No easy home: how do we care for horses with soundness issues?

Cover image courtesy of The Image Is Everything

Meta Osborne’s contribution to TTR’s problems-and-solutions series asked racing to look harder at the way it makes decisions for the horse. Her argument was that welfare is often treated through rules, programs and public responses, while the horse still has no one in the room whose job is to represent him.

A question sent to TTR after Osborne’s piece goes straight to that gap.

“I am aware that each state racing authority obtains a huge amount of money out of prize-money for equine welfare,” Victorian breeder Karen Dunstan said. “Where does this money actually go? Specifically, what happens to so many horses that are retired because of ongoing soundness issues?”

Dunstan is one of many people inside racing who care for horses whose racing careers have ended, but whose next step is not straightforward.

“There should be support and funding to people who give these horses a retired life, either as a paddock horse, a companion horse or the like,” she said. “I would say there are a lot of horses that fall into that category, yet I see a huge gap in the current system.”

We looked at that harder part of aftercare: the horses who leave racing with soundness issues and limited prospects. It examines what support is available through the major racing states, where welfare money is being spent, and whether enough of that support reaches the people prepared to give those horses a quiet life when a second ridden career is unlikely.

The ideal exit from racing is clean: a valuable broodmare, a sound gelding ready for a second career, or a horse with the temperament and body to move into a new discipline with time and retraining. Many horses do find that path.

The harder group sits in the middle. These are horses who may be pasture sound but not comfortably rideable, horses who need long rest, horses with chronic soundness issues, horses whose value as companions is real but limited by cost, management and space, and horses whose owner may not have the money, land or knowledge to keep them indefinitely.

Those horses test the system more than the success stories do.

Where the money goes

The major racing states all commit significant funds to equine welfare, but the structure of that support differs.

In Victoria, Racing Victoria spent $5.58 million on equine welfare in the 2025 financial year, with post-racing programs and visibility accounting for 46.3 per cent of the budget.

RV’s post-racing system begins with an owner submitting a horse to the scheme and a standardised veterinary examination at the owner’s cost. Horses are then placed into categories based on their prospects and offered to the state’s acknowledged retrainers and rehomers. Victoria has more than 50 acknowledged post-racing service providers.

Horses needing extra help to find a home may be eligible for the PRESET program, with subsidies of $3000 to $5000 available to support the process. Horses best suited to companion homes can attract a further incentive for prospective owners, with $1000 available upfront for care and $500 a year after annual reports are completed.

There are also acknowledged retirement farms that receive quarterly subsidies from Racing Victoria, subject to reporting requirements and inspections. Horses sent to those farms are otherwise paid for by the owner.

In New South Wales, Racing NSW spent $4.42 million on its equine welfare program in the 2025 financial year, with more than $1.3 million going directly to feed and husbandry costs.

Its Team Thoroughbred program allows owners to surrender horses after they have made what Racing NSW describes as a "genuine effort" to rehome the horse, with documented proof of those attempts. Horses must have completed any prescribed rehabilitation or veterinary treatment before surrender. Once accepted, they are assessed for future prospects across the program’s farms, which include retraining, spelling and permanent retirement options where needed.

Residual lameness must be disclosed when a horse is surrendered.

Queensland’s model sits inside its broader animal welfare budget across all three racing codes. Racing Queensland spent a cumulative $6.1 million on animal welfare in the 2025 financial year, with $3.5 million funded through prize-money deductions.

The Queensland Off-The-Track program spent 13% of its funding on its safety net, aimed at horses most at risk. QOTT has 10 aftercare initiatives, including subsidised lessons, access to acknowledged retrainers and a $900,000 partnership with Save A Horse Australia to support retired racehorses in its care.

Queensland is also developing a Rest and Rehabilitation Program, expected to launch in 2027, to provide a subsidised pathway for horses needing extended care and rehabilitation before beginning a second career. It is being built specifically to assist retiring racehorses with soundness issues from both of Queensland’s equine codes.

The horses in the middle

“Rehoming” can mean very different things depending on the horse. A young, sound gelding with a good temperament and clean veterinary history is one proposition. A horse with chronic soundness issues, ongoing management needs or limited ridden prospects is another.

That second horse may still have a life worth supporting. It may be happy in a paddock, useful as a companion, safe in the right home, or capable of light work after time and care. It is also harder to place and more expensive to keep.

This is where racing’s welfare systems can become difficult to explain.

The public often hears about retraining, showjumping, eventing, therapy programs and high-profile retired champions. Those examples matter, but they do not answer every case.

A companion horse still needs land, feed, farrier care, dentistry, vaccinations, worming, veterinary attention, monitoring and someone willing to carry that cost for years. A horse with soundness issues may need even more care, while offering less of the practical utility that helps many retired racehorses find new homes.

If the horse has no obvious commercial use, the question gets sharper.

Who pays for the life that remains?

Prevention before the final decision

Any serious answer starts before retirement. If racing wants fewer unsound horses leaving the track with limited options, the industry has to keep investing in prevention, early detection and better management during the racing career.

In Victoria, 18.1% of Racing Victoria’s equine welfare fund in the 2025 financial year was spent on injury prevention, 30% on welfare and veterinary operations, and 5.6% on industry education. One of RV’s key tools is its diagnostic imaging subsidy program, which gives owners and trainers a 50 per cent discount on medical imaging, with RV covering the remainder.

In New South Wales, Racing NSW has introduced mandatory trainer seminars on injury prevention as part of annual relicensing. It has also announced the introduction of the asymmetry detection app Sleip as part of the licensing process, although details around its rollout remain unclear.

A welfare system that only begins at retirement will always be dealing with the most expensive and least flexible part of the problem. Injury prevention, early diagnostics, better rest decisions and better record-keeping can improve the chance of a horse leaving racing with more options.

