I have read with interest the post-Aintree reactions of those most closely concerned with that meeting in general and with the Grand National in particular.

I was reminded that the racing authorities maintain good relations and a continuing dialogue with the RSPCA. Both parties have an interest in animal welfare and the exchange of ideas can only be for the good of the animals concerned. There is, however, a grey area that might lead to confusion as to the relationship between the two parties.

I get the impression that the racing authorities adopt a deferential attitude towards the RSPCA. If that is the case, I suggest that it is inappropriate. Racing’s standpoint is solidly based on the fact that no animals in the world are better looked after than the British thoroughbred. This has been the result of two hundred years of steady progress towards that objective. The RSPCA, on the other hand, is relatively youthful and has achieved its eminent position by fine work, largely within other areas of the animal kingdom. In terms of horseracing, the RSPCA has a great deal more to learn from the racing community than vice versa, but that is no reason why the relationship should not remain friendly.

As in all such relationships, the more one talks, the more each party gets to know about the other. For a long time, for example, I thought of the RSPCA as a “national treasure” rather like Dads’ Army, a vast network of ordinary citizens contributing their spare time and energy to a good cause.  However, if a recent annual report of the RSPCA is reliable, it would appear that its workforce consists of less than two thousand people. This would make it a relatively small task force, and by no means a reflection of the will of the people in general.  The RSPCA is also supported by the more energetic animal rights groups, and by the charitable people who give the society its money. Add all constituent parts together and then double the number to be on the safe side, and the RSPCA still only represents a tiny constituency.

It is also a fact that this organisation has not been without its critics. The operatives are called “Inspectors” or “Officers.” Their uniforms resemble those of the police; their cautions do the same.  It has also been suggested that it is not averse to giving the impression that its powers are rather more extensive than is in fact the case.  Quite recently one judge, several members of parliament and the Charities Commission have expressed concern about activities of the society (a registered charity) which might perhaps have been motivated by concerns which were not strictly charitable.

If one were to assess the recent Aintree meeting in general (150,000 racegoers over three days) and the Grand National in particular (8.9 million televiewers), the term “national treasure” could well be applied to steeplechasing. In any exchange of views between racing and the RSPCA this fact should not be overlooked.

Nevertheless I see no reason for the good relationship between the sport and the society to suffer, simply because the RSPCA is perhaps a little bit over-eager in carrying out the good work which it does in vast areas of the domestic and agricultural animal kingdoms. However, it might be sensible for racing to remember that “pushy” operators are inclined to take deference as a sign of weakness, which inspires them to push ever harder. That is a consideration which would be no excuse for bad manners, but is a justification for a robust reaction to the suggestions made by their friends in the RSPCA.

In general terms, is everything in the garden rosy? Not quite. The RSPCA has a managing director called Gavin Grant. In the recent past he has been reported as saying that he has given Becher’s Brook “a yellow card.” The inference is that, if that obstacle offends him again, he will consign it to oblivion. He clearly has a vastly inflated notion of his own importance.   After the Grand National he is reported as saying, “We do note that a number of horses appeared very tired towards the end of the race. We will examine this in preparing our report.”  That remark has a certain resonance and an interesting background.

In 2011, when the whip rules were the focus of attention, I wrote to the RSPCA, to ask if it was aware that the modern British racing whip was pain-free. I received a letter from the RSPCA’s Cara Lynsdale, inclosing two pages of the society’s “Position Statement on the use of the whip in horseracing.” The letter includes the following statement: “Whips can cause pain and suffering both directly (not true), and if they cause horses to exercise beyond their capability.” This sentence gave me something to think about. Is the RSPCA, I asked myself, preparing the ground for the day when it will claim the right to pass judgement on a racehorse’s exercise capability? That seemed to be the direction in which those words were heading.

Two years on we find Mr Gavin Grant saying something very similar. He suggests that signs of fatigue (after four miles plus, and thirty fences) may well give the RSPCA grounds for concern, and I suspect that, further down the line, he is thinking in terms of intervention by his society if it takes exception to post-race fatigue.

It would seem that the Gavin Grants of this world, backed by their task force and their large sums of money, continue to be guided by a philosophy which is fundamentally incompatible with that which the racing community  shares with  the vast numbers throughout the country and the world who so recently demonstrated their approval of jump racing in general and the Grand National in particular.

In the long run I see no possibility of compromise. I am all in favour of politeness, but racing’s leaders must understand that appeasement will not serve them well. A magnificent industry and all steeplechasing’s friends depend on those leaders to defend a priceless sporting heritage by a combination of eternal vigilance, intelligent strategy and steely resolve.

At this moment, racing is looking good, the RSPCA is looking arrogant. At this moment, racing represents that rare phenomenon in a time of austerity, a thriving industry, while the RSPCA is associated with behaviour that has caused concern to one judge, several MPs and the Charities Commission.  We have the best part of a year before the next Grand National causes a rise in the blood pressure. Would it not be sensible to make good use of the time available? Might not now be the moment to put Mr Gavin Grant on a yellow (or even a red) card? Might not now be the time to prepare, so that, if the worst comes to the worst, racing will be ready.  The alternative is hideous to contemplate: if we have ten more years of “conciliation” the Grand National will be no more than a glorified hurdle race, and Mr Gavin Grant will be looking to pick off his next target in his campaign against the sport of kings. One thing is for sure: he is not going to go away.

[The previous article on this subject is Sport 14: Horse Racing & Animal Welfare, posted  January 21^st 2012]