Calm heads needed for racing to step back from brink in welfare dispute

It is hard to recall a point in recent history at which relations between racing professionals and the sport's administrators have been at such a low ebb.

Following swiftly on the heels of a trainer-led boycott of fixtures over racecourse prize-money cuts, the BHA now finds itself under heavy fire for its welfare focus and perceived appeasement of anti-racing forces.

Such a situation does the sport no favours. Racing is accustomed to factional disputes, but all-out war between horsemen and those who run the sport is something else entirely; it represents a breakdown of internal trust that threatens to be immensely damaging to the sport's long-term interests. The priority now must be a restoration of goodwill and unanimity.

In order to achieve that, the BHA must realise that while it may believe it is acting in the sport’s best interests, it has failed to convince racing professionals of either the sincerity of its good intentions or the necessity of its actions. That is a failure of potentially catastrophic importance. It should be urgently remedied via a nationwide consultation campaign with trainers and jockeys.

Ted Walsh: words struck a chord with someCredit: Edward Whitaker

Equally, racing professionals should make a greater effort to understand the nature of the BHA's welfare concerns. Ted Walsh's call at Cheltenham for those who don’t like racing to watch Peppa Pig struck a chord with some, but what the BHA fears most is not declining public interest in racing but a political move to strip the sport of the right to regulate itself. This is not a question of drawing a line in the sand, but who owns the sandpit.

We should think clearly about that prospect: if the BHA – overwhelmingly staffed by people who, whatever their competencies or nationality, sincerely love and care about racing – is perceived as being out of touch, how do we expect a government-appointed body would act by comparison? Racing would find itself virtually powerless to defend its traditions or determine its own destiny.

The political danger was highlighted in these pages earlier this year by Conor McGinn MP, one of racing's few staunch allies in Westminster. He warned of widespread apathy towards racing among his parliamentary colleagues, which he believes "could very easily metamorphose into hostility unless those of us who care about racing get our act together".

Seeking to influence these indifferent legislators, McGinn wrote, is a "small but vociferous lobby" out to damage and ultimately destroy racing by agitating around issues such as the whip and fatalities.

McGinn gave wise counsel on how best to rebut these opponents and secure the future of the sport. "The best way to challenge the myths is through sensible, evidence-based argument," he wrote, "and most importantly by racing speaking with one voice on these issues".

Currently, however, racing is bitterly divided, its participants at loggerheads and an atmosphere of mutual distrust is fast taking hold. This diminishes the sport's capacity to deal with the very real issues it faces – in particular, falling prize-money and the prospect of political intervention.

Calm heads must prevail before lasting damage is done. The future of racing – of the glorious sport we relished over four days at Cheltenham last week – depends upon it.

Did you know you can bet via the Racing Post mobile app/website? Simply sign in with your favourite bookmaker via the Accounts button and then bet direct from our racecards