Having been asked for my thoughts on the Rambo, Micklem Multibridle marketed in 2008 by Horseware Ireland, I must preface my comments by declaring two items.  First, I have not used (and would not use) the Rambo.  Secondly, as Chairman of BitlessBridle Inc., I have a conflict of interest.  However, as the advertising for the Rambo claims that the Rambo is superior to all other bridles (and, by implication, the BitlessBridle in particular), it is appropriate for me to analyze such a claim. The advertising material distributed to introduce this bridle to the horse riding public makes certain anatomical, physiological, geographical, historical and usage claims.  The following observations can be made about their validity.

Geography:  The version of the Rambo bridle on sale in the USA differs substantially from the version that is marketed elsewhere.  The bridle sold by Dover Saddlery in the USA does not include what is referred to in the advertising material as the ‘strong’ bitless option.  Such an inclusion would have infringed my US patent on the crossunder principle, which is the distinguishing feature of the BitlessBridle (BB).  It had to be deleted from the US version for legal reasons.  The absence of this option in the US removes what, to my mind, is the only useful feature of the Rambo.  Without it, the Rambo is either a traditional bitted bridle or a sidepull, of no particular merit.

Anatomy:  The claim that the Rambo has been designed on some special ergonomic principle “from the inside out’ in order to fit the shape of the horse’s skull is anatomical nonsense.  The Rambo is not “the most comfortable, flexible and effective (bridle) ever invented.’  Because of the presence of a bit, the Rambo will inflict pain and has all the other disadvantages of any bitted bridle. 

In their advertising, Micklem and Horseware Ireland adopt the familiar ‘FUD’ strategy.  They seek to raise ‘Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt’ (‘FUD’) about an existing product.  Nowhere is this strategy more apparent than in their anatomical claims.

1. Avoidance of pressure on the facial nerves: This claim is a ‘red herring.’ Neither the standard noseband of a traditional bridle, nor the more closely-fitted and lower-placed noseband of the BB, ever damages the trigeminal nerve as it exits from the skull. This is a blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black.  Though a noseband does no harm to the nerve, a bit does. The relentless and repetitious pressure of a bit on the bars and tongue is the most common cause of a career-ending problem, the headshaking syndrome (trigeminal neuralgia).
2. Avoidance of pressure on the projecting cheek bones: This is nothing new.  All bridle cheek pieces avoid such pressure.
3. Avoidance of pressure on the protruding cheek teeth:  It is not anatomically correct to say that these teeth ‘protrude.’  Yes, the upper jaw is wider than the lower jaw but if the development of sharp enamel edges on the upper cheek teeth is prevented by regular dental care or, better still, by regular turn-out and grazing (something all horses should be granted), this overlap is of no consequence.
4. Avoidance of damage to the fragile bones:  Again, this is a ‘red herring.’  The peak of the nasal bone is quite strong and is in no danger of being damaged by the noseband of the BB.  At the point at which the BB noseband is placed, the bone is not at all ‘delicate.’  During ten years of use, this so-called ‘fragile’ bone has come to no harm.  It is mischievous to suggest otherwise.
5. Avoidance of pressure on the poll.  The crownpiece of the BB applies very little pressure at the poll and no damage. It is incorrect for Micklem to claim that the Rambo’s wide and padded headpiece represents an advantage.  Such a design modification is simply change for the sake of differentiation, i.e. it is introduced in the hope of persuading innocent buyers of a spurious advantage.  The Rambo will be both heavier and more expensive than the BB when a bit is attached. 

6. Physiology. It is claimed that, when used as a bitted bridle, the Rambo features a “unique tongue and bars protection system.’  This is more nonsense.  The pressure placed on the bars and tongue by a traditionally bitted bridle has never been measured, so it is false advertising to claim that the ‘bit clip’ reduces this pressure.  Based on a consideration of the anatomy and the forces involved, I seriously question that the bit clips reduce the pressure of a bit or the pain that a bit causes.  A further problem with the practicality of such a claimed ‘system’ is that FEI rules will probably disallow any bridle in which the bit is connected to the noseband.  The Royal Dutch Equestrian Federation, for example, have already ruled against such a connection.

The Rambo is claimed to be ‘more effective,’ i.e., by implication, more effective than the BB.  No evidence is provided to support such a claim and I certainly dispute the implication.

The Rambo is claimed to be “more comfortable”… yet again, without evidence.  For the reasons given above, I dispute this claim.

When used as a bitted bridle, the Rambo is claimed to encourage acceptance of the bit. Yet if given the option, no horse would ‘accept the bit.’  The sole function of a traditional bitted bridle is to retain the bit in the horse’s mouth.  In the absence of retaining straps every horse would immediately reject the bit (Rambo or otherwise) and allow it to fall to the ground.  They would, in other words, spit it out.

