The Dutch national dressage regulations, published by the KNHS, contain the following in Article 147:
Dressage tests may be ridden bitless up to the ZZ-Zwaar level for both horses and ponies. From the Light Tour level onwards, participation bitless is only permitted hors concours (HC).
The description of the individual dressage tests and associated explanations contained in Appendix 6 apply, with the exception that in dressage tests ridden bitless, 'contact' as described in the training scale means light contact on the reins with the horse and the horse's head and neck position.
The full rules can be verified at: knhs.nl/reglementen/disciplinereglement-dressuur
The Seven Words That Change Everything
The redefinition of contact is the key insight. Not a redefinition of the training scale. Not a rewriting of the judging criteria. A redefinition of one word in one clause.
Contact means light rein contact with the horse.
Seven words. The hardware becomes irrelevant to the definition. The quality being assessed — the horse's acceptance of a soft, consistent, non-forcing connection — is the same whether the rein attaches to a bit or a noseband. The judge applies exactly what they always applied. Is the contact light? Is the horse accepting it willingly? Is the topline working? Is the rhythm pure?
The scoresheet doesn't change. The thinking doesn't change. Only the hardware changes.
This removes the most common institutional objection to bitless competition in a single sentence. The Dutch proved it doesn't require a complete rewriting of dressage's judging framework. One sentence. Seven words. One FEI member nation. Already done.
The Gap: Permission Without Incentive
Article 147 permits bitless up to ZZ-Zwaar level — roughly equivalent to Medium/Advanced Medium in English terms — competitively. Above that level it is hors concours only: the score doesn't count for rankings or qualifications.
And there is no coefficient — no mathematical reward for riding bitless where it is permitted. A rider who presents bitless at ZZ-Zwaar competes on exactly the same terms as a rider with a double bridle. Their score is not enhanced for the additional proof of horsemanship they are demonstrating.
The Dutch have opened the door. Nobody has yet walked through it at the top. The reason is that there is no incentive to do so. Permission without reward changes nothing about training culture.
The Coefficient: Making Reform Strategically Rational
Add a coefficient and the calculation changes. A 20% uplift on the final score makes bitless presentation strategically rational — not just philosophically admirable. The rider planning their season has a concrete reason to develop a bitless partnership. The horse is trained for it from the beginning. The culture shifts because the incentive shifts.
In current dressage scoring, certain movements carry a coefficient of 2 — they are counted twice because they demonstrate the quality of training in a particularly revealing way. The extended trot carries a coefficient. The walk work carries a coefficient. These choices reflect what the sport values.
A coefficient applied to bitless presentation says: we value what the absence of a bit proves. A horse going correctly in a halter is demonstrating self-carriage more completely than any bitted horse can, because the halter cannot substitute for it. That demonstration deserves a multiplier.
The Australian Pathway
For Equestrian Australia, the Dutch model removes the argument that this is untested and risky. It is tested. It works. A fellow FEI member nation has run it for years with no disruption to classical judging principles, no complaints about incoherence with the training scale, no compromise of competitive integrity.
Australia is well positioned to be the second nation. The dressage community is smaller and more agile than Europe's. The number of riders already working bitless — quietly, without competitive outlet — is significant. Dressage Australia could introduce Article 147 plus coefficient at national level and within two competition seasons have data: participation rates, score distributions, judge responses, public engagement.
That data becomes the submission to the FEI. Not a philosophical argument. Evidence from a running system.
The Larger Implication
The Dutch redefinition of contact is important beyond its practical application. It establishes a principle: that what dressage is assessing is not the correct use of a specific piece of equipment, but a quality of relationship between horse and rider that can be expressed through different hardware.
Once that principle is established in national rules, the argument for its extension upward — through international competition, through Olympic qualification, to the Games themselves — becomes not a utopian proposal but a logical continuation of something already happening.
The question is not whether this is possible. The Dutch proved it is possible a decade ago.
The question is whether the sport has the courage to follow the evidence it has already produced.