“It’s a struggle…” The mental wellbeing of trainers and how to support them.

Article by Rupert Arnold

Training racehorses is a stressful occupation. There’s nothing wrong with that - until there is.  In today’s world, mental health is front of stage in conversations about occupational health. Though horse racing might often appear to lag behind more progressive parts of society, attention is increasingly being focused on its participants’ capacity to withstand the stresses of a busy, challenging life where performance is in the public eye.

In Britain and Ireland, jockeys have been the first sector to benefit from support structures instigated by their trade associations and governing bodies. They have been encouraged to speak publicly about the causes of depression, anxiety and substance dependence, and in this way have begun to erode the stigma that stifles potentially healing conversations. A pathway has been opened for trainers to follow.

Three racing nations have spearheaded the research on trainers’ mental health. The first studies were conducted in Australia in 2008 by Speed and Anderson on behalf of Racing Victoria. It’s findings that “two-thirds of trainers never or rarely had one day off per week”, and  “Trainers also face increased pressure from owners (e.g. pressure to win competitive races), shoulder the burden of responsibility for keeping horses healthy and sound, as well as financial difficulties” will strike a chord with trainers across all racing jurisdictions and sets the precedent for other research. 

In July 2018, again in Australia, research on “Sleep and psychological wellbeing of racehorse industry workers” surveyed Australian trainers and found “Trainers reported significantly higher depression and anxiety scores compared with other racing industry workers, racehorse owners, and the general population. They had less sleeping hours and higher daytime dysfunction due to fatigue.”

Simone Seer’s University of Liverpool MBA dissertation of September 2018 “Occupational Stressors for Racehorse Trainers in Great Britain and their Impact on Health and Wellbeing” (supported by Racing Welfare) used qualitative research via unstructured interviews from which themes were analysed to identify patterns and differences between trainers’ experiences. 

“Examples included business and finance worries, bureaucracy, the rules of racing, the fixture list, a lack of resources and busy work schedules, managing stressful episodes with racehorse owners and staff and in balancing emotions. The most dominant stressors were those that were felt to be out of a participant’s control and particularly related to racehorses: keeping horses healthy, free from injury, disease and illness, and the pressure to perform in relation to both the participant and their horses…participants were found to be engaged in intensive emotional labour combined with long work hours and busy schedules resulting in a ‘time famine’. All participants had experienced abusive messages by voicemail, email or social media.

“Participants reported mental ill health symptoms brought on by emotional toll, sleep deprivation, insomnia and isolation resulting in outcomes such as low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, low confidence and recurrent headaches.”

In 2021, following the watershed of the Covid-19 pandemic, research on Irish racehorse trainers by King et al published in the Journal of Equine Veterinary Science examined the “prevalence and risk factors” associated with racehorse trainer mental health. Among their headline findings were some familiar features:

“A prevalence of symptoms associated with common mental disorders was identified. Specifically, depression (41%), adverse alcohol use (38%), psychological distress (26%), and generalised anxiety (18%).

“Career dissatisfaction, financial difficulties, and lower levels of social support increased the likelihood of meeting the criteria for depression, psychological distress and generalised anxiety.”

As Ryan McElligott, Chief Executive of the Irish Racehorse Trainers Association, says: “Training is a tough business. Even the top trainers lose more often than they win. It’s extra competitive so fear keeps training fees down while costs are increasing…it’s a struggle.”

Away from the published science-based research, we must rely on anecdotes to get a picture of the experience of trainers in other European countries. 

Perhaps surprisingly, no studies are available on the situation in France. Gavin Hernon, who represents the Association des Entraineur de Galop (AEDG) at the European Trainers Federation (ETF), suggests this may be because France Galop sees itself primarily as a regulator so wouldn’t include trainers’ health and well-being in its remit. 

Gavin reports that trainers in France share the same pressures as colleagues in other countries. He says, “A major factor is the high financial cost of doing business. Well-funded prize money may cast a rosy glow across the sport, but this leads to trainers relying on their percentage to make a profit. It also gives them an incentive to own more horses than is the case in other countries. The combination becomes toxic if the horses are not winning, creating a culture of performance anxiety.” 

