Last day before going back to Uni and last day of gym membership. I will now revert to being an academic workhorse (OK thats probably not going to happen) and a physical slob (odds on chance). Oxford has decided it’s a great idea for us all to do exams on Bank Holiday Friday morning and Saturday afternoon. I’m sure there’s something big on TV we’ll be missing... oh of course, the 2000 Guineas. Anyway, here’s my views on the whip.
Towcester’s announcement they intend to ban the whip was wrong. In the same way Stoke and Bolton couldn’t announce that their managers had agreed they fancied playing their FA Cup semi-final for 60 minutes rather than 90, a racecourse can’t suddenly decide it is changing the rules of racing. It would look amateurish and farcical. The sport would appear unregulated. The British Horseracing Authority is there for a reason.
They did, however, make some interesting points which have stirred up a bit of interest especially after David Ashforth’s article in the Racing Post where he called for a ban on the whip. The debate has moved centre-stage with regular national newspaper articles on the topic. The same thing happened in 2008 and I’d recommend reading this article from then in The Times which includes lengthy opinion from David Muir (RSPCA) and Choc Thornton. Back then the current BHA Communications Director, Paul Struthers said correctly: “Things cannot stay as they are, so we are starting with a blank sheet of paper. Racing needs to get on top of this problem before other people start trying to do it for us.” The solution was harsher whip bans, which from a welfare point of view are correct. The whip is not cruel unless abused by excessive force or frequency which is what was meant to be stamped out. Jason Maguire in the Grand National is one of many examples which would suggest it probably wasn’t.
Towcester claim that their ban would attract more people to the races. The BHA and Rfc say they are to undertake market research on whether people are put off racing by the whip. As a young child I wasn’t personally put off by the whip at all and remember strangely seeing it as quite cool. I was, however, an existing racing follower and my initial guess now is that in this world where political correctness (which is usually incorrect) is rife, future children will be brought up where the whip seems a strange and unwarranted oddity. Since meeting people at university from metropolitan backgrounds I’ve had to learn to cut out virtually all my jokes which could potentially offend anyone (even the College cat) or risk having my head blown off by some feminist do-gooder. Their children are going to take political correctness as the norm. There may be the odd backlash but the tide of opinion is moving in this direction. This has benefits – the next generation will not tolerate any racism whatsoever. But it also means racing must adjust itself so to be tolerated in the future.
ATR’s Sean Boyce disagrees: “First off there is little or no evidence of the public ‘outrage’ that we’re seeking to address. Secondly public opinion is often wrong. Thirdly, public opinion is never set in stone. It is fluid, mutable and we have a key part to play in shaping it.”
The BHA should make sure their research is thorough, not token, and let us know the results in an unbiased way before they make any announcement on the whip. I wait with anticipation but would rather they tell us now what this surveying will consist of.
Assuming my guess is right about public attitudes, how should racing respond? Like I predict many others have, I have changed my mind over this issue. Two years ago I would have told you to get lost and keep things the same because the whip isn’t cruel. Last year until a fortnight ago, I held Ashforth’s position before he had made it. I saw the banning of the whip to hit a horse during a race as a great signal racing could make to show it was modern, 21st Century and totally going with the Racing For Change thing. The PPEist in me would compare this to Blair’s Clause IV moment, a bold symbolic modernising move which David Cameron’s team have repeatedly sought to emulate, to rid his party of its old ‘nasty’ image. Were it to be done by racing without pressure from outsiders then it would generate tons of positive publicity for the sport across the national news bulletins and media outlets. I never considered the whip cruel but thought it unnecessary.
My position has changed to one I can’t be certain, but am pretty sure, I’ll keep. David Muir, the RSPCA’s Equine Consultant wrote in 2008:
“In my view, it is only fair that a jockey should be able to bring a horse to attention. They are pack animals and during a race they can revert to herd instincts and get distracted. Using a whip to make them concentrate is acceptable.
The new whip has been generally accepted now, especially by the National Hunt jockeys. The old one, which was a nylon rod with a leather thong on the end, could inflict unnecessary levels of pain; this one does not. But what still causes me a problem is excessive force or frequency and the rules need to be more specific and probably stricter. In jump races, I wonder if we could say you can't use the whip after the last obstacle. We'd still have a first, second and third in every race, but they would have to be ridden home with hands and heels.”
I hadn’t considered the distraction argument in that a horse may look around before jumping a fence and it would be dangerous not to bring them to attention using a whip. Once the horse has jumped the last, distractions are no longer dangerous. Horses can be straightened using the whip without hitting. Jockeys who can’t do this should learn as they are disadvantaged.
My view is this:
Jockeys carry whips and are allowed to wave them around without hitting the horse as much as they like. In Flat racing this would be it – all hitting banned.
In National Hunt racing:
Jockeys can strike a horse a maximum of 3 times (or X times – to be decided by jockeys and regulators as this is a safety issue) between each obstacle. Once the last fence is jumped hitting is banned. Any breach of these rules, which would be simple to see, would result in disqualification for the horse and it would be placed last.
My reservations surround what Nicky Henderson has to say: “The 'hands and heels’ series for young riders has been a success, but I’ve watched a couple lately and it’s noticeable how difficult it is to ride a horse for a long way without that extra bit of persuasion.”
The last thing we want is horses stopping because they can’t be bothered, especially in races like the Ascot Gold Cup or Eider Chase. Clare Balding says her view changed after seeing Ruby Walsh drop his whip on Big Buck’s and still win. I am far less optimistic because Big Buck’s is genuine and I have the picture in my mind of a jockey riding away on a horse chewing the grass like you see at the starting stalls. But I think my rules would, as John Francome has maintained banning the whip would do, increase jockeyship. They would require jockeys on horses who do nothing in front to ride accordingly and finish later. This in itself would require jockeys to know their horses better, either by riding them out or by being prepared better. Tactics would come to the fore and jockeys who put in more effort will be rewarded. We would, no doubt, see more of Paul Carberry’s ‘Harchibald’ rides.
In addition my rule would allow for smacking when horses are distracted in jump races. This tends to happen most by the stables, which inconveniently means jockeys give their horses a smack when they are passing the grandstands first time round. If this was down the back straight it wouldn’t be a problem.
However, the main point of the rule would be to effectively remove hitting with the whip from finishes, where close-up slow-motion action replays are used on TV. People would hardly notice the whips absence, because no doubt the jockey will be waving it past the horse’s face, but there would be no smacks or cries of cruelty.
Over at the excellent Steeplechase blog, which has a comprehensive review of all opinions, Joe McNally rightly says: “Out of sight is out of mind. Unless exposed to excessive use of the whip in graphic fashion, the public have no detail on which to make a subjective judgement. Jason Maguire, unwittingly, opened Pandora’s box.”
It's a very tricky subject. I can understand how pathetic this reason is to change a rule when there isn’t really any welfare issue but for the reasons outlined above I believe it is a necessary change and would take racing forward.
Thank you for reading if you made it this far!
My next blogpost will explain, in briefer fashion, how the implementation of any such rule would work. I believe very strongly that the way to go about this is through organised incremental trials followed by feedback, adjustment and then a full rollout and not Towcester’s suggestion of one track going it alone from this October. A major issue in all this would be what I mentioned in ‘Gordon’s Global Lesson’ – namely, how would the international racing community react? Are their rules already different to ours? I somehow doubt that Point to Points would embrace the changes as they relish not seeming to be in the 21st Century but as they produce many future jockeys they are interesting. And I wonder what the implications would be for getting horses into starting stalls.
Please write your comments below.
Please write your comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment