we cannot hide from the truth.

​Horses will always be at risk of injury and death while we pursue our love of horse racing. That will be the situation no matter what authority is in charge of horse welfare, be it the B.H.A. or an independent body set-up by whichever colour of government is in office. The only difference between horse welfare within the remit of the B.H.A. and an outside, so-called independent body, is that one is inherently ineffective whilst the other will act in accordance of the ignorance of their ‘masters’.
Last year’s public relations exercise at Cheltenham and Aintree is a case in point when demonstrating an example of the B.H.A.’s ineffectiveness. In three-day events veterinary inspections of every horse due to compete in the cross-country and show-jumping phases is commonplace and no doubt necessary after the rigours of the cross-country. As with event riders, no trainer would enter a horse for a major event like Badminton or the Cheltenham Festival if it was in any way unfit to compete. In fact, it was downright insulting to trainers that the B.H.A. thought it possible that a trainer might try to run an unfit horse at the highest and most popular racing festival in the whole racing calendar.
Veterinary inspections the morning after (or sooner) a race would have at least shown-up any deep tissue injuries or indeed any injury. If such procedures were carried out regularly over many seasons it would provide interesting data that might come in useful in determining and eliminating risk.
The B.H.A. are undoubtedly sincere in their pursuit of the highest animal welfare conditions and in setting up a dedicated department they should be congratulated. But by god they are slow in getting their act together.
Remember the research that suggested horses cannot see orange and that a new colour for the take-off rails and tops of hurdles had to be determined. There are only a limited number of colours in the spectrum. One or two mornings on the schooling grounds in Lambourn should be enough to eliminate most of the nominees. It might take a little longer to decide whether mauve or red, for example, would be the safest and correct choice. But not the on-going length of time it has so far taken. This rather basic detail might be the biggest improvement in horse welfare our sport has ever achieved. It should be a matter of express delivery.
It is the same with the decades old debate on the whip. Instead of initiating a series of hand and heel races for professionals to trial the concept, the B.H.A. is talking to stakeholders and gathering opinion. More delay and dithering.
I believe that the greatest benefit of jockeys being unable to resort to the whip is that fewer horses will suffer tendon and back injuries as jockeys will have to sit quieter and concentrate on keeping their mounts balanced and running in a straight line. I also think the top jockeys will be less inconvenienced by a ‘whip ban’ than those lower in the pecking order as they are true horseman seduced into riding like their predecessors. In five years, every apprentice, if use of the whip is reduced to a minimum, will vie to ride in image of the way Frankie Dettori rode Enable at Ascot this season just gone and this infernal and seemingly eternal debate will be history.
If we as a collective are to give horse welfare the highest priority, then allowing a jockey to whip, even with the force of a feather, a horse in a close finish, whether he or she is allowed two, six or eight cracks, is detrimental to the image and long-term future of horse racing. I always remember Joe Mercer’s reply when he was criticised for not using his whip on Bustino in his epic battle with Grundy in the King George and Queen Elizabeth: why pick up my stick, he was galloping as fast as he could anyway. A reply and a sentiment to sell a sport.
The Monday after the 1979 Grand National, won by Rubstic, there was a photograph in the Sporting Life taken in the aftermath of Alverton’s demise at Bechers. Sadly, this brave horse, that year’s Gold Cup winner, had broken his neck and Jonjo O’Neill was sat on the ground cradling the horse’s head in his lap. Jonjo was crying his eyes out.
In a perfect world horses would not die in pursuit of our entertainment. It is not what any one of us wants to happen and we would do anything to prevent it. But it happens. The social contract is that we care for these brave and beautiful animals to the utmost of our ability and punish severely anyone who falls short in his or her responsibilities. Horse welfare is the bedrock of the sport and this message must be trumpeted loud and clear not only to the public but the ignorant politicians who use our limitations and failures to gain votes and popularity. When Alverton died, it broke Jonjo’s heart. That photograph – I was still quite naïve at the time – gave me a jolt. It vividly brought home to me that horses could lose their lives when falling, and that jockeys could care so deeply about them that they could not prevent themselves from crying in public. Hard men, soft hearts.
If horse racing is not regulated by those with a deep understanding of the sport, and that is not necessarily the B.H.A., if such responsibilities are handed-over to independent committees funded by government, the sport will eventually be strangled into submission. Horse racing generates tax for the government, so it will not be banned, not even National Hunt, but it will be neutered out of all recognition. Those who presently argue in favour of the whip are unwittingly the best friends of our enemies. When it comes to horse welfare, the moral high ground is not necessarily ours by right.