The enduring charm of the Bangalore Derby

 

 

 

Horse Welfare Needs Clearly Defined Rules

 

By Sharan Kumar

 

Horse racing often speaks in glowing terms about its heroes. The jockey’s skill, the trainer’s judgement, the owner’s ambition. Yet the most important participants in the spectacle remain voiceless. The horses themselves. They carry the sport on their backs, but when it comes to welfare standards, they depend entirely on the vigilance and foresight of those who run the game.

 

A response to my earlier article raised a point that deserves wider reflection. In modern sport, safety protocols have evolved steadily. Cricket offers a useful example. Today, umpires rely on a light meter to determine whether visibility is adequate for play. Decades ago, matches often continued if the pitch was dry even when the outfield was wet. Over time, however, the thinking changed. The entire playing arena had to be safe, not merely the central strip.

 

Horse racing in many parts of the world has followed a similar path. Environmental conditions are no longer treated casually.

 

Take Hong Kong, widely regarded as one of the most professionally run racing jurisdictions. When temperatures climb to around 33°C, precautionary measures come into effect. Cooling facilities, veterinary monitoring and other welfare safeguards are implemented to reduce stress on both horses and riders.

 

In Queensland, Australia, the threshold moves even higher. Around 35°C, racing authorities may alter race timings or even cancel meetings if conditions remain oppressive. Australia also employs the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) index, a scientific measure that combines temperature, humidity and radiant heat to assess the real impact of heat on horses and humans.

 

The United Kingdom has its own safeguards. In Britain and Ireland, instruments such as the GoingStick are used to measure turf firmness. If the surface becomes excessively hard, racing may not proceed.

 

All these precautions reflect a simple philosophy: racing cannot function without safe conditions. The track, the weather and the environment must fall within acceptable limits before a horse sets foot on the course.

 

Against this backdrop, the situation at the Bangalore Turf Club (BTC) invites some uncomfortable questions, especially with the authorities proposing to commence the summer season on April 19. April in Bangalore can be oppressively hot and rainfall during this period is often inadequate to ensure safe underfoot conditions.

 

A racecourse track is not merely a stretch of grass that can be watered and mowed into submission. Each track develops its own peculiarities over time. Soil composition, drainage behaviour after rain, the effect of repeated racing on certain sections, even the way the turf reacts to changing weather patterns all form part of a complex ecosystem that only experience can fully decode.

 

There is a track in-charge at BTC, but he is relatively new and learning the ropes. Understanding the personality of a racing surface takes time. The safety of horses and jockeys ultimately depends on the condition of the racing surface, experience and specialised oversight assume critical importance.

 

Equally puzzling is the absence of a clearly articulated heat policy. Bangalore’s climate is no longer the mild refuge it once was. Rising temperatures, episodes of smog and increasingly harsh ultraviolet exposure have become part of the city’s environmental reality. Yet racing continues without clearly defined thresholds that would trigger precautionary measures.

 

Ironically, while other jurisdictions adopt cooling systems and adjust race timings, officials and trainers here are still expected to carry out their duties in formal attire that appears better suited to a diplomatic reception than a racecourse battling oppressive heat.

 

The optics may raise a smile. The implications are far more serious.

 

Horse racing worldwide is increasingly judged by how responsibly it treats its equine athletes. Public tolerance for avoidable risk has diminished sharply. Welfare is no longer a peripheral concern but central to the sport’s credibility.

 

Which brings us back to the silent participants. Horses cannot question policies or demand safer conditions. Their wellbeing depends entirely on the responsibility and judgement of those who govern the sport.

 

If racing jurisdictions across the world have recognised that safety requires measurable standards, perhaps it is time to ask whether similar clarity should guide the sport here as well. Because when the silent participants suffer, the silence of those in charge becomes much harder to defend.