Taking control of the message: A qualitative account of key stakeholder perceptions of risk in horse racing

Abstract

Background: Thoroughbred racing is a major industry, and in recent years public concerns about equine safety have become more prominent, particularly in relation to on-track injuries and fatalities. This has challenged the industry's ‘social license to operate’ (SLO).

Objectives: To investigate and elucidate how UK and Irish racing stakeholders perceive risks to racehorses on race day and how to manage those risks.

Study design: Qualitative analysis of stakeholder perspectives using a constructionist approach.

Methods: Twelve stakeholders from veterinary, communication, and regulatory sectors within racing in the UK and Ireland were interviewed. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: Thematic analysis identified three key themes: Divergent perceptions of risk, Complexities of managing risk, and Attribution. Some stakeholders viewed risk as misunderstood by the public, believing that public education is the answer, while others acknowledged welfare risks and called for more tangible measures to reduce the risk horses are exposed to. Some participants viewed ‘accidents’ as unavoidable; others believed that more could be done to minimise avoidable risk. Attribution of responsibility was directed towards various industry stakeholders and the public, depending on the participant. While acknowledging advances in horse and jockey safety, there was a tendency for interviewees to describe the industry as fragmented and slow to adapt.

Main limitations: The study did not differentiate between National Hunt and Flat racing and is specific to the UK and Irish racing industries.

Conclusions: While some stakeholders recognise welfare risks and advocate for proactive measures, the current approach to safety remains fragmented, with a strong focus on public relations. For a sustainable future, internal divisions must be resolved, shared goals established, and proactive engagement with science pursued to safeguard equine welfare and sustain public support.

Ethical animal research: Ethical approval was granted by the University of Glasgow, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences ethics board, application number 200230351.

Informed consent: Participants gave consent.

Funding: None.