To be sure, Google does have a duty of care with regard to prompt removal of videos containing illegal or malicious content upon becoming aware of their existence. But the company cannot be held responsible every time someone chooses to upload these types of videos. Nor should they be expected to go to the extreme measure of pre-screening each and every video prior to them being made available for public viewing.

 
The Italian decision
The case in question revolves around a video which was posted by students at a school in Turin, Italy. The video in question showed them shamefully bullying an autistic schoolmate.

Although the video was posted in September 2006, Google staff were not made aware of its existence until two months later, when they received two requests to have it removed. Subsequently, the video was removed within hours, and the company assisted Italian police in identifying the individual responsible for its upload, who was later sentenced to ten months of community service (refer official company response).

But this did not satisfy the Italian courts, and a judge in Milan last Wednesday convicted three Google executives with violating Italian privacy laws in relation to the incident. Each was handed a six month suspended sentence.

 
Two troubling aspects
There are at least two troubling aspects of the decision:

1) that Google is being held responsible for content which it did not create and does not own; and
2) that the legal standard to which Google is being held does not accord with realistic commercial expectations.

Given that Google did not either own or create the video in question, neither the company nor individual members of its staff should be held responsible for its content. The same applies for all platforms of user-generated content (Blogger, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter etc). Users, not service providers, create and own the content. Therefore, it is individual users, rather than service providers (who merely provide a platform for individual users to share their creation), who should be responsibility for illegal or inappropriate material.

(Also troubling is the fact that the punishment applies not to the company itself but to individual Google employees. If Google committed any crime, surely the offense occurred at the corporate level and not at the level of any individual staff member. Any associated punishment should therefore apply to the company itself, not to individual employees)

 
Unrealistic expectations
More troubling still – questions the decision raises about the length to which Google and others have to go in order to satisfy legal requirements.

Given the extent of Google’s efforts in this case, it is hard to see what more the company could have done, and the fact that these efforts were not deemed to be sufficient raises some very troubling questions about the extent to which Google and others have to go in order to satisfy Italian law. Really, what else could they do? Pre-screen each and every video prior to upload? Pre-screen each and every blog post prior to publication on Blogger? How about Facebook – should they have to pre-screen each and every message or photograph?

No. Even if Google and others are deemed to have a duty of care regarding illegal or malicious content, such a duty should not extend beyond realistic commercial expectations.

 
Let’s hope the law adapts
Services like YouTube, Facebook and Blogger are subject to abuse by those intent on malicious or illegal activity.

But they also allow millions worldwide a platform by which they can create, share and connect with others.

Hopefully, over time, the law will adapt to the new media environment. But for now, decisions which impose unrealistic burden on providers of these services are very concerning for both the industry and the millions of users who enjoy the wonderful benefits which these types of services provide.

..

Apparently not – at least not in the case of those employed by Olympic Security at the Seattle Bus Station, who just stood there and watched as a fifteen year old girl was beaten unconscious and robbed in a vicious assault last month.

Three parties share in the blame for this appalling incident: Metro Transit, the guards themselves and Olympic Security (the guards’ employer), which should certainly be stripped of its contract.

Taxpayers do not pay for guards to stand around and do nothing.

 
The incident
Footage of the entire incident can be seen here.

Shortly after the girl in question was seen talking to one of the guards (apparently pleading for help), another girl approached, launching a vicious assault in which the victim was knocked to the ground and repeatedly punched and kicked in the face. Meanwhile, a third person stole her bag, including mobile phone and iPod.

Aside from having one guard call for help, none of the three guards on duty did anything. They simply stood there and watched. Even after the victim lost consciousness, they did not bother to check if she was OK.

Their excuse: strict orders preventing them from intervening in any confrontation - a claim supported by both Metro Transit and Olympic Security, employer of the guards in question.

 
Three parties at fault
Pathetic.

All three parties involved had a duty of care regarding public safety. All three failed abysmally and share in the blame:

 
• The guards themselves.

