Debate about the whip has made one of its periodic returns to racing’s news agenda and been greeted by audible exasperation.
Normally when the old game’s rituals come under outside examination irritation gets muted for appearances sake if nothing else.
The reputational battering racing continues to undergo, including in relation to charges of a doping, means quite a lot of resentment has needed to be silently sucked up.
But when it comes to scrutiny of the whip there is a widespread and vocal attitude of enough is enough.
So the recent decision by Sweden’s racing authorities to ban the ‘bata’ for encouragement purposes has not received an exactly wholehearted welcome around these parts.
Often at the cutting edge of broader progressive social change, the Swedes have decided to get in line with their Norweigan neighbours by allowing the whip only for safety reasons.
“The use of a whip in horse racing simply does not belong in 2022,” a spokesperson for the Scandinavian Racing Regulations Committee stated.
Cue a predictable response from much of this part of the world along the lines of horse-hugging being all well and good in Sweden but hardly applicable to the real racing world.
Ultimately, hitting an animal is not a good look.
To many within racing the whip is a non-issue now.
It gets pointed out, correctly, that the modern foam-padded instrument is barely a third-cousin of the instrument employed by Lester Piggott & Co in their pomp and doesn’t hurt if used correctly.
The point of the thing is to encourage the animal through sound rather than pain.
During months of behind closed doors racing it was notable how the soundtrack to driving finishes wasn’t cheering crowds but the very audible snap of whips.
It’s also correct that given a similar crack across the palm of a person’s hand, it would be a delicate flower that would flinch through anything other than being startled at the noise.
Regulation
Regulation of the whip’s use has also been tightened up.
Compared to some desperate finishes of the past there’s little that’s visually offensive about consummate professionals such as Frankie Dettori or Rachael Blackmore trying their best to win.
The prevailing fear though is that getting rid of the whip represents the thin end of a wedge by those with an agenda against the entire sport.
It’s why the British Horseracing Authority’s steering group - set up after a Horse Welfare Board recommendation that the sport must lead all discussions about future removal of the whip for encouragement - is under pressure ahead of publishing a report in May.
Any supposed cave-in will be portrayed as a triumph of ignorance over substance. Rather than bans, the counter argument is that the priority should be education on the day to day reality of what for much of the public is just an occasional image on a screen.
There will also, inevitably, be an inferred invitation to handwringers to go be offended by something else other than a non-issue.
The problem is that no matter how vehemently those inside the racing tent argue otherwise there is an issue. The existence of BHA steering group alone is evidence of that. And it’s a worldwide topic with the tide going in only one direction.
Australia is no Sweden in terms of major racing jurisdictions and Racing Victoria has said it wants the sport to move towards “ultimate prohibition” on whips for “purposes other than to protect the safety of horses and jockeys.”
There’s no mystery to the reason either. Ultimately, hitting an animal is not a good look. And there’s no way to make it a good look, no matter how much education gets thrown at it.
Racing can’t pretend it exists in its own vacuum. When it comes to animal-based sports there is a vague yet tangible social contract between those invested on the inside of the tent and everyone else peering in from the outside.
Just opting out of an uncomfortable public debate isn’t an option when perceptions on animal welfare issues continue to harden.
Telling people they don’t really know what they’re talking about won’t cut it. Most of us reserve the right to decide for ourselves about what is and isn’t a problem and the modern digital culture is designed to amplify those decisions.
Societal attitudes
So it is in racing’s own interests to stay ahead of the game when it comes to broader societal attitudes.
It is operating in a culture that not so long ago prompted a high-profile Washington Post Op-Ed headlined ‘Racing Has Outlived Its Time.’
That sounds ludicrous here where the sport is so culturally embedded. Even the Swedes don’t think something that enriches so many lives should be done away with. But there’s no point pretending such skewed hostility doesn’t exist and that the attitudes behind it aren’t spreading.
This is an environment where the British government’s decision to evacuate pets rather than people from Afghanistan can get lauded for being merciful rather than roundly condemned for the morally vacuous anthropomorphic disgrace that it was.
Closer to home last year’s biggest racing story was the furore over Gordon Elliot sitting on a dead horse, a distasteful episode that nevertheless saw no welfare rules breached but which provoked the sort of frontier justice instincts that at one point threatened the trainer’s career.
This is the climate that racing is operating in and raging against it will ultimately result in only one winner. It might not be a case of adapt or die. But it could be a case of modify or get moved to the margins of public disquiet. Flogging shades of grey in such a black and white world is a tough sell.
At a time when the sport finds itself flailing in response to various problems this is one firmly within its own control. At the very least it is surely worth examining on a trial basis. Losing one battle is preferable to the whole war.
