Talking Horses: Jockeys take issue with BHA review into fatalities

Tensions within the racing industry began to surface on Friday in response to the bulky review into equine fatalities published this week by the sport’s ruling body. As racing professionals gathered at the track at the centre of the review, several were minded to criticise some of the recommendations and the manner in which the review was carried out, though most fought shy of doing so on the record.

But the body which represents the interests of jockeys acknowledged, when asked, that it was not entirely happy about the document sent out on Wednesday by the British Horseracing Authority. “It was important that decisions were evidence based,” said Paul Struthers, chief executive of the Professional Jockeys Association, “and it is unfortunate that, when it comes to some of the recommendations impacting our members, the BHA has chosen to ignore this evidence.

“However, no one cares more for the welfare of horses and the health of the sport than jockeys. Our members are acutely aware of their responsibilities. We therefore look forward to meeting with the BHA to discuss the recommendations and the plan for their implementation.”

Struthers declined to elaborate on the reasons for his frustration. However it appears he shares a concern expressed by others about proposed changes to the Martin Pipe race at the Cheltenham Festival, which may result in some young jockeys being denied a chance to ride at the famous race-meeting. Some privately question whether any change was necessary in the context of a race that has had four fallers from 115 runners over the past five years.

Doubt was also expressed here about the evidential basis for a recommendation urging stewards to enforce the rules on pulling up horses who become particularly fatigued. The review had found that, in fact, there was “no significant difference” in pull-up rates between Festival races and good-quality races run elsewhere.

The BHA issued a frosty response to Struthers’ words, saying: “The recommendations of the Cheltenham review are based on evidence and it is incorrect to say otherwise, or that we have ignored evidence. In some cases the evidence is conclusive, and in some cases the evidence is suggestive and we have taken a precautionary approach, if there is a chance that this could make a positive difference.

“We have called on the whole sport to support the objectives of the review, as we have a collective responsibility for the sport’s future. We will work with the PJA and all relevant stakeholders in the formation of the action plan.”

Among those who work here at Cheltenham, there is an underlying feeling that the racecourse was not given enough credit in the review for the work it has done over the past 20 years to improve participant safety, much of which was done under no direct pressure from the BHA. Greater than this, however, was a feeling of relief that the review did not shoulder Cheltenham with sole responsibility for reducing equine injuries in the future, but instead spread it widely to include all those who work with racehorses.

High-profile trainers here were mostly pleading for time before offering a comment on the review, a substantial document accompanied by charts and footnotes which few seemed in a tearing hurry to read, not least because the recommendations are non-negotiable. There was some grumbling to the effect that the views of trainers ought to have been more thoroughly canvassed but most chose to bite back on their grievances, feeling it more important to be supporting the general push towards improved animal welfare.

Colin Tizzard was one of the more vocally supportive. “We’re living in a different world nowadays. We need to move with the times. It’s like the Grand National review, when they modified the fences and that turned out brilliant. We just need to tweak little things, like we do with everything in life. They’re doing a good job.”