To be sure, the guards themselves are not police and do not have the same rights or authority as members of the police force – especially in cases like these involving physical contact with members of the public. Furthermore, it should also be acknowledged that failure on their part to comply with strict orders could have serious legal and/or disciplinary repercussions, and that they themselves are not therefore in any position to disregard these orders willy-nilly.

Still, they have no excuse. There were three of them – surely their ‘orders’ would not have stopped them from either: (a) preventing the attack by simply standing between attacker and victim; or (b) bothering to check whether or not the savagely beaten victim was Ok.

(Moreover, surely there is a case where you abandon orders for blatant simple common sense when it is clear that the safety of a member of the public is in serious jeopardy)

No – their actions reflected blatant negligence for which they had no excuse.

 
• Metro Transit.

Bottom line: Metro Transit are responsible for public safety at any station or terminal under their operation, and cannot be absolved of responsibility when incidents like this occur regardless of any contributory negligence on the part of either Olympic Security or the guards themselves.

The buck stops with them – period. They failed miserably.

 
• Olympic Security:

Finally, Olympic Security themselves must share the blame, and it is pleasing to see that their contract is under review following this incident.

They can argue all they like about how their staff did as required under the contractual agreement with Metro Transit. But this is a weak argument. As a private security firm, they share in a duty of care, and should not accept any contract under which members of their staff are prohibited from doing what is necessary to protect the public. And given their expertise, it is their responsibility to ensure that these types of contracts allow for proper procedures to handle any security incidents that might occur.

They are also responsible for training their staff how to handle confrontations – and this does not include standing, watching and doing nothing.

Rather than miserably trying to justify their actions, Olympic Security should just come clean and publicly acknowledge a clear and simple fact – they, too, failed in their duty of care.

They should also be stripped of their contract. They are not paid to have their staff stand and watch whilst fifteen year old girls are beaten and robbed. If that’s what’s going to happen, then their services are not of a standard which is appropriate to meet the ongoing requirements of the travelling public.

.

(Image provided by Sally Mahoney via Wikipedia)

Time will tell whether or not Pepsi’s move not to advertise at all during this year’s Super Bowl will pay off – after being the single biggest advertiser in last year’s event.

But what is for sure is that the company’s latest marketing push – under which grants are provided to support a range of community projects chosen by a public voting system – represents an ingenious idea for which the company is to be applauded.

 
The Strategy:
As a result of changes in marketing strategy, Pepsi decided not to advertise at all during the Super Bowl this year.

Instead, under the Pepsi Refresh Project,  an amount roughly equivalent to the $20 million which it shelled out on the event last year is being allocated toward grants to a range of charities and community organisations.

What is unique about the project is that Pepsi will not decide itself which projects are to receive the funding. That decision will be made by members of the public via an online voting system.

The system works as follows:

(1) Individual members of the public are invited to submit their ideas for worthwhile community projects

(2) Members of the public vote on their favorite ideas

(3) The company provides grant funding of between $5,000 and $25,000 for the most popular projects.

 
Why the strategy is so good
This type of system has three key benefits over and above straightforward corporate donations:

 
• Backing causes which really matter to consumers.

The best thing about Pepsi’s new approach is how it allows consumers themselves to dictate where the money is spent.

Consumers themselves are best positioned to understand what causes they are passionate about. Putting decisions about allocation of cause related funding in their hands ensures that projects supported under the program are relevant to Pepsi’s target market.

 
• Generating consumer involvement.

Judging by the attention Pepsi’s new campaign has generated online, it appears to be doing well in one of the most challenging aspects of cause related marketing – getting consumers to sit up and take notice.

Why? One reason is that Pepsi’s approach is genuinely unique and therefore stands out from the crowd. But more importantly, through the submission and voting process, the project is generating involvement on the part of the general public, giving them a real reason to pay attention.

 
• Reinvigorating the brand.

There is little doubt about the relationship between a company’s marketing strategy and consumer perceptions of its brands.

Innovative marketing campaigns promote a positive brand image. Vice versa for campaigns which are dull, boring and ‘same as everybody else.’

By trying something new and innovative, Pepsi is positioning itself on the cutting edge – exactly where the company wants to be given the importance of the youth market and the associated need for the brand to be seen as hip, cool and ‘out there.’

