UK-Wide: An introduction to Sport: Horse Racing & Equestrian

In common with other sports, confidence in the governance structures of horse racing and equestrian sports is critical for trust, engagement and, ultimately, their commercial success. Indeed, for horse racing and equestrian sports, the stakes are even higher with their “social licences” being critically dependent on the public’s perception of their relationship with horses.

Historically, developing themes in sports have aligned closely with prevailing cultural norms and the socio-economic environment. In the early to mid-2000s, the critical regulatory issue for horse racing was integrity, with the advent of online betting exchanges and the public’s concern that corrupt betting activities were undermining trust in the sporting contest. This drove the British Horseracing Authority’s focus (then in the form of the Jockey Club and subsequently the Horse Racing Regulatory Authority) on rooting out corruption.

Subsequently, again underpinned by a quest for trust and fairness, the primary concern became anti-doping. Following the launch of the International Equestrian Federation’s (FEI) Equine Anti-Doping Medication Rules in 2006 (and the national implementation of these through the British Equestrian Federation’s Anti-Doping Regulations in 2011) and the BHA’s Equine Anti-Doping Rules in 2007, this became the primary regulatory focus in both horse racing and equestrian sport. Whilst refinements continue to be made to the anti-doping frameworks (an example being the FEI’s introduction of an Atypical Findings Policy in 2021 to promote flexibility when dealing with contamination), this regulatory landscape is now largely settled.

Against this backdrop, public sentiment continues to drive key issues in the sports, with equine welfare becoming the current defining regulatory focus. Notably, World Horse Welfare’s 2025 survey indicated that over 50% of the public seek increased welfare measures.

This is not to say that welfare has not been taken seriously in the past. One only has to look to the rationale for the governing bodies’ rules to see that this is the case. As the preamble to the FEI’s General Regulations makes clear, “the welfare of the Horse is paramount”. Similarly, in horse racing, the explanatory notes to the BHA’s Equine Anti-Doping Rules stipulate that “the promotion of the safety and welfare of horses in the sport are of paramount importance”. Consistent with these ideologies, welfare provides a constant impetus for evolution of the existing anti-doping framework (see, for example, the BHA’s total ban on bisphosphonates from January 2027).

Nevertheless, a distinct shift towards welfare being the focal point for regulation in itself is discernible. The growing development of regulatory structures around the issue reflect this, particularly now at the national level following the FEI’s dedicated efforts in this area since 2022.

Whilst in the eyes of the public, the issue may appear to have been pushed to the front of the action list by a notorious video of decorated British Olympian, Charlotte Dujardin, on the eve of the Paris Olympics, this is a case of correlation rather than causation. The reality is that national governance structures were already committed to development in the light of the publication of the FEI Equestrian Charter in April 2023 (by the FEI’s “Social Licence” Commission, a body specifically launched in June 2022 and tasked with addressing societal concerns about the use of horses in sport).

At the national level, the governance and regulatory structures designed to support welfare in equestrian sports now include universal adoption of the BEF’s Charter for the Horse (launched March 2024) and implementation of the welfare commitments enshrined in the BEF’s Equine Ethics and Welfare Policy (updated January 2025) across the 19 member bodies, including the Olympic disciplines of Dressage, Showjumping and Eventing.

Importantly, in contrast with the rigid framework for anti-doping regulation, the approach to welfare in equestrian sports intentionally affords a wider margin for individual disciplines to develop the detail of their specific regulatory systems with their own cultures and approaches. The result is a far less rigid regulatory landscape than exists for anti-doping.

As matters stand, there appears to be substantial alignment amongst the different disciplines with the regulatory approach being rooted in the adoption of the FEI’s Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse and the BEF’s Charter for the Horse (such as British Dressage’s Code of Conduct for Horse Welfare). Alongside this, discipline-specific regulatory systems include tools such as welfare reporting forms and whistle-blowing policies.

A similar picture exists in Horse Racing, with the BHA being a signatory of the National Equine Welfare Protocol, with welfare principles then enforced through aspects of the BHA Rules of Racing. Whilst still under development, a slight divergence with its equestrian counterparts is apparent, with a more prescriptive set of regulations adopted by the BHA. For example, Rule F(45) of the BHA Rules of Racing, concerning use of the whip, prescribes a clear use threshold set at a maximum of six times in a flat race and seven times in a jump race. Any more than this results in steward review, and a contravention results in suspension (with multiple contraventions leading to penalties and disqualifications). 

The approach taken by equestrian regulators clearly has the benefit of flexibility. It provides the latitude and discretion required to meet the autonomous needs of the individual disciplines and to develop a sanctioning regime closely tailored to discipline-specific welfare issues. This approach does, however, pose certain challenges for practitioners and individuals as to consistency of application and the potential for challenge to such inconsistencies on grounds of fairness and proportionality.

The question remains as to whether there will be a move to greater rigidity and specificity in the rules that are developed and, in turn, harmonisation across equestrian disciplines through a dedicated set of regulations at national level.

Alongside this, the approach to sanctioning needs to be monitored in response to the various welfare issues that may arise. Whilst data at a national level is relatively limited in equestrian sports due to variability in case reporting, the position at the FEI level and in Horse Racing reflects a definite trend towards the use of training courses alongside and, in some cases, in place of more traditional deterrent-based sanctions such as fines and bans. This shift in approach is particularly well illustrated by the BHA Judicial Panel’s approach to breaches of its rule F(45). Strikingly, none of the sanctions imposed in the first ten whip cases of 2023 include any element of education, but this was a consistent feature in all the recent decisions. This undeniably positive development has the potential to drive deeper cultural change by internalising an understanding of the importance of horse welfare within the sports.

It will be interesting to observe how this and other emerging issues are tackled from a regulatory standpoint, recalling again how closely tied the sports are to prevailing public opinion. One notable issue already in development is environmental and sustainability concerns. Whilst on the regulatory agenda (as illustrated by the BEF’s roadmap released in 2024 and the Racing Foundation’s 2025 Strategic Plan), there are as yet no specific regulatory systems in place to manage these issues. It would be surprising if this was not the next issue that regulators are required to grapple with in the very near future.