But the safety net still has to exist.

When the kindest answer is the hardest one

A discussion about horses with chronic soundness issues also has to include euthanasia.

Racing Victoria’s onsite humane euthanasia program is intended as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. It is available for any studbook-registered Thoroughbred domiciled in Victoria, regardless of age.

When owners apply, RV assesses whether any other option exists. If the horse has a chronic physical or behavioural condition, a veterinary report is required. If both the owner and RV have made genuine attempts to rehome the horse without success, the horse may be eligible.

Racing NSW offers an End of Life Welfare Program for horses predominately domiciled in NSW where the cost of euthanasia may be prohibitive. A Racing NSW veterinarian must certify that euthanasia is in the best interests of the horse, and Racing NSW pays the provider directly.

Queensland’s onsite humane euthanasia program is run in a similar way, although veterinarians apply directly for reimbursement when genuine need has been established. A key exclusion is that horses owned or cared for by licensed racing industry participants, including registered owners, are not eligible.

These programs are difficult to talk about, but avoiding the subject does not help the horse.

For some horses, prolonged life is not a welfare outcome if it means chronic pain, repeated failed placements, unmanaged behavioural risk or years of compromised comfort. For others, the gap is cost: the horse could live comfortably with support, but the right home may not be able to absorb the full burden.

Disposal remains another practical issue. The most common euthanasia method uses barbiturates, which means bodies must be buried deeply or cremated to avoid risk to wildlife.

New Zealand has a useful model in the Rural Guardian Charitable Trust, which provides a purpose-built cremation and research facility for NZ$950 plus GST per horse. The Trust reinvests surplus funds into welfare, education and industry research.

Who carries the responsibility?

Across the states, there is broad agreement on one principle: owners carry primary responsibility for the horse at the end of its career.

Racing Victoria put it this way: “RV’s role is to support owners with maintaining the welfare of their thoroughbreds and will provide assistance to individuals within the scope of our programs.”

“In scenarios where owners have fallen on bad times, we are here to assist them in helping to transition their healthy horse to its next home through one of our programs,” a spokesperson said.

“However, individuals must consider their own personal circumstances with respect to being a responsible owner, with the ultimate responsibility for the care of each thoroughbred resting with its owner.”

Racing Queensland makes a similar distinction, describing QOTT as a program designed to complement existing pathways, rather than replace them.

The 2019/20 Martin Inquiry into the treatment of retired racehorses in Queensland identified the moral and social obligation of racehorse owners to provide for their horses after their racing careers. It also acknowledged that responsibility for providing and supporting pathways rests with both racing authorities and the broader industry.

The shared responsibility is where the argument gets difficult.

If the owner alone carries the cost, horses will fall through the cracks when the owner cannot or will not meet it. If the authority takes over completely, people who chose to race the horse lose some of the responsibility that should stay with ownership.

The most workable answer probably sits between those positions: owner responsibility, backed by a visible safety net for horses at genuine risk and clearer support for people giving long-term homes to horses with limited prospects.

Dunstan’s question sits precisely there.

What support exists for the person who does not want to sell the problem on, does not want the horse to disappear, and is prepared to give that horse a quiet life if the system helps carry some of the cost?

Traceability is part of the answer

A welfare system cannot help horses it doesn't know about.

Victoria has put emphasis on traceability, with accredited service providers subject to re-examination if they fail to meet obligations. Through Racing Victoria’s off-the-track community forum, RV tracks more than 13,000 off-the-track Thoroughbreds.

Racing NSW has invested heavily in welfare inspections for retired horses, with 1000 inspections undertaken by Racing NSW veterinarians in 2024/25, taking the total to 5000 since the initiative began.

That visibility raises the next question: Once the system can see more horses, what happens to the ones it identifies as needing long-term support?

Traceability can tell racing where the horses are and it can also reveal where the support is thin.

Hong Kong’s different model

The Hong Kong Jockey Club’s RESTART program operates in a different environment, but it is useful because it begins with a clearer assumption: every horse leaving racing is assessed, and the Club has built infrastructure around that process and where each horse fits.

Its welfare programs are funded through wagering revenue and import fees paid by the owners of every horse entering the jurisdiction. When a Hong Kong runner retires, owners can either retain ownership and receive a refund of the import fee to help fund export and aftercare, or donate the horse to the Club, which retains the fee.

Every retiring horse undergoes a compulsory veterinary assessment to determine its possible post-racing pathway and rehabilitation needs.

Much of that rehabilitation takes place at the Club’s Conghua Racecourse training base on the Chinese mainland, where the Retired Horse Unit has access to spelling paddocks at the Hong Kong Jockey Club's Conghua facility, 102 stables and a dedicated rehabilitation centre and team.

Each horse receives an individual program, using facilities such as aqua and dry treadmills, a sea walker, cold water spa, groundwork areas and initial schooling facilities. The aim is for horses to spend three to six months there before entering the retraining unit in Hong Kong, where they are prepared for an equestrian career.

Horses needing extended rehabilitation or more specialised retraining may also be exported to one of the Club’s overseas partners, with the Club paying the bill.

The model cannot be lifted straight into Australia. Hong Kong has a smaller, more contained racing population, a centralised structure and far fewer moving parts than Australia’s state-based system. But the aspiration is worth noting: a retiring horse is assessed, funded and placed into a system with infrastructure already waiting for it.

For unsound horses, that is a material difference.

The industry has built more aftercare infrastructure than it is often credited for. The important test raised by Dunstan is whether the horses with the least market value, the least obvious utility and the greatest long-term cost are visible enough inside that system.

Because if welfare is judged only by the horses easiest to rehome, racing will miss the ones most likely to need it.