According to Gavin, a common response to the occupational pressure is for trainers to shut themselves away and bottle up their true feelings. This belief is endorsed by Tom Luhnenschloss, the ETF representative in Norway. “Trainers are living in a bubble”, he explains. “Trainers have a certain mentality. Their life is very repetitive, they put their heads down and carry on, without sharing their problems. There are a lot of hidden issues.”

In the smallest racing nations, the subject of trainers’ mental health may not be enough of a priority for specific attention. Karin Lutmanova in the Czech Republic points out “The problem definitely exists, but I do not think anybody has capacity to care about it. Our racing has so many other crucial and elementary problems such as funding, closure of the main thoroughbred stud, and a decrease of racehorses and racing days.” 

 So there is a consensus that racehorse trainers are susceptible to particular forms of mental health conditions. The obvious follow-up question is, what can be done to support trainers facing these conditions? 

At first glance, there seems to be a gap in racing’s provision for trainers. On governing body and charity websites it isn’t difficult to track down welfare/wellbeing support for jockeys and stable staff, less so for trainers.  As Tom Lunhenschloss observed, “There is no one to catch you when you fall.” However, further investigation reveals that initiatives are underway.

From a European perspective, Britain and Ireland are adopting slightly different approaches.

Having contributed extensively to the research in Britain, the National Trainers Federation was keen to collaborate with Racing Welfare, the Jockey Club charity that aims to support the workforce of British racing and backed the research. Simone Sear’s paper concluded that “a bespoke, confidential service should be designed in order to support this workforce to gain insight and build resilience… and will need to provide support across a range of issues such as mental health, physical health, sports psychology, business management, HR and legal advice, financial assistance and time management.” 

An informal arrangement between Racing Welfare and the NTF began in 2020 with referrals being made via both parties to Michael Caulfield, a sports psychologist with deep connections to horseracing through a previous role heading the Professional Jockeys Association. Racing Welfare also set up the Leaders Line, a centralised structure for supporting people in management positions. Neither of these initiatives achieved a breakthrough in terms of reach and recognition. 

Drawing on Racing Foundation-funded research by Dan Martin at the Liverpool John Moores University, the NTF, through its charity Racehorse Trainers Benevolent Fund (RTBF), began working on a different approach inspired by Dan’s recommendation:   

“Create a trainer-specific referral system, exclusive to trainers and separate from Racing Welfare, for mental health support. Given the multiple roles of the racehorse trainer, the support should provide organisational psychology, sports psychology, counselling, and clinical support. Former trainers should be considered to receive training to provide some of this support.”

The twist is that instead of building something and expecting the people to come, the RTBF model was about outreach – creating a network of knowledgeable and empathetic people to be visible in the trainer community, starting the conversations that trainers, by their own admission, were unlikely to reach out for on their own. 

  Michael Caulfield and David Arbuthnot, whose career as a trainer spanned 38 years and who later undertook counselling qualifications through the NTF Charitable Trust, were recruited to go out and about, chatting to trainers in the Lambourn training centre and surrounding area and at race meetings and bloodstock sales. 

Harry Dunlop, a former trainer and recently recruited trustee of the RTBF, explains, “It’s well known that however serious the problem, taking that first step to ask for support with a mental health issue is hard to take. People are afraid to show what they perceive as weakness. By getting Caulfield and Arbuthnot into the places where trainers circulate in their daily working lives, we hope to break down barriers and give trainers a chance to share their problems. That might be all it takes to lighten the load. Or it might lead to scheduling a one-to-one at another time.”    