 
Over to You
What projects would you like to see Pepsi support in your community?

Do you think companies are generally good at understanding what causes are important to consumers?

Is corporate sponsorship of community projects is more/less powerful than advertising at major sporting events like the Super Bowl?

But contrary to the assertions of his legal council, his alleged conduct was certainly not an act of capitalism.

Frankly, I am tired of hearing terms like ‘capitalist’ and ‘entrepreneur’ used in efforts to downplay the seriousness of illegal and/or grossly immoral behavior. These types of words should be reserved for those who are truly worthy of being described as such.

 
The ‘Tiger Woods’ defence
Mr. Halderman is charged with first-degree grand larceny in connection with a failed attempt to secure payments of up to $2 million dollars from David Letterman in return for silence about the talk show host’s affairs with female employees (refer article). Allegedly, Halderman threatened to go public after the discovery that his ex girlfriend was one of the women involved.

In an attempt to have the charges dropped, Halderman’s lawyer, Gerald Shragel, compared his client to women linked to Tiger Woods (who were reportedly paid to keep quiet), claiming that “their behavior was capitalist, not criminal,” and that “(The) reality is that evidence of celebrity misdeeds has a significant market value.” (refer article,)

 
Blackmail not what capitalism is about
The question of whether Halderman’s alleged behavior indeed represents criminal conduct will be decided by the American judicial system in due course.

But was it capitalist behavior? No way.

Dictionary.com defines capitalism as:

“an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.”

Neither blackmail nor larceny are mentioned in any part of this definition. Nor, I doubt, would they be associated with the word in any other dictionary. They are not what capitalism is about and they have no place in any form of economic system, and though efforts on the part of defence council to downplay the nature of their clients’ alleged behavior are certainly understandable, I grow tired of the way in which concepts like capitalism get abused in the process.

The same applies to the concept of entrepreneurialism, a term all-too-often abused in describing the organisation of blatantly criminal or immoral operations for financial gain.

(Blackmail is defined as “any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats or injurious revelations or accusations” and “the extortion of such a payment“)

 
Capitalism Vs Blackmail
Let’s have a look at a few differences between capitalism and blackmail:

Capitalism is an economic system. Blackmail and larceny are acts of criminal conduct.

Capitalist behavior serves genuine needs for end-consumers. Blackmail and larceny do not.

Capitalism appeals to those who seek reward for courage, initiative, diligence, hard work and sensible risk taking.

Blackmail and larceny appeal to the lazy and dishonest – those who seek to get rich quick via opportunistic behavior.

Capitalist behavior is legal in free-market economies. Blackmail and larceny are not.

Capitalist behavior (usually) contributes in a positive manner toward society. Blackmail and larceny do not.

The American judicial system will decide whether or not Halderman has breached the law. But regardless of the outcome, his alleged behavior is not what capitalism is all about.

Let’s leave words like ‘capitalist’ and ‘entrepreneur’ to those who are worthy of being described as such – those who seek reward through courage, initiative, risk-taking, diligence and hard work.

(Google Headquarters in Beijing - Image provided by M Weitzel via Wikipedia)

Given the complexity of the moral, ethical and business-case considerations involved, there are no easy or straightforward answers to the dilemma confronting Google with regard to the future of its Chinese operations.

But given the recent security breaches, the pendulum has swung a long way, and the case for leaving China - from both ethical and business case viewpoints – has surely grown much stronger in recent weeks.

 
Google’s announcement to review it’s Chinese Operations
As most of you will already be aware, Google released an announcement on January 12 to the effect that the company’s operations in China are under review, following: (a) the discovery of a highly sophisticated and targeted cyber attack on the firm’s corporate infrastructure, with the primary goal of accessing the accounts of dozens of human rights activists in China and elsewhere; and (b) a decision that the company is no longer willing to censor search engine results in China.

Although not saying anything to pre-empt the outcome, the announcement does make it clear that partial or complete withdrawal from the country is a serious prospect.

 
Previously, the company’s operations in China were OK …
Prior to the discovery of the attacks, Google’s approach toward China appeared to be sensible and pragmatic.

