I have said for a very long time - years - that racing should be far more transparent about horse deaths, but I got criticised for having a morbid curiosity in the subject, that it depressed people, and even that it had no place in a RACING forum. With forum attitudes like that, from people who hope to make money out of horses, even if they don't give jack-shit about them or their welfare, then one doesn't even need Animal Aid to criticise racing's attitude. Racing, or many or even most of its adherents, pure punters or whatever the interest, manages to kick itself in the balls quite adequately on the issue.
The BHA should stop being coy and refer inquirers to the database that Sara (Headstrong) said it was compiling, albeit with a view to providing that to people researching (Di Arbuthnot was one, she said) the reasons for fatalities and the type of fatalities incurred.
There is also a lot of money put into university research projects by the Levy Board (at least it does this much for the sport/industry/business) as to how best to treat fractures and how to improve horses' health, particularly in bone density, etc. The BHA never refers to these sort of things publicly - one has to be 'on the inside' to even know such work goes on. Why? Why would one have to be an owner, trainer, or breeder to be privy to this information?
The BHA - never mind the idiotic Racing for Change, which appears to be aiming at 3 year-olds - ought to have a far more extensive website where it provides links to information which should be usable by any person, let alone a researcher.
By keeping my own tallies over the years, I've found some of Animal Aid's previous pronouncements well over the top, but overall, yes, far too many horses are getting killed on a regular basis. Right now, we can say the average is one a day in jumps racing, with an annual tally anywhere up to the 300+ mark drawn from both codes. We can say that out of 17,000+ horses in training that that's not a really bad ratio. On the other hand, with every angle of every fall pretty much visible on television nowadays, showing almost every dangling broken leg or fallen horse twitching on the ground - racing does need to ask itself why it allows all of its races to be televised (I know the answer - thousands in picture rights per race) - and yet becomes furtive or worse, high-handed and arch, when serious questions are asked about the mortality rate.
Racing for Change will have to counter its gooey soft-centre approach, with giant numbercloths for the terminally myopic (what next? Stick-on numbers on the horses' bums?) and any amount of trivial footling, and be open and honest. Yes, racing horses does incur deaths. It occasionally kills riders, too, although not on the scale of eventing, where that sport continues to flourish and be enjoyed by thousands, in spite of its human death rate.
Compared to pet owning, where tens of thousands of creatures are euthanized every year because they've been overbred, abandoned, or rescued from appalling treatment too late, racing's annual fatalities pale into insignificance, but as they're so available to see, unlike the terminal suffering of 'homed' animals, they do make the sport look brutal and the BHA's determination to not face questioning makes it look cold-hearted, too. The 'change' in Racing for Change needs to come from within, and NOW, on this subject.