On 6 March 2026, I wrote to Equestrian Australia, Equestrian NSW, and the NCEC Dressage committee. I had researched the Dutch national regulations carefully. I offered to compete hors concours — outside the rankings, with no threat to anyone's points or placings. I asked, as a fallback position, for guidance on how a pilot might work.
The letter included the full text of Article 147 of the KNHS rules, the Dutch redefinition of contact, and an explanation of how their approach preserved the training scale and classical judging criteria entirely. I had done the work.
The Letter
Dear Equestrian Australia, Equestrian NSW, and NCEC Dressage,
Further to my previous correspondence regarding the possibility of introducing a pilot project to allow bitless bridles in dressage competition, I would like to provide additional information that may assist in your consideration of this proposal.
I have recently reviewed the national dressage regulations of the KNHS, the governing body for equestrian sport in the Netherlands. Their national rules specifically allow dressage tests to be ridden in approved bitless bridles up to ZZ-Zwaar level.
Of particular interest is the way the Dutch rules define contact when riding bitless. Rather than referring to contact with a bit, the rules define contact as light rein contact with the horse, while judges continue to assess the same qualities of training and performance. Judging remains based on the training scale and the horse's way of going, rather than the hardware used.
I would be very interested in supporting a small pilot project or demonstration class to explore how this might work within the Australian context. In the meantime, I would also like to respectfully request permission to ride in a bitless bridle at the upcoming NCEC dressage competition hors concours.
My intention is simply to demonstrate that a horse trained according to the scales of training can be presented successfully in a bitless bridle while still meeting the same standards expected in dressage competition.
Paula Lasersohn
The Reply
Dear Paula,
I'm replying about your request below for an exemption to ride bitless; approval cannot be provided for participation in a bitless bridle at EA Dressage competitions even as HC, as it is currently not allowed in the EA Dressage rules.
Caiwen Cusworth, Sport Development Officer, Equestrian Australia
What the Reply Reveals
That is the complete substantive content of the response. One paragraph. Not a safety objection. Not a welfare concern. Not an engagement with the Dutch precedent that had been carefully researched and provided. Not an acknowledgment that a Prix St Georges competitor was making a serious and constructive proposal.
It is currently not allowed in the EA Dressage rules.
Yes. That is why I wrote the letter.
The reply is a tautology. The rule prevents it therefore the rule prevents it. The argument for changing the rule — the Dutch evidence, the classical principles, the welfare science, the offer to proceed hors concours with zero impact on competitive rankings — receives no response because the institution is not considering whether to change the rule. It is simply restating that the rule exists.
What Institutions Actually Protect
Institutions do not change because someone presents them with evidence. They change because the cost of not changing eventually exceeds the cost of changing.
Right now the cost to Equestrian Australia of refusing this request is nothing. A reply that takes thirty seconds to send. No consequences. No follow-up required. The Sport Development Officer — a person whose job title literally includes the word development — has developed nothing.
The cost of approving it is a precedent. A crack in the wall. The acknowledgment that the current rules might not be the only valid rules, that a fellow FEI member nation has already done this, that a rider with a serious competitive history is making a legitimate argument that deserves serious engagement.
What is being protected is not classical principles — those are intact under the Dutch model. Not judging integrity — that is unchanged. Not competitive fairness — hors concours removes it from the rankings entirely.
What is being protected is the current system. The status quo. The institutional comfort of not having to think about whether the rules are right.
Why This Matters Beyond My Request
My letter and its reply are not unique. They are typical. Every rider who has ever asked a national federation to engage seriously with bitless competition has received some version of this response. Not here, not yet, not under current rules.
The accumulation of these responses across every national federation in every country is how a sport that has known about the Fillis physics argument since 1890, has had the welfare science since 2005, has watched the blue tongue videos, has seen the noseband research, has had a Dutch precedent for a decade — has managed to change almost nothing.
Not because the evidence is insufficient. The evidence is overwhelming.
But because institutions protect themselves, and the cost of not changing has not yet exceeded the cost of changing.
This book is part of accumulating that cost. The website is part of it. The Dutch evidence is part of it. Every rider who reads this and decides to train bitless and ask their federation the same question I asked — every one of those requests is part of it.
The wall just showed us exactly where it is.
Good. Now we know where to push.