Water torture

From the Racing Post: "Racing was abandoned in controversial circumstances after just one race at Worcester on Wednesday, with the hot weather taking its toll as the track ran short of water for the horses. After the first race, Highland Laddie collapsed due to heat exhaustion and required '600 to 800 gallons of water [2,700 to 3,600 litres]' to revive him, diminishing the supplies on course. After a lengthy delay and an inquiry during which they consulted jockeys and trainers, the stewards elected to call off the meeting on 'wholly equine grounds'." Trainer Ferdy Murphy later told the Racing Post: "those responsible for racing at Worcester 'don't understand horses'." The first issue here is one this blog has raised in the past, that is how is sport intending to address the effects of climate change that it is coming to face? Otherwise, one has to ask if Worcester, or indeed any other racing venue in the country, is appropriately equipped to stage races when current conditions are so challenging? What are the management and equine welfare issues that track owners face when events are taking place in intense heat? Does the Worcester debacle represent a systematic failure on behalf of stewards, tracks and and/or the authorities to address the potential problems that heat is causing, or was Worcester just a one-off? Are there broader animal welfare issues to consider? Perhaps we expect too much of animals in sport, perhaps letting commercial and/or racing decisions dictate what happens rather than placing the welfare of the horse/animal at the heart of decisions? Otherwise, what is the extent of Worcester's legal obligations: to horses? To trainers? To the paying public? To people who might have bet money on scheduled events? If it were ever proven that Worcester had been negligent in some way, how then might this affect their legal position?