horse welfare.

​When it was proposed a few years ago, for the benefit of handicappers and punters, that it should be mandatory for jockeys to ride out their mounts to beyond the winning post, I wrote to the Racing Post, many of whose columnists and tipsters thought the proposal worthy of adoption, to make it plain that racing would be going to Hell on a handcart if any rule was imposed on jockeys that compromised horse welfare, which I felt strongly would be the case.
So why am I so opposed by the B.H.A.’s present stance on horse welfare?
Let me state straight off that the B.H.A. is 100% correct to put horse welfare to the fore. Not one single issue in our great sport is more important, more integral, to the continuation of our sport than how the public perceive the sport cares for horses and Nick Rust is wholly correct when he says that racing must be on the front foot when it comes to horse welfare and not allow either Government or the ignorant anti-brigade to fashion the rules of our sport.
The problem is in the way the B.H.A. is going about protecting the welfare of the horse.
They hit a new low when one of the B.H.A. number deemed arm-waving a punishable offence, the stupidity compounded by the phrase ‘horses should be seen to run of their own free-will’. But last week’s efforts at Cheltenham to demonstrate the strictness of their horse welfare policy was nothing more than window-dressing. To have every horse vetted for injury before they were allowed to run gave a heavy-handed hint to the anti-brigade that it is not unusual for trainers to bring injured and sick horses to the races. It was an insult that I cannot believe either the trainers or their Federation tolerated without response. To suggest that supreme professionals such as Nicholls, Henderson, Mullins or Elliott, to name but four, would bring horses to the Festival that were not 100% fit was crass to the point of absurd. If the vetting procedure had been conducted on each horse after it had run it would have provided the sport with valuable data on the fitness or otherwise of horses after a hard race. It might also have picked up on injuries that ordinarily might not have manifested themselves until the next day.
The B.H.A. were opening a window for those in Parliament and the anti-brigade to witness a protocol that will not happen again until perhaps Aintree, a vetting procedure that certainly will not be happening at any race meeting today or any day soon. It was window-dressing. In no way could it have prevented the deaths of the three horses who sadly did not travel back to Ireland.
Of course, the B.H.A., even when they get something right, cannot help but cock-up a success story. To suspend a jockey for failing to pull-up a horse too tired to continue cannot be argued with. It is sensible and thoroughly consistent with a welfare policy that puts the horse first. But to punish the jockey who finished third when he opted not to pick up his whip after the last but not to punish the jockey who finished fourth who did opt to use his whip is worse than farcical, it shames the sport. Worse than that, it brings both the sport and its governance into disrepute. If Lavary does not get exonerated at his appeal, and congratulations to J.P. Mcmanus and his team for supporting Lavary, then the handcart is not only on the road to Hell but nearly at the precipice.
Nick Rust is right when he says racing must remain in control of its destiny and not go the way of fox-hunting and other activities that refused to acknowledge the change in society. Where racing differs, especially from fox-hunting, is that no one in the sport sets out to harm a horse and the B.H.A. should remind itself of this important aspect when it makes it rules regarding horse welfare. The B.H.A. must engage with trainers and jockeys before they bring in new procedures and protocols. It is the worst kind of publicity to have racing professionals at odds with its governing body over such a sensitive issue as horse welfare. Nick Rust is not a god amongst gods. He should not dictate to professionals on matters they know far more about than he will ever do. Jaw-jaw, as Churchill once said, is better than war-war. Nick Rust, before he opens his mouth on horse welfare again, would be well-advised to sit around a table to listen to what the trainers and jockeys have to say, to take on board their ideas on improving horse welfare.
The people who work with racehorses’ day in day out, the people who ride horses in races and the people who train and own them, the people who attend race-meetings, even the bookies, perhaps, have one common strand – they all love and respect horses. Perhaps when Nick Rust is at Westminster talking to the anti-brigade, he should show them Frodon winning the Ryanair and Bryony’s passionate and heart-rendering account of ‘his’ victory and the joy that was engendered by the willing harmony of horse and jockey and contrast that to the slaughtering of horses for dog-meat and the live transportation across Europe of horses, sheep and cattle, also for slaughter. Ballyward, Sir Erec and Invitation Only lived good lives, knew only love and respect and died honourably, with people desperate in their efforts to save them.
Just one final thought: the ‘Chair Fence’ at Aintree is so-called because someone called the ‘distance judge’ was stationed there whose job was to stop any horse and jockey that had not reached that point as the winner past the winning post. Perhaps ‘distance judges’ should be returned to the sport. It might have prevented the furore from the National Hunt Chase last week.