Mark Johnston, leading trainer, qualified vet and BHA board member is someone with a most interesting view on the whip and its use. For reasons that i cannot understand, the views of such a renowned and expertly qualified figure appear to have been lost in the somewhat more trivial arguments about the new regulations. Why his views have not at least been put forward in the whip debate is perplexing to say the least. As a figure participating in the sport and involved in its running, and as an expert in horse (and animal) welfare he appears to have all the necessary qualifications to make his opinion worth far more than most. If the racing community could put forward such a strong argument then i think it would go a long way to addressing the farcical situation we are now experiencing.
If you have not read it already then i believe it is essential that you read his argument set out below. It represents a pleasing departure from the current focus of the debate, and addresses the far more fundamental issue of why the whip is an essential aid.
Mark Johnston:
"It's cheating a bit to take something you have written for one publication and reproduce it, word for word, in another.
Maybe it wasn't quite so bad for me to take a section from the February Klarion and reproduce it in my 'Bletherings', especially as I was seeking to demonstrate that David Ashforth had misquoted me in the Racing Post, but I am going to do it again now. I am going to take that self-same piece and print it, yet again, word for word, here.
I can assure you I am not doing it just to save me the time and effort of writing something new - although it is a bit of a relief, with so much new work on my plate now, to reduce a bit on the Bletherings and Straight Talking - but I think it is very important for me to reiterate my views on whip use and, as I have had so many positive comments about that article, I think I should put it out again for those who missed it first, or second, time round.
I feel compelled to re-enter the debate on this subject to help redress the imbalance in the Racing Post and other papers. The Post, or at least their editor-in-chief Alan Byrne, claims to have presented a balanced view but they patently have not. They have not only given more space to David Ashforth's, antiwhip, views but they have embellished his articles with emotive headlines and tabloidean, red 'prohibited' signs.
They tell us that this is all about public perception and that racing without whips will attract a greater audience but I am not prepared to accept that view. I recognise the importance of public perception but I will not put it ahead of horse welfare.
In February I wrote:
I don't suppose the cranks and bunny-huggers will ever give up trying to get the whip banned from horse racing, but it would be nice to think that they bother to listen to the counter arguments.
Sadly, it seems, they do not. This issue rears its ugly head every year or so and, every time it does, I reiterate what I consider to be the logical case for retention of the whip, but it looks like nobody ever bothers to listen.
They keep coming out with the same old drivel which assumes that the purpose of the whip is to make the horse go faster and increase its chances of winning. That, to my mind, would only be truly logical if some had them and some didn't. You could of course argue that some jockeys are more effective with the whip than others but then again, if you took the whips away, as John Francome says, some jockeys would still be better than others at using other methods of encouragement.
The latest thing is that the RSPCA have commissioned a study which they say has proved that the whip makes no difference to the result of the race and, as the study was carried out in Australia, that, presumably, includes when jockeys wave it around like the blade on a propeller.
So what? As I have said above, they all have them and so they are clearly not there in order to give an advantage over competitors. Whips, sticks, riding crops, or whatever you want to call them, have been carried as long as man has been riding horses and that is simply because they are an essential tool for the purpose of controlling a horse. The whip is often, as is recognised in the rules of racing, required to discipline horses, to prevent interference between horses in a race and, to some extent, to aid steering.
But, to my mind, it has a far more important function in racing: to keep a horse balanced and, ultimately, reduce the risk of serious injury even when it is getting tired towards the end of the race.
In breeding horses to race over centuries we have selected for and greatly enhanced the flight response which is inherent in all horses. That response, which is driven by chemicals in the body such as adrenalin and endorphins, can be initiated quite easily in a fit, trained, racehorse by the very excitement of being at the races but it must be maintained throughout the race.
There are many physiological changes taking place as part of the flight response and, together, they ensure that the mechanical components of the body are fuelled to capacity and can work up to maximum output but with natural limiters in place to try to ensure that the body is not pushed to breaking point.
However, as the horse tires, many components of that physiological response wear off. The excitement wanes, the stride shortens and the weight distribution alters with the head and neck lowering and more weight being thrown onto the vulnerable front limbs. At this point, it is in the best interests of the horse to reinforce the flight response and get the horse to the end of the race in a fully alert state. The strokes of the whip, which cause no lasting damage to an animal of that size, initiate a new 'injection' of adrenalin and endorphins.
Those who have heard this argument from me before will know that I like to compare this tiring state with a boxer about to come out for the last round of a gruelling fight. The jockey's use of the stick is akin to the seconds slapping their man's cheek and telling him to get his wits about him, keep his chin in, and look after himself.
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable about horses racing without the aid of the stick.
Now, if you can accept any part of what I say about the physiological flight response, you will understand why David Ashforth's suggestion, that whips should not be used at the end of a race, is so ridiculous. That is the very time when they are needed. And it is equally wrong to suggest that the whip should not be used on tired horses as that is when they need the 'wake-up call' and, in my view, it is far preferable to see the jockey using the whip in rhythm with the horse than to see him throwing his weight forward and compounding the imbalance of weight over the horse's front legs.
It is, however, quite wrong to hit a horse which has gone beyond the point of response but this is very well addressed in our current rules (now the 'old' rules). Jockeys who continue to hit horses when no response is forthcoming are punished for doing so but even then, in the vast majority of cases, there is no harm done. It is virtually impossible to hurt a horse with the whips
they carry now.
Maybe those who are so concerned about public perception should put their time and effort into thinking of a new name for the instrument carried by jockeys as it certainly isn't a whip as most people would know it. A 'paddle' might be a better description."
A quite excellent piece that goes a long way to addressing the fundamental issue of the whip and why it is an essential tool in horse racing. Unfortunately this seems to have been lost in the more trivial debate over the current regulations.
No comments:
Post a Comment