Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37835743›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Used like Pawns or Treated like Kings? How Narratives around Racehorse Welfare in the 2023 Grand National May Affect Public Acceptance: An Informed Commentary.

Gemma Pearson, Janet Douglas, Inga Wolframm, Tamzin Furtado

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gemma PearsonThe Horse Trust, Slad Lane, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire HP27 0PP, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9550-007X
Janet DouglasWorld Horse Welfare, Anne Colvin House, Snetterton, Norwich NR16 2LR, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2980-5043
Inga WolframmApplied Research Centre, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, Larensteinselaan 26-A, 6882 CT Velp, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0394-8417
Tamzin FurtadoLeahurst Campus, University of Liverpool, Neston, Liverpool CH64 7TE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1590-6417

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 2023 Grand National steeplechase race was delayed when protesters from the animal rights group, 'Animal Rising', gained access to the course just prior to the race. The international media spotlight was focused on what is already a high-profile event and the social licence of both this race and racing in general was scrutinised. Both at the time and for several days afterwards, the general public was exposed to two different narratives from pro- and anti-racing communities. This paper discusses these perspectives and the potential impact on the general public's relationship with racing. Whilst well-meaning and aiming to promote racing, much of the racing industry's commentary inadvertently risked damaging its reputation due to a poor understanding of social licence principles. We explore the reasons for these two groups' alternative perspectives on welfare and suggest considerations for change. Ultimately, if 'the people's race' is to maintain its social licence, the racing community needs to both understand and embrace the concept. Welcoming independent opinions, engaging with different viewpoints, accepting that change is inevitable and, most importantly, being proactive in making changes to prioritise equine welfare will all help racing to move towards greater public acceptance.

Indexed as

equineGrand Nationalhorse sporthuman behaviour changeracingsocial licencewelfare

Identifiers

PMID37835743
PMCPMC10571961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.