British racing is embroiled in one of its periodic crises over that most emotive of topics, use of the whip, because after months of deliberation and consultation it appears, as per usual, to have come up with a solution that pleases hardly anyone.
When a British Horseracing Authority (BHA) steering group comprising some of the great and good of the sport finally issued their long-awaited report into what whip use should be permissible in future, two recommendations leapt out.
One raised the deterrent of horses being disqualified if jockeys use the whip four times more than the permitted seven strokes in flat racing and eight over jumps.
Under these guidelines April’s Grand National winner, Noble Yeats, would probably have been thrown out. Or possibly not given the proposed wriggle-room still left open in terms of countback for strokes that may be used by a rider for safety and correction purposes.
Read more
[ IHRB have no plans to replicate British racing’s radical whip rule changesOpens in new window ]
[ Gordon Elliott training operation makes profit despite banOpens in new window ]
The other is that from the autumn, riders will only be allowed use the whip in a backhand position. That rules out more forceful forehand use of the sort employed by jockeys in driving finishes since time immemorial.
That is to do with optics because it can’t be for welfare reasons. Every racing regulator in the world is adamant the modern day Pro-Cush whips don’t hurt horses if used correctly. The aim is not to sting but to produce a loud cracking noise that provokes the animals’ flight instinct to run faster.
There is an obvious contradiction between insisting the whip is both a valid and painless tool of the trade while restricting how it is wielded for aesthetic rather than substantial reasons.
So, in trying to please everybody the report looks to have pleased virtually nobody.
By aiming to ensure public trust in the sport, vital to racing’s self-interest, while also keeping on-board sectoral interests convinced such concessions are the thin end of a welfare edge, it has come up with a fudge.
One hopeful BHA official invited other major racing regulators to follow them into this sticky mess and the usually ultra-cautious Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board was out of the gates like a sprinter to say thanks but no thanks.
It is tough on the BHA because its instincts aren’t wrong. When the steering group was announced it said the racing industry must be mindful of public opinion if it is to safeguard its long-term future.
Social contracts are intangible but supremely relevant when it comes to animal sports. Not knowing Dettori from Dettol doesn’t mean not knowing what you are uncomfortable with looking at when it comes to horses being hit by people with whips.
In terms of perception if not substance, that is an increasingly hard sell in a world of rapidly changing social mores.
And that ultimately means racing everywhere is left with a straightforward choice when it comes to the whip: stand over what it says about it being painless and justifiable or get rid of it for all bar safety purposes.
It must be that black and white because effective regulation requires it.
These new BHA recommendations are a self-inflicted injury waiting to blow up in their faces.
Stewards having to pore over replays to tot up strokes in different parts of a race that might or might not have been for safety purposes is an unenviable task. The implications for betting alone of any proposed expert panel helping them out with that tot on another day verge on silly.
All of it smacks of twisting and turning in an attempt to avoid making the inevitable decision as to whether to stick or twist on the thorny issue of whether or not using a whip to make horses run faster is acceptable.
Sticking with the rules as they currently stand is a perfectly reasonable option for the overwhelming majority of those of us in thrall to the old game.
They are imperfect and sometimes illogical but in fundamental terms of the whip as an implement for jockeys to help their mounts run, we, almost by definition, have no theoretical issues with it.
The suspicion, and it is hardly groundless on the back of reaction to the recent report, is that those opposed to the whip won’t be satisfied until it is banned completely.
Time was when no one batted an eyelid at people smoking on planes. Nothing was thought about playing a hurling match without a helmet. Wearing a seat belt while driving was optional. Wild animals were employed for circus entertainment.
So, having the courage of its convictions and standing over what it says about the whip, and that it doesn’t hurt horses if used properly, is a perfectly justifiable route for racing to go down in any jurisdiction.
But that is to ignore the broader tide of change when it comes to social issues including the ethical treatment of animals. Reacting with exasperation and dismissing much of the more extreme elements as wrong-headed offers temporary relief but isn’t going to stop it.
That is where the BHA’s instincts to take the initiative before it is taken for them is sound. Racing’s future is intrinsically tied up with maintaining public confidence that, in the main, the animals at the centre of the industry are treated well. Doing that means acknowledging times change.
Time was when no one batted an eyelid at people smoking on planes. Nothing was thought about playing a hurling match without a helmet. Wearing a seat belt while driving was optional. Wild animals were employed for circus entertainment.
Some of us were around for all that and a lot more, to which the inevitable query from the younger generation is what were you thinking? The only answer really is that it seemed OK at the time, and to point out how each succeeding generation asks the same thing.
To stick or twist on the whip is a decision that eventually will have to be made. Fudges won’t work.
Right now, it feels like a toss of the coin call. But it’s hard not to suspect that persisting with the spectacle of hitting animals with whips for sport is going to eventually invite a wider public query — what were you thinking?
