The Whip Debate

As the whip debate rumbles on a successful conclusion to appease both sides of the argument appears further and further away. The literature on the subject is now extensive. As a racing fan, and, more importantly, as a horseman, this is a subject which i have a strong opinion about.

The new rules were intended to appease the public perception that the whip is a tool of cruelty. There can be no doubt that to the uninitiated the idea of a jockey forcing a horse to produce yet more effort with a whack of the whip is not a pretty picture. But, as the thoughts of the initiated have shown, the use of the whip is far more complex than that. This distinction is perhaps the cause of the problem. The difference between the 'initiated' and the 'uninitiated' is one unlikely to find favour and not one that i am comfortable with. It imposes an air of arrogance on the part of those involved with the sport and ignorance on those that are not. It is impossible to appease the fanatical animal rights activists, but the views of the wider public are important. However, is it not understanding of the whip as a tool of correction and encouragement that is required? If this is the case then surely it is education which is the solution? I am confident that this is the essential factor which is currently missing from the debate. This is the only way that the the vast gulf between the two arguments can be narrowed.

The jockeys and the research suggest that the whip does not hurt the horse when used correctly. This is a viewpoint that i subscribe to. The whip is an essential tool. However its effectiveness does not rely on pain. To suggest that the people involved with the sport are willing to harm the horses under their care is offensive. These people (the jockeys, trainers, owners, stable lads, and so on) rely on the welfare and well-being of the horses for their jobs and their success. No human connection can be a success without a happy and healthy equine counterpart. That is not to say that a set of regulations is not desirable. The authorities must ensure that the use of the whip is correct.

The fact remains that abuse of the whip is an inexact science. A single hit can be an abuse, whilst a jockey using it 20 times during the course of a race can offend nobody. It is for this reason that a numerical limit is an unsatisfactory solution. Just because the whip has only been used 7 times does not mean that it has been used correctly. And, likewise, just because it has been used 8 times does not mean that it has been abused. This clearly highlights the need for an objective examination of the particular circumstances in question. The ideal, if unrealistic and potentially unpopular (with the wider public), solution must be for each ride to be analysed by a panel of experts to determine whether the jockey's use of the whip during the course of a race was satisfactory. This is resource intensive, as well as being a system open to abuse. It is obviously essential that each comparable case is treated in the same way. In the pursuit of a fair, reasonable and acceptable solution it seems essential that a compromise between these two extremes must be struck.

The new whip rules favour too strongly the rigid solution, with the focus on a numerical limit. The old rules were more flexible, but not without fault. However, i find it difficult to accept that an experienced horseman could not view a race and be able to adjudicate on any whip abuse in evidence. As already discussed, whip abuse is not merely a question of numbers, and, it might be argued that this trivialises the matter. An experienced eye should be able to recognise whip abuse instantly. The problem with this otherwise satisfactory solution, is that it is unlikely to appeal to the very people that these changes were designed to appease. 

The second question is that of penalties. I do not think anybody can possibly argue that Christophe Soumillon's punishment after his winning ride in the Champion Stakes was proportional to the offence committed. It has even been suggested that he may be successful in the courts with an appeal of 'Wednesbury Unreasonableness'; a legal test that a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person applying their mind to the matter could have come to the same conclusion. Soumillon's fine, in excess of £50,000, was certainly unreasonable, at least in my own opinion. It can be argued that a loss of 5 days earnings for a minor offence is similarly excessive. But, whilst the fine was ridiculous, and the suspensions extreme, i find the wider implications more concerning. Can anybody with experience of horses and horse racing seriously suggest that the ride on Cirrus Des Aigles was anything other than exceptional? His whip use was not abusive in any way whatsoever. The very fact that this ride of indisputable excellence was in contravention of the rules merely highlights their unacceptability. 

What is clear is that a remedy to this farcical situation is required immediately. The review of the whip review is due on Friday and with any luck a satisfactory outcome will be reached. However, my optimism is fading rapidly as leading jockey after leading jockey comes out in criticism of the new rules. It appears there is a massive gulf between the BHA, the PJA and the jockeys that they are purported to represent. Those speaking out against the new regulations include the perennial champion jump jockey AP McCoy, the former flat champion Ryan Moore, and the sidelined Richard Hughes. These are three of the most respected members of the weighing room and their very objections must be a huge concern for the new regulations. These are people who have ridden horses all their lives. They are people who love horses. They are people who rely on horses for their living. They are not people who want to or would abuse these animals. 

It seems impossible for a solution to be achieved that will appease both sides of the argument. If the BHA backtracks with these new rules then the welfare brigade will have a field day. They will say that our inward looking sport is outdated and must look at itself and embrace the change that is essential to its future. The jockeys seem intent that these rules must not stay and strike action seems likely to follow if at least some compromises are not made. The BHA must shoulder the blame for this sorry state of affairs. The reported consultation with jockeys now appears to have been much less extensive than we had originally been led to believe. Why they did not feel the need to properly consult those who would have to ride within these rules, and those who know the impact of the whip best is beyond me. But then the reasoning behind introducing these new rules in the week leading up to Champions Day is similarly unbelievable. By failing to ensure acceptance of the new rules within the industry, or a trial period to prove their workability, the BHA has created an impossible situation. The current regulations are not acceptable to those involved with the sport, but any backtrack will not be acceptable to the people these regulations were designed to appease. A successful outcome does not seem possible and it appears that the situation is one of damage limitation. I commend, and agree with, the fundamental objectives of the whip review because welfare must always be at the forefront of our thinking. However, the method of implementation has been a disaster. In my opinion, far more emphasis must be placed on educating the population so that they understand the whip and how it is used. It is only by increasing understanding that we can increase acceptance. Without this, any alteration can only bring about a short term solution. The review instead takes the easy way out, seeking a compromise that finds favour with nobody. It must be hoped that a resolution is achieved, and quickly.

I recommend that you read/listen/watch the following:

• Ryan Moore speaking to Racing UK this evening.
• Greg Wood being whipped by a jockey.
• Racing Post Television whip debate, in particular the view of John Reid. For that matter i am not sure that i agree with Brough Scott, usually a voice of reason, on this occasion. He seems to talk himself round in circles.
• Interview with Christophe Soumillon after his Champion Stakes victory.
• The full report is available on the BHA website.
• This post provides a neat summary of articles and viewpoints on the matter.