-tested by riders of all ages and experience, on horses of all breeds and temperaments, in most disciplines and under a wide set of circumstances in many different countries.

Because of the advance in horse welfare and rider safety that the crossunder makes available, the FEI are no longer in compliance with their Code of Conduct, let alone the laws of many countries on cruelty to animals.  Cruelty is defined as the infliction of avoidable (or unnecessary) pain and suffering. Because the pain and fear of a bit is now avoidable, riders who continue to use bits are now vulnerable to a charge of cruelty.  An interesting point of law arises as to whether the FEI or any national federation that mandates the use of a cruel device could also be indicted.

Non-Compliance of the FEI with the FEI Code of Conduct
The items in italics below are taken verbatim from the long version of the FEI Code of Conduct.  Each item is followed by an explanation of its non-compliance.

ˇ "...the welfare of the horse is paramount."  Sadly, the FEI have shown no readiness to respond to the indisputable welfare advance that the crossunder represents.

ˇ "Good horse management... must not compromise welfare."  The bit causes over one hundred signs of compromised welfare, mostly caused by pain and fear.

ˇ "Any practices which could cause physical and mental suffering, in or out of competition, will not be tolerated."  The bit has been shown to be a prime cause of mental and physical suffering and yet the FEI are tolerating this with equanimity, both in and out of competition.

ˇ "[Horses] must not be subjected to any training methods which are abusive or cause fear..." Article 143 of the General Regulations (22nd edition, 2007) defines abuse as "an action or omission which causes or is likely to cause pain or unnecessary discomfort to a Horse..."  The evidence explaining the abusive effects of bitted bridles was published many years ago.  The evidence relating to the inhumanity of over bending (Rollkur) with the bit was published more recently yet the FEI continues to endorse over bending and to mandate the use of the bit.

ˇ "Tack must be designed and fitted to avoid the risk of injury."  A list has been published of 40 different diseases caused by the bit.  Bit-induced bone spurs on the bars of the mouth, for example, are present in over 75% of museum specimens examined.

ˇ "Participation in competition must be restricted to fit horses..." The bit is incompatible with the physiology of exercise.  A bitted horse is a handicapped horse and, by definition, unfit.

ˇ "No horse showing symptoms of disease... or ailment... should compete..." Bit-induced negative behavioral signs are commonplace and each is a sign of disease or ailment, mostly associated with pain and fear.

ˇ "Any surgical procedures that threaten a competing horse's welfare or the safety of other horses and/or competitors must not be allowed."  The word "surgery" is derived from a Greek word with the literal meaning "a working with the hands."  Indisputably, the bit - which invades and applies pressure to a sensitive body cavity - is a working with the hands.  It would be difficult to deny that bitting a horse is a surgical procedure, albeit carried out largely by riders with no medical qualifications.  At best, it is a lip retractor but at worst it is a cutting instrument that damages both hard and soft tissues.  It is also a device that obstructs respiration and interferes with locomotion.  Finally, it is too often an instrument of torture, causing pain and fear.  Undoubtedly, a bit threatens a horse's welfare and endangers the safety of other horses and competitors.

ˇ "Abuse of a horse using natural riding aids or artificial aids... will not be tolerated."  See above... abuse is rampant.

ˇ "The incidence of injuries sustained in competitions should be monitored."  Many accidents are caused by the bit, some of them fatal to horse and rider.  Yet currently these are unrecognized by the FEI and are not monitored.  Short-term and long-term injuries to the mouth and teeth are documented but, to date, have resulted in no action.

ˇ "The FEI urges all those involved in equestrian sport to attain the highest possible levels of education in their areas of expertise relevant to the care and management of the competition horse."  Many riders have educated themselves and now recognize that use of a bit is physiologically contraindicated and dangerous.  Yet they receive no support from the FEI when they submit proposals to permit the use of a safer and more humane rein-aid.

ˇ "This Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse may be modified from time to time and the views of all are welcomed.  Particular attention will be paid to new research findings and the FEI encourages further funding and support for welfare studies."  My experience when presenting research findings on the bit to the FEI is one of unacceptable delays in response to letters and an absence of any constructive action.  On the other hand, obstructive action has been experienced.  In the early days of the crossunder, as there was nothing in the FEI rules that required reins to be actually connected with the bit, I recommended that dressage competitors should hang a dummy bit from their crossunder.  Action was quickly taken to disqualify such a strategy.

Communication with the FEI
My own experience of this has been disappointing.  After corresponding with the General Secretary over a period of two years, no comments were given me on the evidence I submitted.  The FEI declined to take any action and advised me that this was a matter for the national federations.  But national federations, when approached, reply that they take their lead from the FEI.  As the FEI fail to provide any such leadership, this produces a vicious circle and an administrative impasse.  Each organization "passes the buck" to avoid dealing with the issue.  Neither the FEI, nor any national federation to date, has ever tried to refute the scientific evidence in support of permitting the crossunder for dressage.  The only reason advanced for the denial is one based on tradition.  But tradition should not be invoked to prevent an advance in welfare.