To be sure, the censorship of search engine results to which the company agreed in 2006 did go against one of the basic fundamental principles of the online world (freedom of expression and information flow).

But it was necessary. Without agreeing to censorship, operating effectively in China would have been virtually impossible (prior to the agreement, Google’s uncensored engine, Google.com, had apparently been blocked by the Chinese government on an intermittent basis – refer article), and any stand made by the company regarding censorship would almost certainly have cost it the chance to properly exploit opportunities within the country – a price which surely would have been too high given the size and potential of China as a market.

And from the viewpoint of Chinese netcitizens, any Google service, albeit a censored one, was better than none at all prior to the censorship agreement when the service was so frequently blocked.

 
… but the security breaches change everything
But recent events have shifted the pendulum a long way, and both the ethical and business cases for leaving have become much stronger.

Even now, ethical considerations are a long way from clear cut. Any withdrawal on the grounds of censorship would hurt Google’s Chinese staff and customers much more than it would the Chinese government. And even despite the recent attacks, human rights activists in China would almost certainly be safer using online services from Google than those provided by domestic Chinese firms.

Still, the company does now have to think long and hard about whether or not it can be confident about the secure provision of some services, especially in light of the apparent sophistication of the attacks. Given this, along with ongoing reservations about censorship, the moral case for withdrawal has grown stronger.

So too has the business case. Most obvious is the risk of backlash in rich world markets. Already significant given the contention surrounding the censorship issue, the risk to Google of backlash associated with the continuance of operations in China is bound to intensify, especially if netcitizens remain unconvinced about its ability to provide Chinese services without jeapoardising the security of human rights activists.

This matters. China represents only a tiny portion of Google’s worldwide operations (see below), and the effect of the company’s strong moral pulse as a source of competitive advantage in western markets should not be underestimated.

(Google’s Chinese operations derive about $300 million in revenue, compared to an aggregate figure $22 billion for its global  operations – refer article)

Besides, Google’s experience in China has always been problematic. The company’s market share in its core search business is languishing at fifteen percent (refer article), and outside of search, many of its other businesses continue to experience problems relating to government censorship (at present, You Tube, Picasa and Blogger are all blocked – refer article).

Add all this up and there might just be a fair case for withdrawal anyway – even if it weren’t for ethical considerations.

 
Conclusion
There are no straightforward answers to the questions facing Google over the future of its Chinese operations.

But for now, the pendulum has swung in favor of an exit – whether partial or complete.

So they have every right to – it is their company.

But problems arise where shareholders abuse this privilege.  One such case occurred at a meeting which I attended in Melbourne last month. This case highlighted the need for shareholders to observe reasonable manners and etiquette - even when voicing grievances or frustrations.

Shareholders have a right to challenge directors on tough issues. They have no right to make unsubstantiated allegations or personal attacks.

 
Drama at the Orica AGM
The drama took place at the annual general meeting of Orica Ltd, a multinational Australian company which manufactures a range of chemical products, during the discussion about the financial, directors’ and auditor’s reports.

One speaker, ‘Clancy,’ launched a tirade of disparaging remarks. (Real names have been quoted here since a podcast of the entire meeting is on public record on the company’s website)

He began:

“Yeah last year I raised the issue of (accounting firm) KPMG carrying out a false audit of this company ..”

In his one minute denunciation, Clancy went on to allege that:

• KPMG were ‘still’ issuing false audits of the company.

• Don Mercer, the company chairman, “should be in jail with Karl Williams” (a notorious Melbourne gangland figure)

• Mr. Mercer was part of the Melbourne business set – “the largest crime syndicate in Australia.”

• Mr. Mercer and others had only gotten away with it (his alleged criminal behavior) because of Managing Director Graham Liebelt’s friendship with former Australian Treasurer Peter Costello, who “looked after the Melbourne business set” and was “the most corrupt politician to sit in politics in Australia.”

(There were never any suggestions of impropriety by Mr. Costello throughout his eleven years as Federeral Treasurer of Australia between 1996 and 2007)

 
Allegations in context 
To put these claims into context, a number of points should be noted.

