zero tolerance in cases of neglect or cruelty.

​The ‘From Birth to Death’ welfare approach by the B.H.A. is by far their most praiseworthy strategy thus far. It is unarguable, though slightly regrettable that it came about from the point of view of defending the sport rather than having been in place for a hundred-years. Personally, I would like the B.H.A. to go one step further and have ‘The Horse Comes First’ as the number 1 statute of the sport, with no present or future rule or regulation instigated that might impinge in any shape or form on the governing aspiration of ‘the horse comes first’.
I have no capacity for remembering dates and sometimes even which decade something occurred and I rely on words or phrases along the lines ‘back along’ or ‘a while back’ when referring to annoyances and races from the past. Anyway, there was a time, not so long ago, when different factions of the sport, journalists, handicappers, bookmakers and punters, campaigned for all horses to be ridden out to the finishing post, irrespective of how tired they might be or there likely finishing position. The argument was that horses could be given ‘easy rides’ and in that event the true ability of horses was being hidden from the punter and handicapper, in particular. It truly was a case of ‘sod the horse’, the punter comes first and let’s make the handicappers job easier for them. I was aroused from my lethargy to put pen to paper and write to either the Sporting Life or Racing Post to point out the arrant nonsense being argued and the perception it would transmit to our baying detractors. Again, I am not sure of which decade I am referring to. But a dire proposal to shoot ourselves in the foot!
I will not reference Irish racing as there is one appalling case of a trainer being found guilty twice for animal cruelty who was not sentenced to either a life-ban or to be hung, drawn and quartered, that continues to boil my blood and thus far, although verging on lenient on the rare occasion such cases come before them, the B.H.A. have not let someone off with what I would consider ‘a charitable sentence’.
The problem with commenting on any case when ignorant of all the relevant facts is that you have no first-hand knowledge of the people at the sharp end of the charges against them and sentiment can guide your thoughts to make a claim that can verge from unfair to downright wrong. So, what I say now, is opinion based on the reporting of the case in the Racing Post.
Lee James has received a 3-year-ban from holding a licence to train racehorses by the B.H.A. for ‘not fulfilling his duty of care’ to a horse in his charge, Iconic Figure. He was given two 15-month bans for breaching the ‘duty to promote the welfare of horses’ and a further six-months for ‘failing to act on veterinary advice’. I might have accepted the punishment if the 3-years punishment began on the day he was found guilty. But the sentence was backdated to the day he was first charged with the offence and as a result he can reapply for his licence in November 2024. This is a charitable sentence and in no way does it signal the message to the public other licenced individuals that there is no defence when it comes to neglect and cruelty. 
In cases where a licenced individual is found guilty of neglect or cruelty to a horse in their care they should also be further charged with bringing the sport into disrepute and given a life-ban from the sport. Zero tolerance, as it should be for doping a horse to win or stopping it from winning. It may sound twee and juvenile, but horses truly are our future. If we do not place their welfare before all other considerations our detractors could easily win over the middle-ground public and horse racing in this country will be go the same way as racing in Singapore that is to end in 2024 due the government taking back the land on which Kranji racecourse is constructed. A chilling story in itself.
Individuals found guilty of neglect or cruelty should be classed as pariahs. That said, and in the present financial plight that governs all-things this is doubtful not feasible, a fund should be established, in cases of urgency, to be assessable by anyone licenced by the B.H.A. if they are unable to afford the veterinary intervention required to save the life of a horse. A dream scenario, I agree, but an aspiration that should be debated if not adopted. Nothing should be too much or too expensive if ‘the horse truly comes first’. I would argue that a fund of half-a-million quid could annually be raised if a small percentage was shaved off the prize-funds of all races worth six-figures or more. Without the aspiration, there can be no ambition to enhance horse welfare within the racing industry.
Finally, where is Iconic Figure now? Has he recovered from the regime of malnourishment imposed on him? Is he leading an active life? It seems, from third-party viewing, that the victim has been misplaced in the telling of this regrettable news story.