It won't be animal-welfare lobbyists that change the Grand National. It needs the wider public too

The recent changes to the infamous steeplechase will not stop the rise in horse mortalities

Victoria Martindale
Friday 19 October 2012 16:41
Comments

Channel 4 “relishes the challenge” of presenting the highly controversial Grand National now it has acquired the rights from the BBC. This announcement comes hot-on-the-heels of animal welfare organisations accusing Aintree and the British Horseracing Authority of not going far enough in their proposed improvements to the deadly spectacle.

I am one of those who believe that the measures taken by Aintree in line with their “ongoing commitment to safety and welfare” refer to anyone but the horses. With all this talk of no-go zones, capture pens, levelling and hard-core fencing the Grand National resembles a battleground more than ever before.

It is difficult to improve safety in an overcrowded field and at the same time maintain the same number of runners. Likewise, it is meaningless to commit to safer fence designs without adjusting the most lethal jump of them all, Beechers Brook. These are two key hazards which have played a significant role in the deaths of many horses over the years. Yet both are to persist without any modification despite urgent calls from the nation’s leading equine welfare specialists.

The Grand National is among the most famous steeplechases in the world. It has already cost the lives of 36 horses, with many more injured, and the death rate is only getting worse. Synchronised and According To Pete died in last year’s National, the second year running two horses have been killed in the race. The review of the 2012 Grand National presented an opportunity to prevent such deaths occurring again in the future. Instead, it looks to me as if the chance was blown – and fatalities are set to continue as a routine part of this public debacle. 

If an ‘extensive’ review by the industry’s regulatory authority fails to address the fundamental risks that have made the event so lethal in the past, is there any point in having such a review in the first place? I am sure that one of the main reasons for the authorities’ unwillingness to alter the race lies in a fear of jeopardising the “entertainment value” that makes the Grand National the event with the highest betting turnover of the year

However, if we are serious about achieving meaningful improvements for the welfare of these animals and setting high standards of equestrian safety to the rest of the world I can’t help feeling the horses would be better off, in the long term, if no changes are made to the 2013 race.

As these cruel deaths continue, public support for this infamous race might well drop off, and this could hurt the betting turnover. Only then, will the authorities be inclined to make real modifications that rein in carnage on the racecourse to “ensure the Grand National remains the world's greatest steeplechase”.

No matter how grand and ceremonial, a review that merely tinkers with the course minutiae every few years will achieve very little for the well-being and safety of the horses at stake. It is unlikely to save their lives. When the World Horse Welfare comes out with statements like it “welcomes these changes” it is letting the horses down and serves to reinforce established risks that are instrumental in causing tragic, often fatal, injuries. And this deadly annual custom is perpetuated.

If we are to succeed in bringing about an end to unnecessary animal exploitation the answer is to stop playing the welfare card. The horse racing industry won’t capitulate to pressures of animal welfare lobbying – it needs the wider public to join in too until it hits them where it hurts.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in