Set up as a six-month pilot from July 2023, this initiative has already expanded to Yorkshire in the North and Newmarket, with trainers Jo Foster and Chris Wall respectively providing the support. Initial response from trainers was amused scepticism but this proved to be a superficial reaction. Very quickly, on a private and confidential basis, trainers have begun opening up to members of the support team. One-to-one sessions were scheduled. Trainers who admitted to putting off seeking help, contacted one of the team for a conversation. Thankfully, there has not been a rush of acute cases of serious mental health pathology. But there is clear evidence that “Trainers just want someone to talk to” as Michael Caulfield describes it. It’s worth noting that Caulfield warns against medicalising all the mental health conditions experienced by trainers. “There is a world of difference between a clinical mental illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, and being overwhelmed by the weight of responsibility and/or despair brought on by sheer exhaustion. Most of the time people need an outlet to vent their worries, and more sleep.” 

 The need for someone familiar to lend a friendly ear is confirmed by Ryan McElligott. “Trainers are a traditional cohort; they have rather conservative values. They don't like to admit they are in trouble; they worry that it's a sign of weakness. It's a close-knit community so generally the first call for help would be to people close to them.” McElligott says the Irish trainers are fortunate to have two sources of support – the Industry Assistance Programme, which gives access to counselling and therapy; and the availability of Jennifer Pugh, the Senior Medical Officer for the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board. He describes her as “a prominent presence” at race meetings, and clearly trainers feel able to communicate with her.  

Pugh contributed to the “prevalence and risk factor” paper mentioned above. She points out that with a background as an amateur rider, coming from a training family, and having worked as a racecourse doctor, she was already a recognisable person before taking on her present official role. The need for access to trusted figures appears to be a common factor in effective mechanisms of support. 

The Industry Assistance Programme sits under the umbrella of Horse Racing Ireland’s EQUUIP service, described as ‘The People Behind the People’ in the Irish Horse Racing & Breeding Industry.  One of its three offers is “health and wellbeing services for everyone who wants it.” As the British experience shows, encouraging trainers to make use of the formalised support system is not straightforward. Though predating EQUUIP’s creation, the Irish research indicated that “only a fifth of trainers had sought support for their personal and emotional problems.” 

For this reason, Pugh endorses the social support approach. She says there is a plan to recruit wellbeing “champions” for people to approach out in the community. And having learned much more about trainers’ mental health through the strong communications established to manage racing’s response to the Covid pandemic, a programme of support is being worked on so that trainers’ needs are given the same importance as for jockeys and stable staff. 

For a major racing nation comparatively rich in resources, some recognition of the psychological challenges facing trainers might be expected in France. After all, on its website France Galop lists “Ensuring the health of its professionals” in its responsibilities. It goes on to refer only to jockeys and stable staff. Other than redirecting fines levied on trainers under the disciplinary system towards support for retired trainers, France Galop makes no provision for the welfare of trainers. Furthermore, unlike Britain and Ireland, France Galop does not employ an official medical adviser, preferring to provide a list of authorised doctors. That said, this is a new policy area for everyone; France Galop is generally a first mover when it comes to policy initiatives so it can’t be long before a collaboration with the AEDG emerges.

This article has focussed on what we know about trainers’ mental health and ways to help them deal with the impact. What it does not address is the strategic question, how could the sport, the trainer’s business model and – as importantly – trainers’ professional development be structured differently to minimise the risks to trainers’ mental health and therefore reduce the need for intervention when things fall apart?

Who should be dictating the Rules of Racing - the racing industry or government?

Article by Lissa Oliver

Regular readers of this publication will already be well aware of racing’s social licence and the efforts required to ensure the sport’s popularity with the public and, essentially, the wellbeing of our participants. EU legislation is increasing in strength in addressing equine welfare in general, but in Germany in particular, laws coming down from the government are impacting many racing yards. 

The law introduced last year regarding minimum paddock time for all horses is one such notable problem. As Belgian trainer Guy Heymans points out, “Turnout for horses every day is not the same as the requirement for horses to remain in paddocks. If I understand correctly, the demand is not just turnout; they mean that the horses are in a paddock for a certain period of time every day. It’s OK for me, but a trainer with 20 horses or plus in training will probably not have enough paddocks, and it is difficult to keep such a horse in shape. Of course it is a plus for horses to spend a short time in the paddock, but when they demand horses stay permanently in paddocks, it is impossible to bring a horse to top form.” 

