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.