How Racing Must Self-regulate to Maintain its Social Licence in a Changing Welfare Landscape
- Apr 17
- 9 min read
Updated: Apr 28
Gold Dancer’s high-profile fatal injury at the Grand National Meeting could be a catalyst for new regulations aimed at reducing risk to horses, while strengthening racing’s social licence. Ultimately, the sport faces a clear imperative: it must demonstrate that it can effectively self-regulate to protect horses, or risk losing the social licence on which it depends.
Published April 17, 2026
The Grand National is arguably the highest-profile horse race in the world, and the three-day meeting leading up to it each year at Aintree is the centrepiece event for jumps racing in the United Kingdom. As a consequence of the high profile of the meeting, any fatal injuries experienced by participating horses can reach much wider public visibility than might normally be the case at less prestigious events. On Friday, the 10th of April 2026, as confirmed by owner Gigginstown’s racing manager Eddie O’Leary, the horse Gold Dancer broke his back while jumping the final fence, before crossing the finish line to win the race. Gold Dancer was euthanised after the race.
The concept of ‘social licence to operate’ (SLO) is society’s tolerance for activities that may have moral or ethical dilemmas involved. The most general definition of SLO is that it is a measure of the acceptance of an activity by the wider public. It is an implicit and intangible agreement that society deems an activity to be ‘acceptable’. If an activity has a strong SLO, then the public are happy for it to continue with minimal restrictions. Changes in public opinion can lead to an erosion of SLO, which in turn can lead to increased scrutiny by the media or government, and hence external regulations or restrictions may be applied. One possible end point of loss of SLO is a total ban on the activity in question. Maintaining and strengthening SLO is entirely in the hands of those responsible for the activity in question.
In recent years, scientific research has advanced to provide improved understanding of the requirements for high standards of animal welfare in general, and horse welfare in particular. As collective understanding has improved, animal welfare has become a higher priority for more people in society. Hence, more people have started to take notice of harmful outcomes such as horse fatalities during racing. This can lead to a gap opening up between the ‘peak welfare’ understanding, and the public’s perception of the conditions that horses are experiencing. What is it that actually erodes SLO? A lack of real or perceived action from the racing industry to close this gap.
The premise of this article is that in several ways, the incident that led to Gold Dancer’s death has caused meaningful damage to racing’s SLO. I will present the argument for three new regulations that the racing industry should consider in light of Gold Dancer’s death, which I propose will 1) reduce the risk of other horses experiencing fatal injuries, and 2) help to recover the sport’s SLO.
Damage to Racing’s Social Licence to Operate
Any horse fatality contributes to the erosion of racing’s SLO, but several aspects of the incident leading up to Gold Dancer’s death increased this damage. The clear slip upon landing after the final fence, followed by use of the whip to recover and cross the finish line, were negatively perceived by a wide audience thanks to the high-profile nature of the race. The subsequent news that Gold Dancer was found to have a broken back, and that vets made the humane decision to euthanise him, was inextricably linked to the public perception of the final seconds of the race. Within minutes, the image of Gold Dancer during the slip which caused his broken back, with rear legs fully extended behind him, was prominent in news articles and on social media. Social media posts tended to be accompanied by negative sentiments about horse racing in a broader sense, with messages such as “Gold Dancer died to win”.
As a veterinary epidemiologist, I have spent 11 years researching risk factors associated with injury and fatality to sports horses. It is increasingly clear to me that evidence-based risk management is an essential component of protecting horse welfare, and of strengthening industry SLO.
I do not believe racing’s SLO can survive many more incidents like Gold Dancer’s death. Regardless of the nuances of the incident, the wider public perception culminated in a horse dying to win a race. The message that was received by the public was that in racing, one must win at any cost, including the horse’s life. Regardless of whether that is true, for maintaining SLO it is imperative that the sport operate in such a way that there is no chance of this message being portrayed. That means regulations must be introduced with the goal of preventing this sort of incident from ever happening again. I have three proposals for the racing industry to consider:
Proposal 1: Void result rules
From 2009 to 2025, the incidence of racing-related fatalities among racehorses in North America decreased by 47%. This is an excellent example of what can be achieved with a sustained commitment to evidence-based risk management. One of the single most impactful interventions that led to this outcome is the introduction of ‘Void Claim Rules’ (VCR). VCRs apply to horses entered into racing as a ‘claimer’, which means they are up for sale before the race. This is a common situation that applies to around 65% of race starts in North America. Horses can be ‘claimed’ (purchased) until the start of the race, with ownership transferring after the race. VCRs specify conditions under which the claim is voided (i.e. the sale is cancelled). The simplest example of a VCR is: if the horse dies during the race, the claim is voided. In 2022, the strictest form of VCR was introduced at 55 tracks, affecting 73% of race starts made since. Horses racing under this VCR were around 30% less likely to experience a fatality, compared to horses racing with no VCR in place.
The crucial aspect of void claim rules is that they don't directly impact the horse, but they do influence human behaviour and decisions, to the benefit of the horse. Results related to claiming rules are a potential proxy for underlying pathology (known or unknown to the owner) since these are effectively related to choices made by horse owners given the information available to them at the time. It is the owner's choice to enter the horse into a claiming race, or to reduce their horse’s claim price, for example. One interpretation of the association between VCRs and reduced risk of fatality is that the VCR specifically deters owners from entering horses with known pathology into races.