… and to discourage an open mouth.  The proper way to avoid an open mouth (which is abnormal at exercise and counterproductive) is to remove the cause (the bit).  To try and mask this sign of pain and distress by use of a dropped noseband is the wrong approach.

… and tongue over the bit.  This and many another negative behavioral problem is caused by the bit.  Removal of the cause is the only proper remedy.    

Historical: In his book, “The Complete Riding Manual,’ William Micklem makes several false &/or misleading claims. 

• For example, “It is … the best bitless bridle I have used.” This may be his opinion but if I was given the choice between using his ‘strong’ bitless version of the Rambo and the BB (of which the Rambo ‘strong’ is a second-rate copy, see below), I would much prefer the BB. I do not agree that, by placing the noseband at the height Micklem advises, his version is superior.  On the contrary, by having the noseband so high, some sensitivity and leverage is lost.  Riders will have to use more rein pressure than they do if the noseband is placed lower down, where I recommend.  As the instructions for fitting the Rambo do not make any specific recommendations with regard to the adjustment of what Micklem calls the ‘bottom back strap’ (i.e. the dropped noseband) this strap will be incorrectly adjusted by most users.  The result will be that it is either too tight (and therefore uncomfortable) or too slack (in which case the noseband will slide up the horse’s head each time rein pressure is applied and rein-aid communication will be adversely affected).
• Its superior “versatility.  When many of the options provided are counter-productive or even contra-indicated, ‘versatility’ by itself  is not a virtue  For example, the ability to hang a bit from the Rambo makes the Rambo less humane, not “the most humane” bridle ever invented.  The BB is the only pain-free bridle on the market and, therefore, the most humane.  Otherwise, in terms of versatility, the BB can also be used as a lunging cavesson, a head collar and a lead halter.
• Micklem claims to have used the Rambo for “over 10 years.”  He may conceivably have used some features of the Rambo for as long as ten years but he can only have incorporated the ‘strong’ bitless option (the crossunder principle of the BB) in the last two years at the earliest.  The evidence is as follows. 
• In 2007, I helped the Festina Lente Foundation in Ireland conduct an experiment by noting the change in behavior when their 18 horses were switched from a bitted bridle to a BitlessBridle.  When Jill Carey, the Festina Lente CEO, wrote up the results of this experiment in 2007, she noted that “The bitless bridle bears no other resemblance to the pre-existing and traditional bitless bridles, i.e., the hackamores, bosals, and sidepulls … It works on an entirely new and different concept compared with all previous bridles.” William Micklem was, at the time (and may still be) a member of the board of the Festina Lente Foundation.  If Micklem had discovered the crossunder principle independently and had been using it for ‘over 10 years,’ Carey would undoubtedly have been alerted to this by Micklem and would have made a different attribution.  I think it reasonable to conclude that Micklem learned about the crossunder principle as a result of this experiment at Festina Lente and then chose to incorporate it in his prototype design (if indeed he already had one). 
• It is significant that the Rambo was not marketed until 2008.  It was given the BETA Innovation Award in 2008.  The BB was given the Equitana Innovation Award eight years earlier, in 2000.
•  I do not mind someone copying the crossunder principle. So successful has been the design that many companies around the world have now jumped on the bitless bandwagon.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  I only own patent protection for this design in the USA, so overseas copies are perfectly legal. I am happy for horses and riders worldwide to benefit from the research and development I have carried out since 1952.  However, it would be more polite if those who copied the design had the courtesy to acknowledge the source rather than claiming that they carried out the research and development themselves.  It is especially discourteous when someone copies the design without acknowledgment and then rubs salt into the wound by denigrating the original design and making false claims of superiority for an inferior copy.

Usage:

·      The Rambo is not a better and kinder bridle than the BB.

·      By the time a user has bought one or more bits, it is more expensive

·      There is no justification for the claim that, when used as a bitted bridle, it provides a winning edge and makes horses happier.

·      As a bitted bridle, it will not prevent tongues being squashed

·      It does not represent a good idea (i.e., the BB) giving way to a better idea

·      Micklem’s claim to have done something that hasn’t been done before does not ring true.  His only worthwhile innovation (?), the ‘strong’ bitless option, was introduced ten years previously by someone else.  His other claims to originality are of no value.

SUMMARY OPINION

I do not agree that the Rambo represents, as claimed, a change for the better

Anon’s epigrammatic advice, with slight alteration, sums up the situation:

Your bridle claims I’ve read, my friend.

And like the half you pilfered best;

But, sure, the bridle you yet might mend –

Take courage, man, and steal the rest