"The Padded Farce: 14 Years of Research, 8 Years of Proof, and the BHA Still Can’t Find Its Priorities"

Fourteen years of research. Five years since Ascot implemented padded hurdles. And yet here we are, with racecourses still wringing their hands over costs and the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) trying to “collaborate” their way out of actually enforcing anything. It’s not just negligence; it’s performance art at this point.

Padded hurdles are proven to reduce injuries. They’ve been trialled, tested, and triumphantly installed at Ascot, where they’ve worked so well that other courses should have been lining up to copy them. Instead, we’re stuck with brush hurdles—those glorified traps increase falls by 11%—and the same tired excuses from racecourses claiming poverty while distributing £12 million in profits and dividends. Remember the BHA is 50% owned by the same racecourses they are trying to regulate?

Meanwhile, the BHA, under the newly dual-hatted leadership of Brant Dunshea (Acting CEO and Chief Regulatory Officer), is busy trying to manage this circus of contradictions with all the authority of a substitute teacher in a rowdy classroom. Horses, owners, and jockeys? Apparently not high on the list of priorities when dividends and vague “financial headwinds” are in play.

Jon Pullin, the group’s head of racing and clerk of the course at Cheltenham, said: “Following extensive research and analysis, it is evident that padded hurdles provide a safer alternative to traditional birch hurdles, while still presenting the same jumping challenge and spectacle for racing fans.

“Having been successfully utilised at some of our racecourses from as far back as 2016, we feel it is the right decision to deploy padded hurdles at all 11 of the Jockey Club’s racecourses which stage Jump racing.

14 Years of Research, 8 Years of Proof, and Still we have Birch Hurdles at Jockey Club Courses

Let’s start with the padded hurdles. It’s not as if they’re some untested prototype cooked up in a lab last Tuesday. These safety-enhancing obstacles have been in development for 14 years. That’s more than enough time to transition from “research” to “reality,” and Ascot proved it five years ago when they implemented padded hurdles with great success.

The results have been clear: fewer injuries, safer falls, and a better experience for horses and jockeys alike. Yet despite this, the majority of racecourses continue to drag their feet, preferring to stick with brush hurdles that have been shown to increase the risk of falls.

The excuse? Costs. Padded hurdles, originally pegged at £25,000 per course, have since risen to £60,000. But let’s not kid ourselves. These same racecourses are pocketing millions in profits. If they can afford to distribute £12 million in dividends, they can afford to invest in the safety of their sport.

The continued use of brush hurdles isn’t just reckless; it’s legally questionable. Racecourses knowingly employing a more dangerous option when a safer one is available are opening themselves up to liability. When tragedy strikes—and with brush hurdles, it’s only a matter of time—owners, jockeys, and families will rightly demand answers.

Carlisle, Haydock, Huntingdon, Kempton, Sandown, and Warwick: These courses will switch to padded hurdles at the start of the 2026-27 campaign.

Facilities in the Stone Age: Female Jockeys Deserve Better

Then there’s the state of racecourse facilities. While the padded hurdle saga takes centre stage, jockeys—particularly women—are left to prepare for races in conditions that wouldn’t be out of place in a museum exhibit titled “1970s Britain: Austerity and Artex.”

Female jockeys have long been an afterthought in racing infrastructure. Changing rooms are often cramped, poorly equipped, and miles behind the times. Meanwhile, male jockeys fare only marginally better, with facilities that scream, “We care about you... but not enough to bother painting the walls.”

And yet, despite years of complaints, no meaningful upgrades have been made. The excuse? You guessed it—headwinds. The same headwinds, apparently, that haven’t stopped racecourses from investing in plush VIP boxes or expanding their profits.

The BHA’s Priorities: Profits Over People

At the helm of this mess is the BHA, the regulator that can’t seem to regulate. Acting CEO and Chief Regulatory Officer Brant Dunshea inherited this quagmire just a week ago, but his initial approach—emphasising collaboration over enforcement—suggests we’re in for more of the same.

Instead of tackling the padded hurdle issue head-on, the BHA is busy issuing minor penalties to apprentice jockeys while racecourses continue to dictate the terms of reform. Safety, facilities, and fairness? Not exactly high on their to-do list.

The BHA’s priorities have become glaringly clear: keep the racecourses happy, even if it means compromising on safety and ignoring the needs of horses, owners, and jockeys. It’s like asking a fox to manage the henhouse and acting surprised when the chickens disappear.

Brush Hurdles, Padded Excuses, and Legal Liability

The real tragedy of this saga is that it’s preventable. We have 14 years of research, 8 years of proof, and a clear solution in padded hurdles. The data is there. The danger of brush hurdles is undeniable. And yet, here we are, with racecourses refusing to act and the BHA letting them get away with it.

Richard Linley, Senior Inspector of Courses BHA, said in 2016:

“The statistics so far have been very encouraging in terms of safeguarding horse and rider welfare. Fewer fallers means safer racing, and the design of the hurdle means that when there is a fall the risk of injury to horse and rider is reduced. There have also been benefits for the racecourses taking part in the trial with less hurdle breakages occurring to the padded design. We would hope the trends continue in this positive manner.”

The delay isn’t just negligence; it’s an open invitation for disaster. When the inevitable tragedy occurs—a fatality caused by brush hurdles or substandard facilities—there will be no shortage of legal questions for racecourses and the BHA to answer.

Why weren’t padded hurdles implemented? Why were brush hurdles, with their 11% increased danger, allowed to remain in use? And why did the BHA prioritise profits over safety?

The Final Furlong: Time for Real Leadership

British racing deserves better. It deserves padded hurdles at every course. It deserves facilities that reflect the professionalism of its athletes. And it deserves a regulator that prioritises safety over shareholder satisfaction.

Brant Dunshea has a rare opportunity to fix this mess. He can shortcut this deadline to May 2025, not October 2026 for padded hurdles, demand immediate facility upgrades, and hold racecourses accountable for their choices. Or he can continue the BHA tradition of polite inaction, letting racecourse profits take precedence over people and safety.

The choice is his. The stakes couldn’t be higher. And for horses, jockeys, and owners, the clock is ticking and the BHA needs a strong sense of urgency.