This is no new controversy. But after almost 30 years of wrestling to get its house in order it seems that racing has yet to find a satisfying formula for dealing with the issue of the whip.

The current situation reminds me of Anthony de Mello’s analogy — it is like teaching a pig to sing . . . you only frustrate yourself and you irritate the pig. And depending on whether a jockey, trainer, industry regulator or animal rights campaigner, you are likely to be either frustrated or irritated by the current situation.

Twelve years ago the first three jockeys home in the 2,000 Guineas were banned for whip abuse. Last Saturday, after the same race, Johnny Murtagh received a two-day ban, Kevin Manning five days, and Seb Sanders (aboard third Stubbs Art) is to face a hearing for the same offence. This — in the Flat season’s first Classic — following on from a raft of whip infringements amongst the top jockeys at the Cheltenham Festival.

Jockey bans at Cheltenham provoked unprecedented criticism from high-profile trainers Alan King and Paul Nicholls, while Aidan O’Brien praised Johnny Murtagh last Saturday for his “super-strong ride”. So, if our best riders are being punished for their efforts and our best trainers are in support of the jockeys, is the law an ass? Or is it the case that with the pressure to deliver even greater than ever, the professionals are simply seeking to rationalise their means?

Whatever the case, two things are clear. Firstly, the chasm between racing’s sportsmen and those who regulate the sport is wider than ever in the case of the whip and, secondly, the authorities in light of the ever-increasing recent spate of high-profile infringements (as one prominent Northern statesman said in another context) “haven’t gone away you know”.

There are three central stakeholders in the whole whip issue. The connections of the horse obviously want to take every legitimate advantage to maximise the chance of winning; Animal Welfare put the horse’s well-being before any other consideration; and racing’s regulatory authorities legislate to fairly balance the demands of both sides. Interestingly and contrary to popular belief, the RSPCA (unlike some other animal rights groups) does not seek an abolition of the whip in horse racing. Its equine consultant David Muir stated recently: “I know that individual horses react differently. The use of the whip to bring a horse to attention is okay. The RSPCA have never argued about that.”

The controversy erupts when jockeys — particularly in high-profile races — take the use of the persuader beyond what the sport’s regulations permit. And the higher the stakes the more likely jockeys are to breach those regulations. The difference between winning and losing last Saturday’s Guineas for connections does not stop at the £212,887 first purse. The differential in stud value for the sake of (official verdict) ‘a nose’ means that weighing up risk-to-reward of getting an extra smack or two into your mount lunging for the line for the sake of a two-day ban requires very little calculation.

US trainer Bob Baffert got it about right when he declared “Second sucks!” The punishment in this case has precious little bite as a deterrent.

The ultimate deterrent of course is to disqualify the winning horse if the jockey is in breach of the rules. After all, what other sport allows you to break the rules AND keep the prize? Racing is a little like getting your knuckles rapped for having your hand in the cookie jar but being allowed to keep the cookie. However, by applying this draconian logic in Saturday’s Guineas you would have encountered the sensational case of the first three home being disqualified — and Raven’s Pass (fourth) declared the winner. And, who knows, Jimmy Fortune might have tried that little bit harder for fourth — seeing the excessive vigour of the riding up ahead — and with that he too might have been banned and disqualified! Whatever the solution, it is clear that currently the punishment does not fit the crime.

So why have a whip at all? Abolitionists call it cruel while racing’s professionals call it an essential item in the tool kit. Philip Robinson, one of the most respected jockeys in the weigh-room, suggests that “a jockey without a whip would be like a carpenter without a saw”. Kevin Darley is probably close to the truth in his view that “the whip

has been designed by the right people and it is designed for correction, steering and motivation.

“If it is used properly it won’t do any harm.” It is the definition of “properly” and an adherence to it that is the nub of the issue.

Of course, there has been a flirtation by the UK with ‘whipless’ racing via the Hands and Heels series. Kevin Tobin, 5lb claimer and winner of the series who rode in 10 of the 12 races, claimed that “there would have been no change to any of the results if the stick had been allowed to be used in any of the races I rode in.” However, he qualified his comments by saying that without the whip “it (racing) would be a hell of a lot more dangerous. We carry the whip for encouragement.”

The Doomsday scenario if jockeys continue to defy the rules is that the rules become more radical or failing that it could open the door for abolitionists like Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock who raised the subject in the House of Common earlier this year. “We need to ban the whip completely,” he said. “I don’t think there are any half-way measures.”

So in conclusion it appears that racing needs to find a solution to the increasing frequency of high-profile whip offences or risk having action imposed from outside the sport.
(Source: Irish Independent)