First, Clancy did not provide or refer to any form of evidence in support of his allegations.

Second, Mr. Mercer enjoys an outstanding reputation within the Australian business community - earned over many years of service on the board of a wide range of high profile Australian companies.

Third, immediately prior to Clancy’s attack, a representative from the Australian Shareholders’ Association had given the company a glowing report on a number of corporate governance related matters, saying that the ASA “could only be complimentary,” and that shareholders should be “very satisfied.”

In short, these were nothing more than wild allegations.

 
Let’s hold off on unsubstantiated allegations
Shareholders are the collective owners of the company – by whom directors (and senior executives) are employed and to whom they are accountable.

They have every right to voice their frustrations or concerns, just as they have every right to challenge directors on areas where performance or behavior have not been up to standard. They need not be ‘nice,’ and should not feel under any restraint toward asking difficult questions. The annual general meeting is there chance to do so, and they should not hold back.

But there are limits. Directors have a professional relationship with shareholders and deserve to be treated accordingly. This means answering tough questions, but not putting up with unwarranted personal attacks, unsubstantiated allegations or defamation.

In the case of Orica, Don Mercer did not seem overly worried about the whole situation. He’s been around the traps a long time - this was water off a duck’s back to him.

Nor did many of the other shareholders attach a great deal of credibility to Clancy’s allegations.

Nevertheless, board members should not have to put up with this kind of thing.

Shareholders must be free to challenge directors or make their feelings known.

But they have no right to make personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations – directors should not have to put up with these.

 
Over to you
What are shareholder meetings like in your country?

Are they generally productive in terms of giving shareholders a fair opportunity to voice their concerns?

Are shareholders generally polite and well behaved?

.

(Image provided by Keith Allison via Wikipedia)

Tiger Woods’ recent fall from grace is a shame, not only for those directly involved, but for the entire sport of golf.

It also highlights a wide range of broader issues and questions relating to personal, professional and business ethics.

Amongst other things, these could include:

 
• How the private conduct of high profile professionals can affect their ‘brand value’ in terms of advertising and corporate sponsorship.

The understatement made by consulting firm Accenture upon termination of its sponsorship – about Woods being “no longer being the right representative,” - said it all.

So too does the more frank commentary (same article) of public relations consultant Ian Monk, about Woods being “… damaged goods with no commercial value to sponsors whatsover.”

 
• How the expectations placed upon role models in any profession extend beyond their professional lives.

Role models, it seems, are expected to demonstrate exemplary behavior in all aspects of their life – private or professional.

 
• The issue of media outlets paying for stories.

I don’t know whether or not Jaimee Grubs or any of the other women involved have indeed received any form of payment from media outlets for going public on this story. But I certainly hope they didn’t.

Woods’ transgressions are unacceptable, but so too are those of any of the women involved. Each of them appears to have been willing participants in their affair with the superstar - none deserve any financial reward for their behavior

 
Even the best are mortal
But there is one important lesson which should not be forgotten in any of this – the fallibility of even the most revered superstars.

Prior to the revelations, there were strong reasons for holding Woods in high regard, particularly given the way his work ethic, general demeanor and extensive involvement with charities and youth projects served to complement his talent and achievements. He was, it seemed, an ideal role model.

Nor was it in any way wrong to give him so much respect. Positive role models are needed in every profession, and those who achieve excellence whilst appearing to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner deserve our admiration.

But these sentiments must be tempered with two sobering realities:

• we don’t always know the whole story; and
• even the best role models are human.

The second point is especially pertinent. No matter how exemplary their behavior may be, all role models are human. None of them are infallible, nor should we expect them to be. Disappointment is inevitable if we forget this.

Respect for high achievers who display exemplary behavior is healthy, but idolization is not. No one should be put on a pedestal.

 
Great shame, important lesson
Tiger’s fall from grace was a great pity. I certainly hope that he is able to get his life back together and, if possible, salvage his marriage.

In the meantime, his story serves as an important reminder about the fallibility of even the most revered superstars.

