Practice analysis 'go jump keep the horses on course'

Text Three: Go jump: keep the horses on course Michael Lynch The Age May 4, 2011

Horse death sparks call for jumping ban OPINION I love jumps racing and I think there should be more of it. This week, when the Warrnambool carnival is on, would be a good time to start.

Does that make me a horse hater? Of course not, although given the success of the anti-jumps racing protest group's lobbying, you could be forgiven for thinking so.

In common with all those involved in steeplechasing and hurdling, I have the greatest regard for animals. And to suggest that people in Ireland, England, France, Australia and parts of the US (where jumps racing is successfully staged) who work with steeplechasers and hurdlers are not concerned for horses and their well-being is at best the ill-conceived view of a partisan critic pursuing an agenda. At worst, it's insulting.

The horses involved get better care than many humans, and owners can spend more than $30,000 a year on all the related costs that come with keeping a horse in training.

There are no million-dollar races over obstacles, so to suggest that the incentive for keeping a horse jumping against its will is a money-making venture is drawing a rather long bow.

Of course, jumps racing is not everyone's cup of tea. Fair enough. And horses do get injured or killed. But they do so in flat racing, too - rarely on a racecourse, but not infrequently on the gallops at home or out in paddocks when spelling. There will always be some degree of risk in equestrian sports, both for the horse and the human involved.

Given that racing, three-day eventing, hunting, showjumping etc are still legal pursuits, the key is to ensure that risk is minimised. In the end, you have to accept that sometimes lives will be lost - and I do.

It is inevitable when dealing with livestock.

The issue is how many and at what point the numbers become unacceptable.

The protesters believe that one death or injury is too much. I believe that, given the size of the industry, the number of horses involved and the sporting and economic benefits it brings to many rural parts of Victoria, society should be prepared to accept a certain degree of wastage.

A zero deaths policy, while it would be lovely, is not rational or realistic.

Jumps racing provides a haven for many horses who would otherwise have met a much earlier end.

In Britain, where jumps racing is much more popular, the RSPCA and animal welfare groups are co-opted and become part of the process. They are involved in the monitoring of races, the design of the obstacles and, in some cases, help decide on the siting of the fences on the track. They accept the sport's right to exist, and understand that the best way to ensure animal welfare is to minimise risk where possible.

Racing Victoria and the jumping fraternity have spent heavily and worked hard in the past two years to improve the design of the fences. The hurdles can now be knocked down by a horse if he doesn't measure his jump appropriately. The new steeplechase fences are a bigger, more imposing obstacle and the horses jump them better.

Jumps racing is an easy target because it is in the public eye and television footage of spectacular falls is easy to come by. It's an easy story for the media to run because the protest lobby is well organised.

In my view, the sport's future should be guaranteed so that owners are encouraged to buy jumping horses, extending the pool available to race, and trainers and jockeys given a stable career option to learn and develop better skills.

The races should be made longer and the fences higher, so that speed - the big determinant in falls - is reduced and the premium is put on jumping ability and horsemanship.

Of course it should continue to be monitored and ways found to make it safer. But there will always be a risk involved. I believe it's a risk worth taking.

Michael Lynch is a senior sports writer.