RSPCA urges 'comprehensive review' into Cheltenham fatalities

[Kevloaf]

This article from RUK touches on a little bit of the discussion we're having in the Grand Annual thread:

RSPCA urges 'comprehensive review' into Cheltenham fatalities
Sat 17 Mar 2018

Officials at the RSPCA have described the six equine fatalities at the Cheltenham Festival this week as "extremely concerning".

There were four deaths on the final day, with three of them - Dresden, North Hill Harvey and Some Plan - coming in the concluding race, the Johnny Henderson Grand Annual Challenge Cup Handicap Chase.

Earlier in the day, Katie Walsh was unshipped from Sandsend before the last in the County Hurdle and it was later confirmed the Willie Mullins-trained runner had suffered a fatal injury. The two other equine fatalities took place on Tuesday's opening card with the deaths of Mossback and Report To Base.

The British Horseracing Authority said on Friday evening it would be reviewing the circumstances leading to the fatalities and examining evidence from the week before deciding how to proceed.

Urging a "comprehensive review", David Muir, horse racing consultant at the RSPCA, said in a statement: "We are deeply saddened that six horses have died at the 2018 Cheltenham Festival.

"These fatalities are extremely concerning and it is essential that the announced review by the racing industry must be completely comprehensive to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies occurring again.

"The review should be inclusive of horse welfare organisations and for the benefit of the horses it is essential that we continue to work with the regulatory body giving our full support to their review. A review was carried out at Aintree in 2012 which has since reduced horse falls, injuries and fatalities.

"We also believe the use of the whip and the term encouragement needs to be clearly defined, and our view is that the whip should only be used for safety and correction.

"The deaths of Mossback and Report To Base on Tuesday and Sandsend, North Hill Harvey, Dresden and Some Plan yesterday (Friday) are extremely distressing and our thoughts are with all those involved."

BHA media manager Robin Mounsey confirmed talks are planned with all relevant parties, including the RSPCA.

He said: "We will be meeting next week to discuss how we are going to proceed with the review of the Festival, but as part of this process we will be consulting with relevant stakeholders, which includes recognised welfare organisations such as the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare."

[somer1]

Thought i had added to this but will try for a 2nd time.
No one want to see a horse killed doing a job they love doing but speed and jumping will kill.Speed kills.Are we to take down the fence and hurdle and let the horse walk around the course? Can remember Martin pipe losing two at Cheltenham years ago ridden by McCoy (Gloria Victis and vallaamix sorry about the spelling) and a reporter stuffing a mic in his face asking him how he felt (McCoy wasnt happy) As said speed with jumping kills.

[redandwhite]

Sandsend's shattered leg had nothing to do with speed or jumping. It took a false step on bad ground.

[Rhinestone_Cowboy]

Thanks for posting Kev and some good comments on the Grand Annual thread that I have just caught up with. While there is obviously no way you can completely remove the risks in this sport I still think a great deal more progress can be made to minimise them at the Festival and further afield. One only needs to look at the Grand National. Due to the size of the public spotlight changes to the fences have clearly helped in reducing fatalities with 0 deaths in the last five years. Indeed Aintee suffered 0 fatalities across the 3 day meeting last year, wouldn't it be great if Cheltenham could say the same one day?

I'm no expert but the sort of measures that could be taken is reduction in the handicap runners (as mentioned by Middle of March), reducing the size of fences, making them of softer materials and hurdles tipping over more easily.

Personally I would like to see more voices from within the sport pushing for more changes in this regard, rather than waiting for external pressure which I think will only grow over the coming years.

[redandwhite]

Softer fences is a difficult one. I don't see the point of running a chase if it doesn't penalise bad jumpers. The Cheltenham fences already look too soft. I saw a few horses go straight through the fences this week without losing momentum. Soft fences encourage the jockeys to go quicker at them.

[kinloch brae]

I don't see what this going to achieve.

You cannot take away all the danger and have something resembling the same sport. The only way you can stop all fatalities is by ending the sport. We all know horses can lose their lives away from the racecourse. They are fragile creatures.

Everyone knows they go a million miles in the Grand Annual. That's what happens every year. You can't tell the jockeys to go a bit slower. If you halved the field size it wouldn't be the same race.

Nobody wants any fatalities but if you follow the sport you have to accept, however difficult, that they will happen. If you find that too much to cope with then perhaps this isn't the sport for you?

[kinloch brae]

Just to say I have always agreed with the RSPCA stance on the whip. Why should you be able to strike an animal to try and make it run faster? It is the one thing in racing I find very hard to accept.

[ryanh97]

I don't see what this going to achieve.

You cannot take away all the danger and have something resembling the same sport. The only way you can stop all fatalities is by ending the sport. We all know horses can lose their lives away from the racecourse. They are fragile creatures.

Everyone knows they go a million miles in the Grand Annual. That's what happens every year. You can't tell the jockeys to go a bit slower. If you halved the field size it wouldn't be the same race.

Nobody wants any fatalities but if you follow the sport you have to accept, however difficult, that they will happen. If you find that too much to cope with then perhaps this isn't the sport for you?

I agree with most of what you said apart from the Grand Annual part. "If you halved the field size it wouldn't be the same race" - surely the welfare of the horses and riders is much more important than a bit of prestige and tradition. If its not the same race then so be it.

[Middle_Of_March]

The Grand Annual is a 2m Chase for 24 runners. For me, that’s wrong.

I said in my preview that the race has drama every year and that is way. You wouldn’t have a 24 runner Champion Chase without the same consequences of fallers and horses being brought down. The same thing happened in last years Grand Annual but thankfully they all survived.

[Rhinestone_Cowboy]

I don't see what this going to achieve.

You cannot take away all the danger and have something resembling the same sport. The only way you can stop all fatalities is by ending the sport. We all know horses can lose their lives away from the racecourse. They are fragile creatures.

Everyone knows they go a million miles in the Grand Annual. That's what happens every year. You can't tell the jockeys to go a bit slower. If you halved the field size it wouldn't be the same race.

Nobody wants any fatalities but if you follow the sport you have to accept, however difficult, that they will happen. If you find that too much to cope with then perhaps this isn't the sport for you?

No one is saying you can remove all the danger but you can go further to minimise the risk as the changes to the Grand National fences have shown. Agree with your point on the whip.

[Old Vic]

I don't see what this going to achieve.

You cannot take away all the danger and have something resembling the same sport. The only way you can stop all fatalities is by ending the sport. We all know horses can lose their lives away from the racecourse. They are fragile creatures.

Everyone knows they go a million miles in the Grand Annual. That's what happens every year. You can't tell the jockeys to go a bit slower. If you halved the field size it wouldn't be the same race.

Nobody wants any fatalities but if you follow the sport you have to accept, however difficult, that they will happen. If you find that too much to cope with then perhaps this isn't the sport for you?

I am of a similar view. Horses exist to race and my guess is they enjoy it - this fellow looks buzzed up after it https://twitter.com/almracing/status...341662720?s=21

Animals should be treated kindly but thoroughbred horses would simply not exist if they didn’t do this.

The one thing that does make me question the sport is the injuries to jockeys. I have a real struggle with animals being compared to humans but like most things people have already made up their minds on that.

[Scooby91]

I am of a similar view. Horses exist to race and my guess is they enjoy it - this fellow looks buzzed up after it https://twitter.com/almracing/status...341662720?s=21

Animals should be treated kindly but thoroughbred horses would simply not exist if they didn’t do this.

The one thing that does make me question the sport is the injuries to jockeys. I have a real struggle with animals being compared to humans but like most things people have already made up their minds on that.

Thanks for posting the link old Vic, i enjoyed that.

[ryanh97]

I am of a similar view. Horses exist to race and my guess is they enjoy it - this fellow looks buzzed up after it https://twitter.com/almracing/status...341662720?s=21

Animals should be treated kindly but thoroughbred horses would simply not exist if they didn’t do this.

The one thing that does make me question the sport is the injuries to jockeys. I have a real struggle with animals being compared to humans but like most things people have already made up their minds on that.

I made a point about this in the Grand Annual thread. While yes they would simply not exist if they weren't racing, that doesn't mean we can just turn a blind eye and not care what happens. In my view we have an absolute duty to at least try to reduce the risks.

We won't get into a discussion on the jockeys and humans compared to animals. We'll settle early to agree to disagree on that.

[Old Vic]

I made a point about this in the Grand Annual thread. While yes they would simply not exist if they weren't racing, that doesn't mean we can just turn a blind eye and not care what happens. In my view we have an absolute duty to at least try to reduce the risks.

We won't get into a discussion on the jockeys and humans compared to animals. We'll settle early to agree to disagree on that.

Ryan that was a great post on GA thread. I am all for reducing risks to both jockeys and horses. We should be kind to both.

I think the problem for the sport is that the most vocal opponents ie AA believe that the sport (including flat) is “intrinsically cruel”. I don’t believe that.

[kinloch brae]

I made a point about this in the Grand Annual thread. While yes they would simply not exist if they weren't racing, that doesn't mean we can just turn a blind eye and not care what happens. In my view we have an absolute duty to at least try to reduce the risks.

We won't get into a discussion on the jockeys and humans compared to animals. We'll settle early to agree to disagree on that.

As I said earlier there comes a point where if you carry on making things 'easier' you don't have a sport left. The idea that people who don't want to see change don't care is wrong. This shouldn't be about competing for some moral high ground.

Personally, I would like to see obstacles being made stiffer, rather than easier. Then when horses face the ultimate challenge it wouldn't come as quite such a shock when they do come across more challenging fences. Haydock is the obvious example of a track where the fences are a pale shadow of what they used to be.