Racing back on radio
POLITICIANS: RACING IN THEIR CROSS-HAIRS AND THE SPORT NEEDS TO WAKE UP
Investigation into a number of deaths and use of the whip.
London
Two weeks ago a collection of cross-party MPs gathered in Westminster Hall to consider an e-petition calling for a new independent body for the protection of racehorses. The petition, which garnered more than 100,000 supporters (the threshold for a parliamentary debate), had been organised by Animal Aid, an extreme animal rights organisation that seeks the end of racing in Britain.
The debate that followed officially concerned whether the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) should continue to regulate the welfare of racehorses. However, the substance of the MPs’ discussion was arguably the more significant part of the debate, at least in terms of what the future holds for racing. Respondents from all sides of the debate, including from government and long-standing supporters of the sport, demanded faster and greater improvements on welfare from racing.
Consider the comments of David Rutley, parliamentary undersecretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who responded for the government. While supportive of the BHA’s continuing role regulating the sport, he described each equine death recorded in racing as “absolutely tragic” and repeatedly emphasised the necessity of racing reducing its fatality rate.
He referred to the forthcoming BHA review of six deaths at this year’s Cheltenham Festival, due to be published next month, calling it “an important vehicle to understand (the BHA’s) commitment and ambition” to reducing fatalities and “an opportunity to look at what more can be done at the Grand National”. In other words, the government expects the review to make substantive recommendations to reduce fatalities.
On the whip, too, the government representative took a far stronger line than might have been anticipated. While acknowledging the sport’s “strict rules”, he added that “lessons should be learned from places such as Norway”, where the whip is essentially banned. Noting a 40% reduction of whip use in racing between 2012 and 2015, Rutley added: “Let’s go further down that track.”
These were striking comments from a representative of a Conservative government, but they were tame in comparison to the remarks made by Labour’s spokesman Luke Pollard. Pollard acknowledged improvements on fatality rates, but demanded more. “If we are to legitimise the BHA continuing to govern the regulatory approach, when will (the fatality rate of 0.2%) be halved? When will we get to 0.1% per cent? What happens if we do not get there? When will the target be zero?”
No deaths, as everyone in the sport knows, is not realistic. It is an impossible target.
On the whip, too, Labour’s spokesman put forward a hardline position: “It is important that whips are used with minimal force and on minimal occasions, and only for genuine safety purposes.” It was put to the hall that the padded whip used in racing causes horses no pain; that fact, whether it was believed or not, made no discernible impression on the debate.
All this was necessary, Pollard said, because the “social contract” whereby society permits the use of animals in sport was changing. “Consumers are more demanding, and welfare standards are rightly being pushed higher in response,” he said.
Suddenly, fatalities and the whip have become issues on which both major parties have stated expectations of the sport. If racing fails to meet those expectations one can expect a political response.
That response would likely manifest as the end of racing’s ability to self-regulate on welfare issues. Decisions would be imposed on the sport by an outside body with little or no obligation to consider the sport’s wishes or the expertise of racing professionals. To such a body, drastic changes to racing in the name of welfare might seem reasonable and necessary.
They may not just look to Norway, where the whip is banned, but to Australia, where jump racing is banned (as it is in South Africa) in some states and severely restricted in others.
The sport’s response to these changes will determine its future. Recent history, such as the whip review of 2011, suggests radical reforms may be greeted with anger and outright revolt by some. This could be decisive. Racing might not have the capacity to take on Westminster, but it can topple the BHA’s current leadership if it wishes.
That would be a politically calamitous outcome. It would demonstrate that the sport is unable or unwilling to take the strong action required to assuage the concerns of MPs across the political spectrum. Politicians would surely then take matters into their own hands.
In his closing address at the Westminster Hall debate, the Conservative spokesman said that the welfare of racehorses would remain at the top of his agenda. “I hope the BHA is listening to this debate,” he said. For the sake of the sport, it’s important racing was listening too.” –