Those who set positive examples deserve our full respect – but they should never become our idols.

a

Image by Steve Burke via Wikipedia

Dear readers,

I would like to wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to you and all of your families.

There have been a number of interesting comments from a variety of people during 2009. My sincere gratitude extends to all who have contributed to the discussions. I have certainly enjoyed writing on this blog as well as engaging in discussions on each of your blogs.

See you all in 2010.

Special thanks to:

Ana
Brad
Cath
Fred
Jake
Karen
Lillie
Meryl
Natural
Tom

Map showing Nigerian states within the Niger Delta (Image via wikipedia)

Murder.
Brutal repression.
Razing of villages.
Air bombing campaigns reducing villages to rubble.
Arrests and subsequent hangings without due process.
Endemic corruption at various levels of government.
Broken promises of oil revenues being shared with locals.
Eviction from property with negligible compensation.
Forced abandonment of crops such as cocoa, cotton, rubber and groundnuts.
Oil spill cover ups
Gas flaring near villages
Waste dumping.
Ethnic rivalries.
Destruction of farming and fishing.
Impunity for environmental and human rights abuses.
Internal displacement of around 10,000 internal refugees.
Endemic poverty and people growing poorer since the 1960s

Have I left anything out?

Things have not exactly turned out the way they should have in the Niger Delta –  where the 1960s discovery of oil was supposed to bring great wealth and abundance.

Granted, not all of these problems are the sole responsibility of Royal Dutch Shell Corporation. Nor were they caused entirely by Chevron, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation or any of the other firms which operate in the Niger River Delta region – governments have had a fair part to play.

But given the extent of the debacle surrounding the region over recent decades, you can hardly expect locals to love the multi-national oil giants. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that some of the problems which the oil industry faces – sabotage of operations and kidnapping of workers, are their own doing to some extent.

(Refer articles here and here for more information about the social and environmental problems over the past few decades associated with oil production within the Niger Delta Region)

 
Real business problems and a management lesson
As well as being a human and environmental tragedy, the Niger Delta debacle highlights a key management lesson for the oil industry: look after the local people and environment or suffer the consequences.

To be sure, if it weren’t for the direct impact upon operations, it would be easy for big oil management to avoid paying a great deal of attention to the impact of their operations from a social and environmental perspective, be it in the Delta or anywhere else.

But big oil is concerned. Militant activity, including the sabotage of production facilities and the kidnap for ransom of oil workers, has long had serious operational implications. In April, security concerns forced Shell to completely shut down operations. As recently as October, the company was still producing only 120,000 barrels per day in the region, compared to 300,000 prior to a surge in activity.

More broadly, as at October, that same surge had caused total production in the region, which has capacity of 3.6 million barrels per day, to sink to 2.2m b/d (refer article).

Add to this the financial cost of ransom for kidnapped staff (from what I have read, big oil almost always pays up), and it becomes more than clear that the problem is not one which oil companies can ignore.

 
Why big oil should be proactive
Granted, big oil is not the sole cause of this mess. Indeed, most of the problems relate to government and military abuses, and in no way can Shell or anyone else be held accountable for these.

(That said, some of the problems, such as waste dumping and oil spills and cover ups, can be directly blamed on big oil. And there are other problems still, such as the destruction of farming and fishing, with regard to which oil production is no doubt a significant and directly contributing factor)

Granted, also, that whilst no doubt the vast majority of those involved in the sabotage of the oil fields have legitimate grievances, some are simply thieves and professional criminals.

Nevertheless, the troubles of the Niger Delta region highlight the need for oil firms to undertake pro-active measures to prevent or minimize any adverse social or environmental impact in areas in which they operate.

Due to post length issues, I will not go into the specifics about what kind of action companies like Shell should take in this regard (I may share a few of my thoughts on this in a later post, and suggestions from readers are certainly welcome). For now, suffice it to say that steps to eliminate waste dumping and prevent further damage from accidents and oil spills would be a welcome step, as would investing within local communities and the local region (outside of those investments which directly relate to operational requirements) so that local residents could see some real community gains flowing from big oil’s presence.

Rather than getting into the ‘how to,’ my main point here is to empathize the need for a proactive approach in this area.