Not every trainer may agree with that, and some have enjoyed great success ‘training from the field’, but it is a matter of personal choice and methods, as well as having the luxury of such choice. It isn’t so much about making our own decisions on equine welfare in particular, which we would all prefer to embrace as much as we can; but it’s more about the practical ability to do so and the apparent gulf between those setting the rules, and now laws, and those who have to apply them in daily practise. 

“There are some countries lagging a bit behind in welfare, and I would be happy to see more legislation coming in,” says Irish trainer Amanda Mooney. “We just have to learn to adapt and work with it. Sweden has a very high standard of welfare and a very good aftercare service. Horses aren’t just sold on and rehomed; they’re put out on loan—the same as the Godolphin Lifetime Care programme. I think more could be done for aftercare.”

Germany has the strictest animal welfare legislation worldwide and is the only country in the EU to have integrated animal welfare into its constitution. German law could be the crystal ball into the rest of European racing’s future. In 2018, horses were no longer allowed to run in a tongue-tie, as a result of animal welfare concerns. Rüdiger Schmanns, director of racing for German Racing, said at the time, "In all other equestrian sports in Germany the use of tongue-ties is banned—racing was the last equine sport which allowed tongue-ties. With growing animal welfare activities, especially in Germany, there was no possibility of allowing the use of tongue-ties to continue."

This year, stricter whip rules were adopted; and any jockey who uses the whip six times in a German horse race could expect an 84-day ban under the new penalty system. The number of strokes of the whip allowed per race has been cut from five down to three, and the length of bans for going more than one over the limit can now be measured in weeks and months, rather than days.

 “This looks extreme but will hopefully not occur,” said Rüdiger Schmanns. “The animal health pressure is high in Germany. We would like to have harmonised rules regarding the whip at least in the whole of Europe, but that seems to be a long way off as the differences in England and Ireland compared to France and Germany are still quite big.”

At least those rules are coming down from racing’s governing bodies, assisted by Boards of selected professionals representing all industry stakeholders. In theory, the Rules of Racing should be a suitable compromise agreed by all for the betterment and progression of the sport. But what happens when Rule changes have not involved industry stakeholders? When changes come from government level they may not always be the desired result of consultation with racing’s professionals. 

The Rules of Racing have historically been set down by industry participants to govern the sport in a fair manner. The earliest known example is quite literally set in stone and dates to the earliest part of the first century, some 2,000 years old. Professor Hasan Bahar’s 2016 discovery at an ancient Roman racecourse in Turkey—the oldest existing tablet describing the rules of horseracing—illustrates a keen sense of fairness in the sport. Prof. Bahar points out, “It says that if a horse comes in first place in a race, it cannot participate in other races.” A winning owner was also forbidden from entering any other horses into an event’s subsequent races, presumably to give others a chance at glory, Prof Bahar suggests. “This was a beautiful rule, showing that races back then were based on gentlemanly conduct.”

It also highlights the origins of the sport’s governance, replicated in Britain by the next earliest-known Rules of Racing set by The Jockey Club in 1750. The Rules were dictated by racehorse owners to preserve and progress their racing and breeding interests. Even prior to a rule book, in 1664, it was King Charles II who personally wrote The Rules of the Newmarket Town Plate. According to Whyte's History of the English Turf (1840), King Henry VIII passed a number of laws relating to the breeding of horses. Racing was a self-governing institution, more to the point, one governed by racehorse owners.

Nevertheless, governments haven’t always been keen for that arrangement to continue. The British Jockey Club was formed in 1750, specifically to create and apply the Rules of Racing in the wake of a decade of Parliamentary opposition to the sport. There are few racing nations left where the original governance of a Turf Club or Jockey Club hasn’t transitioned into a State-funded corporate body.

