The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has replaced its penalty guidance for breaches of Rule (D)1 of the Rules of Racing, which requires the Responsible Person to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety and welfare of every horse in their care. The new structure was published on 15 October 2026 and applies with immediate effect.

In its announcement, the BHA said a review had found the previous guidance much too narrowly defined, so that it did not always allow the most appropriate penalty to be applied. The new version gives specific examples of the levels of culpability and harm to be considered, which the BHA says will support more consistent, evidence-based assessments, and is better aligned with the sanctions that may follow. The BHA board approved it after many months of engagement with the National Trainers Federation, trainers and their teams, veterinary surgeons and others. The BHA described the standard expected of a Responsible Person as high, and said Responsible Persons do not need to do anything differently or take any specific action as a result.

How the three stages work

Disciplinary Panels first rate culpability as low, medium or high. Low covers behaviour that falls below the standard expected, including a single incident of very short duration. Medium includes behaviour far below that standard, substandard conduct over a period of time such as unreasonable delays in seeking veterinary advice, neglect and very poor husbandry. High covers cruelty, behaviour deliberately intended to cause significant harm, and prolonged or repeated conduct that would otherwise be medium.

Panels then place harm in one of three categories. Category 1 is little or no physical or developmental harm, suffering or distress, with no ongoing effects. Category 2 is moderate harm, suffering or distress with ongoing or long-lasting effects. Category 3 is a very high level of harm, including death, which covers injury or a condition requiring euthanasia. Where there was a real risk of more serious harm or long-lasting effects than actually resulted, panels should give serious consideration to a higher category.

Finally, panels start at an entry point for the combination of culpability and harm and move within a range for mitigating and aggravating features, such as personal mitigation, credit for cooperation with the BHA and previous disciplinary history. The guidance says previous precedent is unlikely to be considered relevant.

What is not set out here

The BHA published the entry points and ranges for each combination as a table image alongside the announcement and in the table of penalties in the Rules of Racing. Equanine was unable to open either version to verify the figures, so they are not reported here. The announcement quotes no named official, does not say how many Rule (D)1 cases panels have heard under the previous guidance and does not link the change to any particular case.

Equanine’s reading

  • Unreasonable delays in seeking veterinary advice and very poor husbandry are named as medium culpability, which makes veterinary referral and husbandry records central evidence for yards facing a welfare charge.
  • Telling panels that precedent is unlikely to be relevant gives them more room, but makes outcomes harder for trainers and their advisers to predict from past cases.
  • Because a real risk of more serious harm can move a case up a category, a near miss may be penalised more heavily than the harm actually caused, which makes yards’ risk management matter even where no lasting harm results.