In my opinion, it's time for a serious conversation in the racing industry about how this sort of risk reduction strategy could be applied more widely. Adapting the template provided by VCRs, the industry could introduce ‘Void Result Rules’ – for example, if the horse dies immediately after winning or placing in a race, then their win/place is voided. A Void Result Rule may not have prevented Gold Dancer’s fatal injury, but the rule’s presence would have altered the incentives to push the horse across the finish line after his injury, for example. Similar to VCRs, Void Result Rules could deter owners from pushing horses to be competitive if there is any doubt as to their soundness.
Proposal 2: Race completion tied to vet inspections
In the equestrian sport of Endurance, horses and riders compete over very long distances. At international level, the shortest events are over 80km, and the longest are 160km. International-level Endurance rides are split into 4-6 stages, and horses must pass a veterinary examination at the end of each stage. A horse is not considered to have successfully completed the competition unless they pass the final veterinary examination after crossing the finish line. This is a strong incentive for riders and trainers to finish the event as safely as possible. Racing could adapt this requirement and require that horses are passed as fit before they are deemed to have completed a race.
In British Racing, post-race veterinary inspections are currently conducted, but passing the inspection is not a requirement for the race result to stand. Only horses that test positive for banned substances can have their results voided. If any horse is assessed to be lame (grade 2/5 or higher), their result still stands, and they are added to a mandatory pre-race checklist for their next race. Equivalently in Endurance, horses assessed to be lame at the final pre-race vet inspection are disqualified from completing the competition.
Introducing a requirement to pass a post-race veterinary examination may be even more stringent than a Void Result Rule, since it would affect all horses directly rather than indirectly. However, this rule would be a clear indication to the public that racing’s priority is protecting the welfare of racehorses, and would strengthen SLO with a strong signal that high welfare standards are literally a requirement to win races.
Proposal 3: Horses that don’t make a clean landing are required to pull up
In the video of Gold Dancer’s jumping effort that caused his fatal injury, it is clear that the horse slipped badly on landing. Rules already exist to specify situations in which a horse should be pulled up, for example if they are clearly exhausted and struggling. These existing rules could be expanded to include ‘near miss’ jumping efforts. The exact definition of a near miss would need to be determined by industry policymakers, but it should likely include slips such as Gold Dancer experienced, as well as other signs that the horse has not landed smoothly. The equestrian sport of eventing provides an example with their clear definitions of ‘horse fall’ and ‘unseated rider’, either of which results in an automatic elimination. If a rule was in place to require a horse to pull up in this circumstance, then it could reduce the risk of fatal injury both directly and indirectly. Directly, since stopping the horse from racing further could prevent exacerbation of minor injuries sustained during a jumping effort. Indirectly, since such a rule would shift incentives away from perhaps more risky behaviour when approaching jumps, and towards prioritising the horse’s safety. A clear rule which requires an enforced pull-up to be an external decision, for example by stewards, would also reduce pressure on jockeys to finish the race competitively, and protect jockeys from backlash if they do pull their horse up.
This rule may be challenging to introduce and to enforce, but this should be weighed against the potential reduction in risk of fatal injury and associated strengthening of SLO. Expanding the requirements for pulling up would be a clear signal to the public that the horse’s safety is prioritised. A rule such as this may not have prevented Gold Dancer’s fatal injury, but it could have meant the incident had much lower prominence in the perspective of the viewing public. Rather than headlines and social media posts about the horse that died after winning a race, with all the implications that entails, the message would be that as much as possible was done to prevent the fatal injury.
The Ethics of Risk Management and SLO
To quote Professor Madeleine Campbell, a European and RCVS Recognised Specialist in animal welfare science, ethics, and law: “avoidable harms (or risks of harm) are unnecessary, exactly because they could have been avoided. There is an ethical imperative for humans to reduce the risk of avoidable harms for animals being used in sport”. All equine sports must engage with the ethical implications of exposing horses to risk. When scientific research identifies risk factors that can be mitigated, there is a responsibility for the industry to implement interventions to mitigate the risks that horses are exposed to during racing. A secondary effect of such actions is SLO can be strengthened when the industry can transparently communicate what evidence-based interventions are introduced, and how they reduce risk to the horses. The future of racing depends on the industry acting to strengthen the sport’s social licence to operate.
Will they act before public trust erodes even further?
Dr. Euan Bennet is a Lecturer in Research and Numerical Skills in the School of Biodiversity, One Health, and Veterinary Medicine at the University of Glasgow. His research focus is primarily on understanding risk factors that affect horse and rider safety in equestrian sports and horse racing. He is the ‘go-to’ person internationally for data reconciliation and risk factor analysis in equine sports. His specialist niche is doing interesting stuff with data that organisations have collected and don’t know what to do with.
Euan has worked with equine sports governing bodies at national and international level, including the International Equestrian Federation (FEI), the US Jockey Club, Hong Kong Jockey Club, British Eventing, and Equestrian Australia. He has provided scientific evidence supporting policy and protocol that has contributed to measurable improvements to sports horse safety and welfare. Euan has pioneered the next generation of risk factor modelling for sports horses, by developing a holistic approach that integrates multiple datasets together from disparate sources – for example, combining competition data with veterinary history data and training records.
Since 2020, Euan’s research has contributed directly to:
A near-total rewrite of the international equestrian endurance rulebook, which brought about a positive step change in horse welfare across the sport;
A 47% reduction in the incidence of catastrophic injuries among racehorses in North America in 2025 compared to 2009. This is equivalent to over 200 fewer horse fatalities in 2025 compared to 2009;
Development of a ‘real time’ risk monitoring system implemented in Hong Kong racing, which identifies the horses most at risk of deleterious outcomes in time for the pre-race veterinary examinations;
Identification of avoidable risk factors for horse falls in eventing, across several domains.