I RECENTLY received a proposal from Ger Hussey, which suggested solutions for centralising the rehoming of ex-racehorses. Ger has experience of the racing industry from many aspects and has been instrumental in the rehoming of a large number of ex-racehorses in his work with Solway Racehorses in Dumfriesshire.

The core of the proposal has been aired and, in essence, it involves a centralised administrative and processing centre, where all horses requiring rehoming could be assembled, assessed, retrained and suitably rehomed. He makes more urgent calls for improvements to traceability, perhaps establishing an administrator of all thoroughbred premises and for a better protocol around the exit of our horses from racing.

Connected parties

The proposal reflects some of the actions, which we have already prioritised. We agree wholeheartedly that traceability is a priority and we are working with all the connected parties to make it better. We have made much progress, with an already world-leading identification system, with the new digital version which allows for all the functionality which will make these things happen. Recent announcements about export protocols, requiring that the horse being exported must have an identity known to the AIMS system, is an example of traceability at work.

We have also improved the reporting around Permanently Retired horses to ensure that horses, which for various reasons are considered unsuitable to continue racing, can be prevented from returning to the racecourse, a system which is reciprocated between GB and Ireland. Progress on traceability seems slow, but this is an area requiring many systems to integrate properly in a very dynamic population of horses.

We have strongly supported the growth of Treo Eile, which is performing some of the functions which the proposal calls for – a known database of horses suitable for progression to alternative careers, with an ongoing relationship with those horses.

Official record

The proposal calls for an administrative function, which will have oversight over every thoroughbred premises, which is not the same as our stated ambition, included in our Strategic Plan, whereby every premises by 2028 will have a welfare assessor available to it. He also highlights the need for an end-of-career protocol, another item I have repeatedly pointed to and one which the IRTA encourages its members to do – carefully record the moment the horse departs, including photographic records, know who and where the horse is going and update the official record (change the ownership). So, much is already underway.

The central suggestion, of a 200-stable farm, which will assemble all the retired racehorses for onward distribution, is not something we are contemplating. I have run an organisation of that scale, I know what it costs and the complexity that comes with it, but the reason is not money nor complexity, it is because I firmly believe that it (a) will not achieve a better outcome for the horses, and (b) can actually make the current situation worse. What is the “job to be done” here? Is it to influence public opinion? Is it to do right by the horse? The proposal calls us to centrally coordinate the logging, assessing, retraining and rehoming. This is happening every day in every premises in a dispersed way, achieving a blend of outcomes. So how does the proposal improve on this? The issue of centralising the information is already available to us, if people just did what is already expected of them – update the ownership record, utilise the permanently retired function, register with Treo Eile.

Assessment, as something done centrally, is really hard to see as an improvement. A tenet of veterinary certification of soundness is that the assessment is done in the context of the receiver not the giver of the horse. That is the reason for “buyer beware”. Secondly, Jan Brueghel is just the latest high-profile example of difference of opinion when it comes to assessment. Thirdly, where does the assessment begin and end? Is it the rideability, assessed by a good rider? Or a Five-Stage vetting? Or diagnostic imaging to include radiography, ultrasound and PET scanning? If not, why not?

If yes, then to what end? All this before I even mention my reluctance to create a system, which relies even in part on decision by committee as to the soundness or suitability of a specific horse. These decisions must be taken by individuals, one horse at a time, knowing as much as can be known.

The proposal suggests the central resource retrains, although it does also say that it could be outsourced to other retrainers. I prefer that we find ways to help those in the retraining business to operate successfully. We are lucky to see a growing number of people interested in this area, and the work Ger has done with Kevin Jardine in this area is acknowledged. We need many, not one central one. It should be seen as a service, which the previous owner should be happy to subsidise, not the last bite of the apple.

Quantum of money

One of the suggestions for funding these solutions is the concept of a levy on owners and others in the industry. My issue with this is that it creates a sense in the person levied that they are absolved of their duty to the horse by payment of the levy.

This is a lose-lose for the horse. Again, it is not about the quantum of money, but the behavioural change and the negative consequence of same. Our industry is based entirely on stimulated spend – prize money stimulates the payment of training bills, value-add stimulates investment in stock. Such a levy acts in the opposite way, stimulating people to withdraw spending on things they currently are obliged to do.

Ultimately, we rely on people in large numbers doing lots of things well. Yes, we have bad actors from time to time, but we have vast numbers of good people doing great work day-to-day. Some of the commentary on the proposal references the “dealers” involved in our industry, dealer as a term of abuse almost.

The entire business is based on dealing, and everyone from Aardvark Stud to Zylling Zyndicate are buyers and sellers. The most challenging part of some of the commentary is that we, in some way, remove the dealers. That will not happen. All we can do is educate ourselves to do better and control the journey, situation by situation.