CHI Geneva has a reputation for being one of the most horse- and rider-friendly venues in the world. As the course designer, how do you balance maintaining that reputation while still creating tests that challenge the best combinations on the planet?

GL: We aim to build a course that riders enjoy discovering, while ensuring the horses are not pushed too hard. It remains a very demanding track, but one that balances challenge with fairness. Looking at other Grand Slam events, many include two rounds, which can be much tougher on the horses. At CHI Geneva, we have 14 jumps, making it a fairly long course, but since the competition takes place over a single round, we believe this format is better suited to the horses. The goal is that when they leave Geneva, they’re still fresh enough to compete elsewhere.

The course must be technical to push riders to perform at their best and to keep the number of clear rounds limited, but it should also remain fair for the horses. We’re fortunate to have an excellent arena that has been used for years. The footing is neither too hard nor too soft, and in my opinion, that is the main reason why horses feel so comfortable here.


The Rolex Grand Slam adds enormous prestige and pressure. How does the Rolex Grand Slam narrative influence your approach to course building at CHI Geneva – if at all?

GL: Yes, it certainly has an influence. This competition brings together the very best horse-and-rider combinations. CHI Geneva, in particular, is a highly anticipated event, and everyone prepares well in advance. In response to that level of preparation, it’s our job to design a challenging course that limits the number of clear rounds and keeps the competition exciting.


Without giving away details, what themes or technical principles are guiding your design for Sunday’s Rolex Grand Prix? Are there particular skills you especially want to evaluate this year?

GL: No, the course isn’t designed to test a single skill. Like in previous years, it will be technical. Jump heights are set at the maximum allowed, with obstacles up to 1.65 metres. We won’t overdo the oxers, knowing they are the most demanding for horses, but we will still aim to create a very challenging course – almost at Olympic level.


Show jumping continues to evolve in terms of speed, rideability, and athleticism. How do you adapt your course design to reflect these trends while keeping the sport fair and safe?

GL: We focus more on technical challenges than on physical ones, encouraging riders to be as precise as possible. As you mentioned, horses today are increasingly built for jumping. Twenty years ago, they weren’t as athletic or as quick on the ground. Breeding has progressed a lot, and riders have become more refined and physically prepared for competition. 

That’s why we aim for originality in course design, subtly creating opportunities for faults. We also use variations in obstacle colours – not to catch horses out, but to introduce novelty. For example, horses are very familiar with the green and yellow Rolex fences, so using different colours can create a slight challenge and reveal which pairs have the best connection. Overall, we prioritise the horse’s technical ability rather than physical strain, never wanting to overwork them. The goal of every course designer is for horses to feel as good when they leave a show as when they arrived.

That said, we can’t predict everything. Sometimes obstacles placed in certain spots or at certain distances are expected to cause faults, but riders may struggle more with fences we anticipated being easier. There’s always an element of unpredictability and luck that cannot be ignored. 

For me, the main goal is that the horses feel comfortable throughout the competition. 

The Palexpo’s main arena is renowned for its size and atmosphere. What design opportunities – or challenges – does the Geneva ring present compared with other major venues?

GL: It’s a unique arena. Its size is comparable to an outdoor ring, so we design the course as if it were outdoors, while also adapting the rhythm to suit the riders. It’s a very different challenge compared to venues like Basel, where the space is almost half as large. Here, even though we’re indoors, we truly approach course design with an outdoor mindset.


How do you determine the fine line between a course that is suitably demanding for a 5* Grand Prix and one that risks becoming too influential or unfair? What indicators do you monitor most closely?

GL: We don’t focus on tracking specific numbers like rider dismounts. Instead, we look at the overall balance of the course. Our aim is for around 60% of riders to finish with eight faults or fewer. You can have a technically excellent course with many clear rounds, but if a large proportion of riders are stopped or eliminated, then it hasn’t worked as intended. Conversely, even if only a few riders go clear, but most finish with four or eight faults, that indicates the course has been challenging yet fair. That’s the balance we strive for between being suitably demanding and remaining fair for both horses and riders.


When designing a major Grand Prix course, do you consider the field of horses expected to compete – power jumpers, lighter blood types, experienced combinations – and does that shape your decisions? 

GL: All the horses here have very different profiles, but they are all top athletes. Of course, distances vary depending on the horse’s stride, but it’s not correct to assume that smaller horses always have shorter strides – they can stretch out just like larger horses. What matters is the rider’s ability to adapt, lengthening or shortening the stride as needed. 

When designing a course, especially for a Grand Prix like this, we don’t worry about that because we know riders will adjust accordingly. If an extra stride is needed somewhere, they’ll make it. Regardless of a horse’s build, at this level, we know they’ll be ready. Even horses belonging to invited riders, who may be less well-known, are still elite athletes prepared to compete. 

In fact, you could argue that tonight’s [Thursday’s] national Grand Prix is on par with international Grand Prix events at other shows. The quality of both riders and horses at CHI Geneva is truly unmatched. 


At the end of Sunday’s Rolex Grand Prix, what would make you feel that your course achieved exactly what you intended? What does the ‘perfect outcome’ look like from a course designer’s perspective? 

GL: For me, if the Grand Prix results in eight to 10 clear rounds and around 80% of riders finish with eight faults or fewer, I would consider that a success. But you can never predict the outcome in advance. Even if everything has been done correctly, the true result of our work only becomes clear on Sunday.