Racing’s reaction to coverage of Cheltenham deaths shows worrying insecurity about nature of the sport

Racing is more flesh and blood than most sports, so comes with more life and death. That got starkly underlined at Cheltenham last Sunday when three horses lost their lives. They included the unfortunate Abuffalosoldier, who collapsed and died from an apparent heart attack live on ITV after winning a steeplechase.
Viewers normally don’t see such upsetting incidents directly. Injured or dying animals normally breathe their last behind screens placed to lend some dignity to a sorrowful situation. But those screens also protect squeamish eyes from having to look at the hard agricultural reality that where there’s livestock, there is dead stock.
In some ways it’s indulgent. One of Abuffalosolider’s opponents, Bangers And Cash, also suffered a heart attack but his sad demise was out of camera shot. The Irish-trained Napper Tandy fell at the second-last hurdle of another race and incurred neck injuries that meant he had to be put down. Only those tasked with the grim job saw that.
Racing’s ethical dilemma about the toll taken on its central players is rooted in it being entertainment. Jump racing particularly, with its demands on endurance and the constant risk of falling, juggles daily with how thrills are accompanied by spills and the statistical inevitability that a tiny percentage of them will be fatal.
For those small minority of animal rights protesters fundamentally opposed to racing it is unconscionable. And for some casual viewers the sight of a thoroughbred being ridden out to win and then dying shortly afterwards will have been hard to stomach, particularly after it got picked up by both ITV and BBC news that evening.
Plenty within racing were dismayed by that. It was suggested that since British racing is covered terrestrially by ITV, it was an own goal for ITN to have run the story as prominently as it did, including Abuffalosoldier’s last seconds. But this is a pictures business. Pulling editorial punches was never going to happen, nor should it be expected to.
There were allegations too of an anti-racing agenda, that the sport only gets to the forefront of news priorities when something goes wrong. It’s true racing’s social contract is under more pressure than ever before. But any instinct to circle the wagons smacks of a worrying insecurity about the nature of the sport. It must be able to bear glimpses behind the screens.
Racing does that by being able to stand over the challenge it sets both horse and rider. Something as inherently hazardous as National Hunt racing can never be fully proofed against danger. However, its sustainability is rooted in persuading the large silent majority mostly oblivious to its charms that that challenge is hard but fair.
That a pair of thoroughbreds should suffer sudden death in the one race was a dreadful coincidence. That one of them should have died live on air was a twist of fate jumped upon by those opposed to racing. But scrutiny isn’t the problem; being able to stand over what such scrutiny reveals is what counts.
Britain’s racing authorities are reportedly sour about how lopsided some news coverage of Sunday’s events was. ITN gave time to someone from the Animal Rising group who said popular support for the sport is decreasing and urged a complete ban. But no one from the British Horseracing Authority or the Jockey Club was interviewed to counterbalance that.
In an age of instant judgement, the old line about how if you’re explaining you’re losing can seem more applicable than ever. There’s also the reality that society is increasingly removed from the nature of animal mortality. The infamous image of Gordon Elliott sitting on a dead horse, where the only offence was against taste, underlined how visceral reactions can be.
But there is no contradiction in acknowledging the ethical balancing act racing must perform and pointing out the poverty of its critics’ counter arguments. Animal Rising advocates for mass rewilding of thoroughbreds, a starry-eyed piece of nonsense that undercuts its credibility on almost anything, particularly a sport and business for which thoroughbreds are specifically bred.
There is no discrepancy either in making the case for an animal sport and feeling uneasy at times about the bleak consequences of that competition. Only the most obtuse are immune to horses losing their lives for what are essentially entertainment purposes.
The nature of media means it gravitates towards headline statements such as calls for banning something. Nevertheless, not having racing’s authorities make the case for the sport could seem like, editorially speaking, dirty pool. Arguing that point is fair. Arguing that its underhand to shine a spotlight behind the scenes isn’t.
Racing either stands over what it’s all about, both positive and negative, or it doesn’t. Some of the response to Sunday’s coverage was timorous. It allows the sport’s critics to charge it with having a bad conscience. Convincing others that isn’t the case requires conviction in the first place.
It is nearly 20 years since an overseas-trained winner of the Japan Cup. The legendary Deep Impact in 2006 started home dominance so there would be a synchronicity to it if his son Auguste Rodin wins on his final career start for Aidan O’Brien on Sunday morning in Tokyo.
Stanerra in 1983 remains Ireland’s only Japan Cup winner. Germany has also won it once, with Lando (1995). Although last year’s Deutsches Derby winner FANTASTIC MOON (6.40) is the outsider of a European trio, he should get quick ground conditions he needs to be at his best.
Closer to home, MARTATOR (3.20) can defy topweight in a handicap chase at Ascot on Saturday, having won over course and distance last time.