Parliamentary opposition to the growth of horse racing in the 1740s focused on the damaging effect of gambling. Three hundred years on, no other sport has entangled itself so constrictively with gambling. Racing’s economy is no longer based on the revenue of racehorse owners, and the sport is answerable to the holders of the purse strings.

While researching a quote from former Member of Parliament Sir Clement Freud, who claimed that “horse racing is organised purely to generate taxes,” the transcript of an interesting House of Lords debate surfaced. Though dated February 1976, the facts, figures, and sentiments quoted could as easily place it in 2023, which makes for a sorry commentary on British racing.

The establishment of a Royal Commission on Gambling led to Sir Clement Freud remarking on the “large number of otherwise non-viable racecourses kept open to ensure sufficient races being run, even as the financial rewards to the owners and trainers declined to the point where most could barely cover their expenses.”

During the House of Lords’ debate on the matter, Lord Newall observed, “The income from betting is believed to reach the optimum level with two meetings every day with staggered starting times. After this, the same money apparently chases after more horses.” And perhaps initiating an argument that continues to this day, Lord Gisborough pointed out, “There has been, and often is, criticism of the value of the Pattern race prizes, but these few races at the top of the pyramid of racing are the necessary incentives to encourage breeding of the best animals, the very capital of the industry. It would not help racing in the long run if the value of the Pattern prizes were to be spread over the rest of racing. They provide the vital opportunity for the best horses of the world to be matched together, without which the best British horses would have to race more abroad to prove their value for breeding purposes.”

Perhaps we digress here, but the relevant points of 40 years ago, 300 years ago and, indeed, 2,000 years ago are summed up by The Lord Trevethin Oaksey, who explained, “What you need is honourable, fair-minded, unbiased men who are answerable to nobody but themselves, and who have as much experience as possible of the problems involved.”

And therein lies the modern problem, with racing dependent upon gambling revenue and accountable to the betting operators and the taxpayer. Self-governance is fast becoming a thing of the past, but the bigger problem is being given the necessary time and finances to adapt.

In our 2021 winter issue, German trainer Dominik Moser warned, “We have so many new rules and many more rules being introduced for next year. All horses must spend a number of hours out in the paddock each day, and they must be assessed by a vet before going into training. I have paddocks for my horses, but I don’t currently have enough for all of them to be out every day, so I have to build more paddocks. My aim is that all of my horses will be able to go out from after they have finished training at 1pm until the evening. The training centres, such as Cologne, will have a big problem, because there is not enough space for the number of paddocks needed. 

“These rules are coming directly from government, not from Deutscher Galopp. I like that we think more about the horses; we have recently been thinking more about the people, the jockeys and staff. The horse had stopped being our number one concern. This is the right way, but the rule is not easy to adapt to; we haven’t been given time to prepare.”

Christian von der Recke agrees wholeheartedly with the reasoning behind the legislation and tells us, “From day one, our horses go to the paddock; and I am sure that is part of the success. They enjoy more variety and have less stomach ulcers. More exercise is the key to success.” However, von der Recke has a large private facility at his disposal, with ample paddock space, denied to those trainers based at training centres. 

One such centre is Newmarket, where John Berry reasons, “It's clearly preferable to turn one's horses out for part of the day rather than have them confined in their boxes for 23 hours a day or more; but some people prefer not to do so, often because of not having either the time nor the space to do so. Just common sense says it's better for them mentally, and physically too; but each to his own.

“I'd actually regard not gelding horses as a far bigger concern as regards horses' mental well-being than lack of freedom, but that's by the by. Obviously, some colts have to remain colts to ensure the survival of the species, but only a tiny percentage are required for stud duties; and keeping the others as colts rather than gelding them is just nuts. Sexual frustration must be at least as great a cause of anguish for horses as frustration at lack of liberty. 

“I'd have thought if a government wanted to do something to increase the sum of equine happiness, addressing this issue might be more appropriate, but obviously it would be hard to frame the laws satisfactorily.

