IFHA Global Summit on Equine Safety & Technology: What veterinary scientists want from racing

Abstract

Everyone involved in racing, whether they be veterinary surgeons, scientists, regulatory authorities, employees and supporters are acutely aware of the increasing degree of public scrutiny under which racing operates. The welfare of horses in our joint care has always been massively important, but the general public's view on what constitutes the acceptable management and use of horses in sport is rapidly changing. It is therefore more crucial than ever that veterinary science and the racing industry dovetail to make racing safer for horses under our care, but also to show that positive change is happening.

With this aim in mind, veterinary surgeons, scientists and researchers with varied backgrounds and specific interests were invited to the IFHA Global Summit, hosted graciously by Woodbine Toronto, over the course of 2 days. The aim of the summit was to address the problem of fatalities in world racing with focus on two streams: fatal fractures and exercise associated sudden death. Each scientific stream produced key messages around knowledge gaps and future directions. In a parallel editorial, racing's expectations of veterinary scientists have been outlined.¹ We are all very aware however that science cannot work in isolation and key questions for scientists in the round-up session for all delegates were: how can science help racing be safer and what do scientists require from racing to make progress?

There are numerous examples that demonstrate the impact that science has already had on making racing safer. For prevention of deaths due to limb injuries science has developed an understanding of the underlying cause of the majority of limb injuries; they develop over time, predominantly caused by the repeated application of high loads generated in the limbs during galloping exercise. In addition, it has been shown that bone has its own inbuilt preventative processes: (1) it is able to adapt to training and racing, increasing its resilience to injury and, (2) through bone remodelling is able to repair damage. These findings demonstrate that prevention of limb injuries should be achievable even if it is challenging. The research has led to recommendations on training and management methods that reduce injury risk, and the development of injury screening with advanced imaging. The potential for wearable inertial sensors to provide both early warning of potential injury as well as the ability to monitor workloads are exciting innovations that have also arisen from this research.

Science has provided, and can continue to provide, the evidence-based information that can drive positive welfare change. But what key things do scientists need from the racing industry to make progress in reducing fatalities? These could be summarised as time, money and help, as discussed further below.

Unfortunately everyone, racing authorities and veterinary scientists alike, needs patience and time to solve these problems because they are not easy to fix due to their complexity. Deaths of horses in racing often occur in clusters which understandably lead to urgent calls for answers, however if the industry has not committed to supporting research over the longer term, solutions will not suddenly materialise in the middle of a crisis.

There are some costs that might seem like a waste of money to authorities but where the wider benefits outweigh the minimal financial loss. For example, although post mortem examinations of fatalities may be considered logistically challenging and expensive and provide limited information than already known on a population basis, the benefits of a fatality review process where every horse is treated as an individual rather than another statistic is crucial for the image of racing. Post mortem examinations should continue to be funded to get maximal scientific gain from each unfortunate fatality, while also showing that racing treats fatalities seriously.

Finally, scientists need help from the racing industry. This is an all-encompassing consideration, related the above points. Racing cannot solve these problems without scientists but equally scientists cannot solve them without the racing industry.

Scientists are good at coming up with ideas, good at conducting studies, and good at publishing the data. But they generally are not very good at getting information to the wider community, in this case the racing authorities and industry, the owners and trainers, sometimes to the jockeys or stable staff. Knowledge transfer is key, whether that be for information dissemination or for implementing regulatory modifications. An example of what can be possible for information dissemination between scientists and the wider racing community was the Thoroughbred Health Network, an initiative set up approximately 10 years ago with the help of veterinary researchers and collaborative backing of the British Horseracing Authority, Scottish Racing, the SSPCA and the Racing Foundation. This 3-year pilot project created a useful information resource for owners and trainers on some specific key Thoroughbred health topics and was well received, creating a network of information sharing. When the funding came to an end however funders, including the UK racing authority, were not keen to continue backing the project, so it came to an end. Longer term strategies for research information dissemination between scientists and the wider racing community need to be considered.

It is clear that there is momentum for change, to tackle the big welfare problems facing horseracing. Prevention of horse deaths will require a substantial, sustained, coordinated research effort over the next 10–20 years. Hopefully scientists and the racing industry can work better together to achieve maximum gain.

John Keen: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Chris Whitton: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing.