Low Sun (GB)
The debate about jumping obstacles when the sun shines has predictably reared its head again with the return of better class National Hunt racing. The Old Roan chase was recently reduced to a six fence farce at Aintree, a track that seems particularly vulnerable to this desecration.
I have been described as having "callous" and "strange"views on this subject by some of the more "welfare minded" which annoys me as it's far from the truth, hence this explanation of my position.
It was revealed during that same Aintree meeting where a hurdle race was run with obstacles omitted despite no sun being visible, that the final arbiter on this is the "jockeys' liaison officer" who hangs around down at the start and asks the jockeys if they want to jump the fences or hurdles or not. This is obviously not sustainable: jockeys are self interested and will obviously jump as few obstacles to collect their riding fee as they are allowed to. My beef with the current situation is that decisions on what to jump and what to omit are made with zero evidence base, on the hoof, by conflicted parties. My questions are:
1.Why is this something we never heard about until the last 10-15 years? In my younger days following the jumps I never recall anyone suggesting a fence or hurdle be omitted. There are two possible explanations for this: Either we were willfully ignorant putting horses and jockeys at significant risk, or the risk wasn't actually that great. The only way to discern this is by proper research. If it can be conclusively demonstrated that jumping obstacles in the sunshine puts man and beast at significantly increased risk of injury then of course it must be mitigated. Comparing periods pre and post mitigation measures would be one very obvious metric to assess. To my knowledge nobody has yet done this- all the evidence I've heard thus far has been anecdotal.
2. If jumping obstacles is so dangerous when the sun shines, why are obstacles never omitted in France? They certainly have more sun than we do on these islands and they jump a far greater variety of obstacles. Again they are either negligent, putting their participants at unacceptable risk, or the risk itself is acceptable or negligible. Only proper scientific research will differentiate this.
3.What about other equine disciplines-If you're out hunting do you follow the scent or quarry over an obstacle if the sun is in your eyes or find the nearest gate? Do they omit obstacles at Badminton or Burghley?
4. Is the risk linked to sun angle, so we can say it's only significant in the depth of winter or are clerks justified in omitting obstacles into late spring and early summer, as is beginning to happen?
All I'm asking is that before we destroy a sport I love on the altar of safetyism, that we do so armed with properly collated evidence. british and Irish racing authorities should tackle this issue together. A working group made up of experienced horsemen and women and others with relevant scientific and veterinary knowledge should be tasked with collecting data over twelve months or more from all over the world in a variety of disciplines and conditions to first define and quantify the problem, then suggest mitigation if needed and rigid protocols around implementation of same. This should include trying to communicate any measures taken to the betting public in a timely manner and a system of allowing bets to be voided if a certain number of obstacles are omitted. Anyone having a bet on the Old Roan chase was in effect robbed, as the contest which took place bore no resemblance to what they were entitled to expect when the majority of bets were placed.