“Obviously in utopia every horse would have access to freedom and to companionship (although the latter isn't always a good idea with colts), but life isn't utopian. Similarly, it would clearly be a good idea if every dog could have a life where he can have a run off the lead every day, every school would have good sports facilities, and every community would have good recreation and leisure facilities. But we can't even manage to achieve that with humans, so I'd be surprised if the government thought that this was a worthwhile way to direct its energies.”

British government’s current distraction is reforming gambling legislation, which is creating anxiety and even panic among the racing community. Once again, it’s social licence and a need to enforce ‘protection’ that attracts government attention, with affordability checks upsetting punters and threatening horse racing's revenue.

In Ireland, that same focus is the driving force behind the Gambling Regulation Bill, which proposes a ban on televised gambling advertising between 5.30am and 9pm, which of course affects a large portion of advertising on live horse racing coverage. As a result, Racing TV and Sky Sports Racing have threatened to pull their racing coverage in Ireland, stating that their service will become "economically unviable.”

This no longer comes down to welfare or integrity within the sport. Do we protect the vulnerable or protect our own interests, even in the knowledge our interests conflict? We may try to excuse our decision, but further down the line, as more attention is put on the sport, will we really be able to defend our corner?

Ryan McElligott, CEO Irish Racehorse Trainers Association, announced in reaction to the bill, "If Racing TV determined it was no longer viable to broadcast in Ireland, then Irish racing disappears off our screens. That would be detrimental to the whole industry. 

"There are plenty of owners who don't get to go racing as much as they would like, but it's very easy to watch their horses run should they not make it. If you take that away, I think that would put a huge dent in the sport's appeal and also demand from an owner's point of view. It would put us at a huge disadvantage when compared to other jurisdictions.

"We're talking about subscription channels, and it is a requirement that you are over the age of 18 to buy a subscription to a package like Racing TV. These dedicated racing channels exist behind a paywall, so there is already a safeguard there.

“Every facet of the industry is wholly supportive of gambling regulation which protects vulnerable people. This is not a deliberate move to damage the sport; this would be an unintended consequence. It is hugely concerning for the industry."

In Britain, owners have already very publicly left the game as a result of the Gambling Act Review White Paper financial risk checks. All betting operators have a social responsibility to create a safe environment, and how much money a client can afford to spend on gambling is a key part of the safe environment.

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lucy Frazer KC, described the White Paper as “consumer freedom and choice on the one hand, and protection from harm on the other” while stating in the House of Commons in April: “With the advent of the smartphone, gambling has been transformed: it is positively unrecognisable today, in 2023, from when the Gambling Act was introduced in 2005. Temptation to gamble is now everywhere in society, and while the overwhelming majority is done safely and within people’s means, for some, the ever-present temptation can lead them to a dangerous path. When gambling becomes addiction, it can wreck lives: shattered families; lost jobs; foreclosed homes; jail time; suicide. These are all the most extreme scenarios, but it is important to acknowledge that, for some families, those worst fears for their loved ones have materialised. Today we are bringing our pre-smartphone regulations into the present day with a gambling White Paper for the digital age.”

More and more, we can expect legislation to encroach on the racing industry and force us to face moral dilemmas. Racing jurisdictions are doing their best to be seen by the public to be doing their best for equine welfare. Currently, Ireland has a very basic 28-page “Our Industry, Our Standards” guide to equine welfare; France has a very comprehensive 139-page “Charter for Equine Welfare,” based upon the official EU Paper; Germany has a 44-page “Animal Welfare in Equestrian Sport Guideline”; and Britain has “A Life Well Lived,”—a 130-page welfare strategy. Sweden, renowned throughout other racing nations for its top-class welfare, relies on a website to provide current guidelines and information. 

The EU Discussion Paper on Equine Care, adopted so well by France Galop in its charter, has multiple language versions and informative images, making it a simple solution for those countries lagging behind. It is also of visual appeal to those outside of the sport seeking reassurance. We may not consider them to be relevant, but they are proving to be the most important players in rulemaking.