Study explores how racing stakeholders frame risk to horses
Bottom line
A new qualitative study in Equine Veterinary Journal examines how influential stakeholders in UK and Irish horse racing think about risk to horses on race day, and how those risks should be managed. Researchers interviewed 12 participants across veterinary, regulatory, and racing media roles, and found broad agreement that welfare matters, but sharp differences in how risk is framed: as something to reduce, something to better explain to the public, or something inherent to the sport. The study identified three themes, including tension between “managing risk” and “managing the message,” the pull between tradition and safety reform, and disagreement over who is responsible when incidents occur. (beva.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the paper highlights that clinical risk management in racing doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Veterinarians are part of a wider system shaped by regulation, media scrutiny, public trust, and industry culture. That matters as racing faces ongoing pressure over its social license to operate, even as safety metrics have improved: the paper cites British Horseracing Authority data showing equine injuries and fatalities in 0.18% of races in 2023, while public concern about horse injury remains high in separate survey research. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)
What to watch: Expect more attention on how racing regulators and veterinarians communicate safety efforts, and whether future welfare reforms focus as much on culture and accountability as on trackside protocols. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)
Horse racing’s welfare debate isn’t only about injury statistics. A new study in Equine Veterinary Journal argues it’s also about how risk is understood, explained, and distributed across the industry. In interviews with 12 stakeholders from the veterinary, regulatory, and racing media sectors in the UK and Ireland, researchers found shared concern for equine welfare, but no single view on what race-day risk means or how it should be addressed. (beva.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
That tension sits inside a broader pressure campaign around racing’s legitimacy. The paper places the discussion in the context of racing’s “social license to operate,” noting that public concern over equine injury and death has intensified in recent years. At the same time, British racing points to a long-term decline in fatalities, with BHA figures showing horse mortality on UK racetracks has fallen by roughly a third over 20 years and that equine injuries and fatalities occurred in 0.18% of races in 2023. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)
The study’s three themes help explain why the debate remains unsettled. First, “Managing Risk, or Managing the Message?” captured a split between stakeholders who emphasized practical safety measures and those who focused on public misunderstanding of a sport they believe is safer than ever. Second, “The Balance between Tradition and Progress on Reducing Risks” reflected concern that racing’s culture can slow change, even when participants say they want safer outcomes. Third, “Attributing Responsibility and the Public Disconnect” showed how blame and accountability are often pushed toward trainers, jockeys, regulators, or even the public, rather than being owned collectively. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)
The sample was small, but intentionally targeted: four veterinarians, four industry board members, and four race media professionals, split across Irish and UK racing. The authors used semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis, a design suited to exploring beliefs and professional narratives rather than measuring incidence or causation. Their conclusion was less about proving a single policy fix and more about showing that risk management in racing is entangled with communication, culture, and competing assumptions about what counts as acceptable harm. (eprints.gla.ac.uk)
Outside the paper, that framing lines up with other recent and earlier welfare work. A 2019 stakeholder study found racing participants identified staffing shortages, employee relations, and horse health as important welfare challenges, suggesting that race-day safety is only one part of a larger system affecting horse wellbeing. More recent public-opinion research also suggests the perception gap is real: in one survey, 84.5% of participants reported ethical concerns about risk of injury to horses in racing, and 73.6% raised concerns about racehorses’ fate after retirement. (research-information.bris.ac.uk)
There are also signs that regulators are responding to that wider scrutiny. In the US, HISA’s 2025 Annual Metrics Report said racing-related equine fatalities fell to 1.04 per 1,000 starts, nearly 50% below the pre-HISA benchmark since national reporting began in 2009, while also flagging areas for further reform. In Britain, the BHA continues to highlight course design changes, veterinary protocols, whip-rule revisions, and data-led welfare initiatives as part of its safety strategy. Taken together, those efforts suggest the industry increasingly understands that welfare oversight has to be measurable, visible, and credible to people outside racing as well as within it. (hisaus.org)
Why it matters: For veterinarians, the study is a reminder that their role in racing extends beyond pre-race exams, injury response, and regulatory compliance. Vets often sit at the intersection of welfare advocacy, operational reality, and public accountability. If risk is framed differently by regulators, media, and clinicians, then even evidence-based reforms can stall or be misunderstood. That makes communication, transparency, and systems thinking increasingly important parts of equine practice in racing environments. (beva.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
What to watch: Watch for whether future reforms lean more heavily on independent data, pre-race screening, wearable monitoring, and clearer public reporting, and whether researchers expand this work with larger stakeholder samples or direct comparisons between industry and public views of acceptable risk. (hisaus.org)