My correspondence with the FEI has been published (see April issue, 2007 of www.horsesforlife.com), so here below is an example of a response from a national federation. After considerable effort had been invested by a rider in proposing a rule change to the British Horse Society, the following reply was eventually received from David Holmes, British Dressage Chief Executive.

Dear Sheila,

I saw the correspondence on this issue and suggested to Ruth [the British Dressage, Sport and Technical Officer] that I respond on her behalf.

The reason that we do not allow bitless bridles is because the FEI do not.  We are trying to mirror more and more what the FEI do, as are the other disciplines.

In the area of bitting we have always followed the FEI lead.

I am sorry that I cannot be more expansive in terms of a justification - but as you see there is no need I feel.

Regards,

David

The above response from one national federation seems likely to typify the response from all the others.  One rather unconvincing excuse for their position is, yet again, a semantic one, i.e., that they have failed to recognize that the proposal is for the crossunder to be permitted and not all bitless bridles. None of the national federations have volunteered to take an independent step that would put them out of line with the FEI, even though what is being proposed is merely a specific bitless option for the increasing number of competitors who do not wish to use a bit.  Even the pony clubs around the world, organizations that are independent of the FEI, also model their rules on those of the FEI. 

Years of avoidable pain for horses could be banished and many riding accidents prevented if the FEI were to give a lead on this much needed welfare reform.  If the FEI permitted the crossunder option, the national federations and pony clubs could be relied upon to follow and the log jam could be broken overnight.

The History of "On the Bit"
In the valuable article already cited, Dr. Max Gahwyler and Bettina Drummond point out that the phrase "on the bit" is of very recent origin.  It only dates back to 1921 when the FEI was formed and the first rulebook, in French, was compiled.  The phrase is a misinterpretation of the French expression, "dans la main" which would have been better translated as "on the aids."  As the authors remark, "No matter how hard you look, even going back to the 15th and 16th century, you do not find any expression equivalent to 'On the bit.'"

This unfortunate phrase has encouraged riders and judges to focus on the forehand, when the focus should be on the hindquarters.  It is refreshing to be reminded by Gahwyler that, in the 17th century, a master horseman such as Galliberti started all his horses in a cavesson or hackamore. He did not even use a snaffle until his horses were "made."  Significantly, he rode his horses entirely from seat and leg.

Gawhyler and Drummond propose a much better translation of the original French for Article 410.6 when they suggest, "The horse in all its work, even at the halt, remains obediently under the influence of the rider's aids..." As they say, "this would be much closer to the true French meaning and removes the fixation to the hands, the bit and the front of the horse, and leads to a more integrated approach of all the aids [emphasis added]."  They recommend that the phrase "On the bit" should be banished forever and I agree.  There are so many alternatives, all of which convey the required meaning so much better... terms such as "Acceptance of the Aids," "On the Aids," "Throughness," "Connection," "Lightness," "Self-Carriage," "Relaxation," "Balance" and "Engagement."

Conclusion and Recommendations
The phrase "on the bit" does not merit its semi-sacred status.  But if it was simply interpreted correctly a purely semantic obstacle to reform would be removed, without the need for even altering Article 401, the object and general principles of dressage.  As far as this phrase is concerned, the FEI and national federations are already free to consider the compelling evidence for permitting a more humane option to a Bronze Age instrument.  There is no reason why, in the 21st century, the FEI should feel obliged to retain the exclusive status of a technology that was invented by primitive man in the time of prehistory. The crossunder is entirely compatible with the object and general principles of dressage and infinitely more compatible with the FEI Code of Conduct than the double bridle.

Article 401 requires no change and the addition of four words will bring Article 428 up to date.  The first sentence of 428.1 currently reads:

The following are compulsory: Dressage saddle, which must be close to the horse and have long, near-vertical flaps, double bridle with cavesson noseband, i.e. bridoon and curb with curb chain.

This sentence could be split into two sentences to read:

The following is compulsory, a dressage saddle which must be close to the horse and have long, near-vertical flaps.  The following are optional alternatives, a double bridle with cavesson noseband (i.e. bridoon and curb with curb chain) or a crossunder.

By permitting the use of the crossunder, the FEI (or any national federation) could claim the credit for being the first to introduce a reform that, in the future, will rank as one of the most important contributions ever made to the welfare of the horse.  In addition, they will be thanked by riders who can now achieve true harmony with their happy horse.  The infliction of much unnecessary pain will be avoided, accidents reduced, safety enhanced and many a new competitor will be attracted to the delights of dressage.