Horse Racing Ireland's response to a proposed centralised aftercare scheme for thoroughbreds simply does not stand up to scrutiny. They offer no credible argument against the proposal, but more disappointingly, they offer no credible alternative.

HRI: "....world leading identification system with the functionality to make these things happen (traceability)."

DE: The proposal called for lifetime traceability for all thoroughbreds at all life stages. Whereas the measures proposed by HRI only apply to horses exiting the industry from licensed premises. There are around 10,000 horses in training, with maybe double that number in premises other than licensed yards, which will fall outside HRI’s net.

The GPS function on the Weatherbys digital passport which would begin to allow for traceability is not mandatory. According to Sharon O’Regan (Weatherbys) ‘this is due to data protection issues. It could be made mandatory if it became a legal requirement or a department mandate’. Irish company EquiTrace demonstrated the technology to achieve lifetime traceability to HRI and Weatherbys several years ago. It should be a reality by now.

HRI: "…. have supported the growth of Treo Eile, which is performing some of the functions which the proposal calls for.."

DE: Treo Eile do an excellent job of promoting the ex-racehorse and of supporting their owners. They connect owners of racehorses with retrainers and rehomers, and ex-racehorses can be registered with them. Any horse that is on the radar of Treo Eile has by definition found itself in a good place. It has or is being retrained, and it has or will be rehomed. The central logging process called for in the proposal will ensure ALL horses get this chance. Treo Eile is not a safety net, it is not an assessor or retrainer of thoroughbreds therefore it does not perform the functions called for in the proposal. A game changer would be for it to combine with Irish Thoroughbred Marketing to promote the Thoroughbred as a top class sports horse as well as a racehorse. Thoroughbreds and thoroughbred bloodlines have been successful at the highest level in showjumping and eventing. We need to promote the thoroughbred as a huge plus to the sports horse world.

HRI: "The proposal calls for an overall administrator of all thoroughbred premises...which is not the same as our stated ambition in our Strategic Plan for every premises to have a welfare assessor available to it by 2028"

DE: No, it is not the same! An overall administrator of all thoroughbred premises is needed to implement an annual audit to assess and monitor wastage, to identify and encourage examples of best practice, and to see where and how wastage rates can be reduced. Monitoring and reducing wastage rates has to be at the top of the welfare agenda. Having a welfare assessor available to every premises is a different tool altogether.

HRI: "an end of career protocol is one I have repeatedly pointed to and one which the IRTA encourages its members to do."

DE: This is voluntary. To be effective it needs to be mandatory.

HRI: "… a 200 stable farm which will assemble all retired racehorses for onward distribution is not something we are contemplating…"

DE: HRI is not being asked to provide or run this. HRI and IHRB are being asked to help fund it, and to regulate in a way that ensures every horse is logged through the central administration of the centre. It would be a charity, run by a manager and overseen by a board of trustees.

HRI: "I firmly believe that it will not achieve a better outcome for the horses and can actually make the current situation worse."

DE: There are no grounds for that statement whatsoever. The cost of assessing, retraining and rehoming these horses is currently borne by a few charities and other goodhearted people doing this at their own expense. Because there is no central administration overseeing the point of exit of these horses far too many of them are heading to unknown destinations and fates. The number is not known because as an industry we fail to monitor and control the situation.

HRI: "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?"

DE: This is precisely the problem and the ‘blend of outcomes’ includes the bad welfare scenarios which should concern us all. There is no guaranteed system of assessment, retraining, and/or appropriate rehoming going on in every premises every day. If there was we would not have a problem. The proposal will dramatically improve the current situation by ensuring every horse leaving the industry has the opportunity to be assessed and hopefully retrained and rehomed.

HRI: "..Where does the assessment begin and end?"

DE: At most major equestrian events assessment of the horse’s fitness to compete is decided by ‘committee’. The example of Jan Brueghel shows how this benefits horse welfare. The veterinary protocol that saw him eliminated from the race is the same veterinary protocol that has significantly reduced the fatal injury rate at that meeting. Assessing a horse’s overall physical soundness to continue in ridden work, and then assessing his paces and jump in order to find the most suitable future for him, happens every time a retrainer takes in a horse. A centralised system will ensure every horse gets this opportunity.

HRI: "..I prefer that we find ways to help those in the retraining business to operate successfully. ...It should be seen as a service which the previous owner should be happy to subsidise…"

DE: Sizeable retrainers such as Suzy Barkley and Equied have in the past sought support from HRI and received none other than a mention in an HRI welfare publication. IHWT do receive some funding. It is HRI’s stance that owners are responsible for welfare but they are not prepared to ensure that owners honour this responsibility. If they had to it would be burdensome and off-putting to many owners. And there is the risk, however unpalatable, that some of those who already abdicate their responsibilities, may choose to euthanise a healthy horse if the cost of retraining is forced upon them. Owners have already borne the cost of the horse at the most expensive stage of his career, while any number of people have made money out of the horse along the way. Should they be left holding the baby? The principle of the proposal is that all those who have benefited from the collective journey of every thoroughbred through the industry should contribute a small bit to ensuring that their first step out of industry is as safe as we can make it.

HRI: "Funding by levy… my issue with this is that it creates a sense in the person levied that they are absolved of their duty to the horse …"

DE: Currently there is nothing in place to ensure that all owners honour their responsibility to the horse. If this is the answer then their needs to be regulations in place to ensure that this is what happens. I do not believer that the many owners who already do right by their horse will abandon that responsibility simply because they have paid a levy.

HRI: "Our industry is based entirely on stimulated spend – prize money stimulates the payment of training bills, value-adds stimulate investment in stock. ..a levy acts the opposite way, stimulating people to withdraw spending on things they are currently obliged to do."

DE: The reality is that substantial amounts of prize money gets into the hands of relatively few owners, and many owners, breeders and buyers are basing their investment on hope. But neither stimulated spend or hope have resolved the issue of the careless disposal of thoroughbreds. And owners are not currently obliged to spend on aftercare. There are already levies at many levels throughout the bloodstock industry. One more, for such a big step forward in welfare and reputation, is not going to break anybody’s bank.

HRI: "The most challenging part of some of the commentary is that we, in some way, remove the dealers. This will not happen."

DE: Reputable dealers are the lifeblood of the equestrian world. The only dealers that need removing are the disreputable: those that have no concern for where the horse ends up, or the physical state he is in when they move him on.

This proposal, backed by a petition from those working within the industry or with ex-racehorses, was put forward in good faith, with the acknowledgement that it would not be easily or immediately achievable hence the inclusion of three practical steps that could be taken now.

There is wide industry support for a scheme that protects the welfare of horses when they leave the industry. This principle is backed by AIRO, IRTA, and ITBA. This is an opportunity to start the conversation and to implement the practical steps that can be taken to address this issue.

It was sent to HRI, IHRB and to DAFM. It is not acceptable for HRI to close the door on this.

As HRI said: ‘All we can do is educate ourselves to do better and control the journey, situation by situation’.

This is exactly what we need to do but this is not what is happening. That needs to change.