Study examines how racing insiders frame horse welfare risk: full analysis

Horse racing’s safety debate is often framed as a contest between welfare reform and public perception, but a new study suggests the real picture is more complicated inside the industry itself. In Equine Veterinary Journal, Jessie McCarthy, Heather A. Cameron-Whytock, and Euan D. Bennet report that UK and Irish racing stakeholders share concern about horse welfare, yet differ sharply in how they define risk, how much of it is preventable, and whether the bigger challenge is reducing harm or explaining the sport to the public. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)

The paper arrives in a climate where horse racing’s social licence to operate remains under pressure. The authors note that public concern has intensified around on-track injuries and fatalities, even as British racing points to long-term improvements in safety metrics. The British Horseracing Authority says the fatality rate has fallen by about a third over 20 years, to 0.18% of runners, while also highlighting ongoing work on course design, race analysis, and welfare research. That backdrop helps explain why the study focuses not just on injury prevention, but on how influential insiders talk about risk in the first place. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)

Methodologically, the study used semi-structured interviews with 12 stakeholders from veterinary, communications, and regulatory sectors in UK and Irish racing, then analyzed those interviews using reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes emerged: “Managing Risk, or Managing the Message?”, “The Balance between Tradition and Progress on Reducing Risks,” and “Attributing Responsibility and the Public Disconnect.” Some participants emphasized that racing is safer than ever and argued that the public misreads the level of risk; others pushed harder on welfare risks and the need to reduce avoidable harms. The authors found a persistent tension between accepting some danger as inherent to racing and asking whether “accidents” are sometimes treated too quickly as unavoidable. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)

That tension is especially relevant because racing authorities are simultaneously investing in more sophisticated safety infrastructure. In Britain, the BHA says its racing risk models use large datasets to identify factors associated with falls, fatalities, and long-term injury, and the industry has also expanded fatality review efforts. Internationally, the IFHA’s 2024 Global Summit on Equine Safety and Technology helped shape a broader research agenda around fractures and exercise-associated sudden death, with leaders calling for more consistent data collection and cross-jurisdiction collaboration. In other words, the science and surveillance systems are getting more advanced, but this paper suggests that internal narratives about risk may still influence whether change happens quickly enough. (britishhorseracing.com)

Industry reaction beyond the paper points in a similar direction. A recent Asian Racing Federation report described horse welfare as an “existential” issue for the sport’s future, with speakers including New Zealand Racing Integrity Board chief executive Eliot Forbes and Hong Kong Jockey Club’s Chris Riggs calling for a more unified, transparent approach to welfare and aftercare. In a recent podcast discussion tied to the paper, McCarthy said one of the study’s central insights is that risk in racing can be reframed internally as a communication problem rather than a welfare problem, and that the language used around “accidents” shapes what reforms seem possible. That’s not formal peer commentary, but it does reflect how the study is already being interpreted within equine welfare conversations. (asianracing.org)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this study is useful because it shifts attention from isolated incidents to the culture around decision-making. Vets working in racing, regulation, or referral practice already know that safety is influenced by track conditions, training patterns, screening, medication rules, and emergency response. What this paper adds is a clearer picture of how stakeholder beliefs can either support or blunt those interventions. If risk is framed mainly as a perception issue, welfare reforms may be harder to advance. If responsibility is diffused across trainers, jockeys, regulators, media, and the public, accountability can become harder to pin down. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)

The study also has implications for communication with pet parents and the broader public, even outside racing jurisdictions. Equine veterinarians are often among the most trusted voices in welfare debates, and that trust depends on showing that safety systems are designed to reduce preventable harm, not just defend the status quo. The authors conclude that racing’s internal divisions will need to be resolved, with shared goals and stronger engagement with science, if the industry wants to protect both horse welfare and public support over time. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)

What to watch: The next phase will likely be less about whether racing acknowledges welfare risk, and more about whether regulators and industry leaders can pair better data with clearer accountability, transparent review processes, and visible changes that convince both professionals and the public that avoidable risk is actually being reduced. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)