The big picture is simple – production problems in the region won’t stop until social and environmental problems stop.

Clear also, is the lesson for big oil: look after the local people and environment - or suffer the consequences in kidnapped staff and lost production.

Picture of a steeplechase horse race taken by en:User:Lorax (image via Wikipedia)

Hi all. It seems like awhile since the last discussion on this site. I hope you are all well.

Today, I would like to talk jumps racing and about what I see as a courageous decision announced last week by Racing Victoria, the governing principle racing authority in my home state of Victoria (South-East Australia) to ban all forms of horse races involving hurdles as at the conclusion of the 2010 season.

In in spite of genuine concerns voiced by some participants within the racing industry, I am inclined to agree with the decision.

Horse racing should not be banned outright. But animal welfare considerations dictate that the most hazardous elements associated with the sport should be curtailed. Given that jumps racing involves horse fatality rate of double that of traditional flat racing (see below), its discontinuation is warranted in spite of the significant amount of value that jumps racing adds to the sport and the industry.

 
Sure, jumps do add value to the racing experience …
To be sure, jumps racing does contribute a substantial amount of value to the sport, and things just won’t be the same without it.

Steeplechases have that extra sense of unpredictability about them which many punters find appealling. And for racegoers, daily programs involving one or two hurdle races have more variety than those consisting entirely of races on the flat.

 
… and their banning has a harsh impact …
There is alos no question that this latest move will involve considerable cost for a range of stakeholders associated with the sport:

 
• The racing industry

Hardest hit will be the industry itself.

Whilst the discontinuation of jumps racing may enhance the sport’s public image somewhat, I highly doubt that this will anywhere near compensate for the loss of direct revenue which will no doubt result.

Owners of steeplechase horses will be especially hard hit, not to mention jockeys and trainers who specialize in jumps.

 
• Regional towns.

Also hard hit will be the local economies within some regional towns.

The town of Warnambool, for instance, on the South West Coast of the state, is a case in point, where the famous three day racing carnival held each year in May, which brings in an estimated fifteen million Australian dollars (about $14m USD), and creates 576 local jobs (471 on course, 105 off-course)  within the local area (refer article).

Without the premier event, the 137 year old Grand National Steeplechase, the popularity and viability of the entire carnival may be placed in jeapordy.

 
• Horses themselves.

Some trainers claim that many current competitors in jumps racing face the prospect of slaughter once the ban takes effect.

Trainers also claim that the ban may indeed result in more deaths per year than what it will save, as jumps racing provides an alternative to being put down from the point of view of those horses which are unable to make it in traditional thoroughbred racing.

(Not knowing a great deal about horse breeding, I am not really in a great position to comment, but I don’t really buy this argument.

Surely, there must be a better alternative than being put down for otherwise healthy horses which are not able to make it in racing)

 
… but animal welfare concerns should prevail  
Despite all this, I feel that animal welfare considerations are sufficient to warrant the decision to discontinue jumps racing.

To be sure, horse racing is a dangerous sport, and accidents occur in all of its forms – not just jumps.

But steeplechases are exceptionally hazardous – too hazardous. A submission to a national senate enquiry in 1989 (see below) from the Australian Conference of Principle Racing Clubs estimated that approximately two per cent of all jumping horses are killed or destroyed as a result of horse racing accidents each year [refer PDF file (section 3.20)].

Whilst that figure may not necessarily seem particularly high, it is double the fatality rate quoted in the same submission for flat racing horses, which would appear to indicatethat jumps racing is about twice as hazardous as races on flat.

(These figures are twenty years old, but from what I understand, the death rate of jumps horses has not, at least in Australia, declined particularly significantly since these figures were quoted)

As I said earlier, horse racing should not be banned outright. Nevertheless, animal rights considerations do dictate that the most hazardous aspects of the sport should be curtailed.

Given the high fatility rate associated with steeplechases, that, I say with some regret, means that jumps racing should be stopped.

 
Over to you
Is jumps racing allowed in your state/country?
How would you describe attitudes toward jumps racing in your state/country?

Do you think jumps racing should be banned? Why/Why not?