Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest in FEI Dressage Judging
For FEI International Dressage Officials
Introduction
As FEI International Dressage Official, we operate within one of the most technically demanding and publicly scrutinised disciplines in equestrian sport. Our legitimacy depends not only on technical competence, but on the trust placed in us by athletes, trainers, owners, organisers, sponsors, and the wider public.
The FEI regulatory framework—particularly the FEI Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse, the FEI General Regulations, and discipline-specific rules—provides clear guidance on conflicts of interest and ethical behaviour. However, strict compliance with the letter of the rules does not automatically eliminate the perception of a conflict.
In today’s environment, perception can influence credibility as strongly as fact. For the integrity of our sport, we must therefore think beyond what is merely permissible and consider how our roles are interpreted by others.
1. The FEI Code of Conduct and Ethical Framework
The FEI Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse establishes that the welfare of the horse must be paramount and must never be subordinated to competitive or commercial interests. This principle underpins all officiating activity.
The FEI General Regulations (GRs) contain explicit provisions regarding:
- Conflict of Interest (Art. 158 GRs)
- Officials’ impartiality and independence
- Duty of disclosure
- Standards of behaviour expected of FEI Officials
The regulations clearly outline situations in which an official must decline an appointment or recuse themselves, including:
- Close personal or family relationships with athletes
- Financial interest in horses competing
- Coaching relationships within specified timeframes
- Business partnerships connected to participants
These rules are robust, structured, and fair. They create an operational boundary for acceptable conduct.
But compliance is only the starting point.
2. Code of Conduct vs. Conflict of Interest
There is an important distinction between:
- Formal conflict of interest (as defined in regulations)
- Perceived conflict of interest (as experienced by stakeholders)
A formal conflict is objective and rule-based.
A perceived conflict is subjective—but no less powerful.
An official may technically comply with all FEI rules and still face questions such as:
- “Is this judge also commercially active in the same market?”
- “Does this judge train riders at the same level?”
- “Is there a business interest in horse sales?”
- “Does the judge have close family involvement in the sport at elite level?”
- “Is the judge closely involved with the organiser of this event?”
Even when these activities fall within regulatory allowances, they may create perceived alignment of interests.
And perception shapes confidence.
3. Areas of Particular Sensitivity in Dressage
Dressage, more than many disciplines, operates within a close professional network. Many judges have extensive backgrounds as trainers, breeders, riders, or organisers. This expertise strengthens the sport—but it also creates potential overlap.
Sensitive areas may include:
- Training Activities
Judges who actively train riders—especially at international level—must ensure clear separation between judging duties and coaching roles. Even when time restrictions are respected, others may question neutrality if professional proximity is visible.
- Buying and Selling Horses
Involvement in horse trade, breeding operations, or consultancy services can create perceived financial alignment with specific athletes or owners.
- Event Organisation
Judges who are also organisers or closely linked to organising committees may appear institutionally aligned.
- Family Relationships
Family members competing at high levels—even when not at the same event—can raise questions about broader network influence.
None of these are inherently unethical. Many are explicitly regulated and permitted within limits. The issue arises when stakeholders perceive blurred boundaries between regulatory authority and commercial or competitive interest.
4. The Risk of Erosion of Trust
Modern sport operates in an environment of transparency and scrutiny. Social media, livestreaming, public score analysis, and investigative reporting mean that officiating decisions are examined more intensely than ever.
Research in sports governance consistently shows that:
- Perceived bias can damage institutional legitimacy—even in the absence of proven misconduct.
- Public trust depends on visible independence as much as actual independence.
- Governance bodies are judged not only on fairness, but on the appearance of fairness.
For dressage—already under increased welfare scrutiny—this is particularly significant.
If stakeholders believe that officials are too closely intertwined with commercial, training, or competitive networks, the credibility of judging decisions may suffer, regardless of their technical accuracy.
5. The Principle of “Distance”
One of the strongest tools available to us is professional distance.
This does not mean disengagement from the sport. It means conscious boundary-setting:
- Being conservative in interpreting eligibility boundaries.
- Declining appointments where there is even moderate potential for perceived partiality.
- Avoiding dual roles that may blur authority and commercial interest.
- Proactively declaring relationships—even when not strictly required.
- Asking: “How would this look from the outside?”
The most effective safeguard is self-awareness.
6. Integrity as a Collective Responsibility
Integrity is not a personal defence mechanism—it is a collective asset.
When one official’s neutrality is questioned, the reputation of the entire officiating community is affected.
Respect for officials is not guaranteed by title; it is earned through:
- Consistent impartiality
- Transparent conduct
- Conservative ethical judgment
- Willingness to step back when necessary
The FEI regulatory system provides a fair and structured framework. But the spirit of the rules requires something more: ethical maturity and situational awareness.
7. Seeing Through Others’ Eyes
Perhaps the most important exercise for any official is perspective-taking.
We may feel confident that:
- We are fair.
- We are unbiased.
- We comply with regulations.
But riders, trainers, owners, and the public may interpret overlapping roles differently.
Their perspective is shaped by:
- Financial investment in the sport.
- Emotional investment in performance outcomes.
- Broader societal expectations of governance transparency.
- Heightened sensitivity to welfare issues.
Understanding their viewpoint does not imply wrongdoing—it demonstrates leadership.
Conclusion
The FEI rules on Conflict of Interest and the Code of Conduct are clear, structured, and fair. They define minimum standards for participation as an official.
However, the sustainability of dressage depends not only on rule compliance but on visible independence and ethical distance.
We must continually ask ourselves:
- Am I within the rules?
- Am I within the spirit of the rules?
- How might this be perceived by others?
- Does this strengthen or weaken trust in our profession?
Sometimes the most responsible decision is not the one that is technically allowed—but the one that reinforces confidence in our integrity.
For the credibility of our sport and the respect afforded to the officiating community, we must hold ourselves not only to regulatory standards—but to the higher standard of trust.
Integrity is not only about being right.
It is about being seen to be right.