This article attempts to bring some objectivity to the debate around the use of the whip in horse racing, and I would encourage anyone and everyone to add OBJECTIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE comments and contributions. 1) Cruelty to animals Think about the treatment of pigs as they are shipped around prior to slaughter please log in to view this image Think about battery hens please log in to view this image I could go on, but it would be distasteful and I think we all realise that there are very many animals on our planet who are subject to abhorrent treatment. Compare this, if you will, to the life of a racehorse. Now, I can't describe the ins and outs of being a racehorse, as I have never worked in a yard. But this link gives you a pretty basic guide: http://www.ror.org.uk/care_life.htm#racing_yard If you have further questions, please submit them to our wonderful resident expert Princess Newmarket, who I am sure will be more than capable of answering all your questions. Suffice to say: racehorses are VERY well treated and looked after. 2) Isn't it cruel to whip horses? It must really hurt them? An area of the debate where far to little research has been carried out. In fact, the most edifying account I have read was this one from Guardian journalist Greg Wood, which makes fascinating reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/oct/18/jockeys-whip-didnt-hurt?CMP=twt_gu Surely, if there is such public outcry at the use of the whip in horseracing, a thorough investigation along the lines of the above report is called for? The relevant technology must surely be available to gauge the "effect" of the whip? Reading Mr Wood's account certainly leads the reader to the conclusion that there might not be quite such a "sickening" aspect to whipping. Do we all need to go and feel a professional jockeys whip for ourselves, to assess its weight and construct? Have the RSPCA actually bothered to do this? The above article brings me nicely to ............... 3) The Media The media wants to sell a story. Controversy is good and sells well. Fundamental analysis of an issue, reaching a considered opinion, only so for the broadsheets. In our world dominated by popular media, we owe it to ourselves to research those matters about which we are passionate and to form a considered opinion based upon the available evidence. Might I suggest here that reading John McCririck in the Daily Mail is way short of what is required. But let's look at "Big Mac" and his role in all this. A former bookmaker, he has made a living from horse racing for the entirity of his working life. He worked for years as one of the "faces" of Channel 4 racing, fevereishly reporting on the market moves, the amazing gamble from "carpet" to "bottle" and not once, NOT ONCE, during all those years did he see fit to mention his concern about the use of the whip in the sport. Fast forward to 2011, he is largely off the air, a b-list (or should the be z-list) celebrity who is scratching around for noteriety. Along comes the Daily Mail with a few quid and asks John to "whip up" a storm on the whip issue. 2+2 = 498. His comments earlier in the week were not only idiotic and offensive, they betray an inane sense of self-importance and a blatant disregard for the industry from which he has made his living. Utterly disgraceful. I would encourage each and every one of you to read with an open mind, be objective, be critical and to always think "why are they saying that?" 4) The BHA and PJA Between them these 2 organisations are doing a stirling job of making a laughing stock of the sport. The BHA have been infused by Downing Street "do-goodness" and seem intent on making the sport attractive to "women and those who have little interest in the sport". Now there is customer focus for you. The PJA seem to be little more than body in name only, happy to allow the BHA to dictate to their members without the necessary consultation and agreement which is required in any given situation in normal life. Dialogue is crucial here, serious dialogue (not in front of the cameras) and a long-term strategy must be sought and agreed upon, not just another knee-jerk reaction. Can the human race survive without horse racing? Of course it can. Would the horse survive without horse racing? Most likely, but in far fewer numbers and in far worse conditions, and certainly the days of the thoroughbred would be numbered. For that the world would be a far poorer place, bereft of a magnificent animal in a magnificent spectacle of sport.
OddDog you've raised some very good points there. I was in my local pub last week when I heard someone mouthing off about how Horse Racing was cruel to horses and it should be banned. I asked him if would be willing to go round all the stables involved in the sport and choose which horses should go to the glue factory and which ones to the dog food factory. I then asked him if he was going to include Show Jumping, Three Day Eventing, Dressage and Point to Point. He shut up after that. There is a massive problem in our sports administration in general today (the FA & the RFU spring to mind) but the way the BHA have handled this matter has made me wonder if the Sport of Kings in being run by the Court Jesters. Today's 5 day ban imposed on Ruby Walsh at Aintree because a slight tap on his mounts shoulder in the penultimate race appears to be deemed 1 of his alloted 8 which the race commentators clearly stated shouldn't have counted but was a matter of interpretation. If there are going to be such strict penalties imposed by the authorities then there should be no such grey area in existence. If a jockey commits a similar offence to Ruby at Stratford this coming Thursday and hasn't deemed to have exceeded his alloted use of the whip then where is the consistency. It is about time the sport is rid of these shamateurs.
There's no finer horsemen than Frankie and Ruby in their fields, for them both to receive bans on the same day just about sums the issue up. There will be no further review because the BHA have already been humiliated in backtracking already, they risk losing all credibility if bowing to further media pressure. Interesting that Bruce Millington, Tony McCoy, Paul Nicholls, Mark Bradburne have all deleted the supportive twitter comments they made a few weeks ago about the new whip rules. I see two things happening from now, firstly jockeys will be checking the calendar before commiting to rides to avoid bans that would mean missing big meetings, and secondly I can see a wave of non triers. Such a shame on another fantastic Saturdays racing
It is a good point you make and does bring perspective, the sickening abuse of animals in the factory farming industry is a proper shame on the laws of this country and the farmers who perpetrate such treatment of animals for profit. The whip issue is very much a perception issue. Our love of money is so enshrined that it is seen as acceptable to abuse other species for profit in the farming industry and that can be done so without real question. The issue with the whip in racing is because it is for sport and so percieved as unreasonable, so they pick up on this small issue even though the legitimicy of the accusation is questionable whilst ignoring such horrific sights as one would see in the farming industry because people there can say, oh but its our living and it's done for money. The fact is that Ruby Walsh would have a deep affinity for horses and would never willingly abuse a horse nor see one abused, whilst a factory farmer has no interest whatsoever beyond the balance sheet, how do we know this? Because he is a factory farmer.
Good article Oddy, Love the part about Big Mac. Big Mac became famous because he was a loud mouth bigot, fair enough he can be amusing, but to betray the sport that has put bread on his table, for so long, just shows what sort of a man he is. He accused Richard Hughes of being a martyr, what a hipocrite. I realy hope no racing broadcaster ever employs this clown again
Good article Oddy. In my opinion the only sensible solution is to change the rule to something along the lines of "If the whip is used more than x times, the jockey will be called to the stewards to face a stewards' enquiry. After viewing a recording of the race and listening to the jockey's explanation the stewards will decide on an appropriate penalty, if any. At the discretion of the stewards, a jockey may also be called where the number of hits does not exceed x but the severity of the hits is considered to be too harsh." I think that to remove the application of all common sense will, inevitably, cause problems. And in some cases, depending on how the whip is applied, is it not possible that (for example) 5 hits could be more harmful than 8? Hence it may be necessary to have the discretion clause. I'm sure some will argue my suggestion will lead to inconsistencies but I believe that the jockeys will be more receptive to a ban/fine having attended a well considered hearing than to be banned/fined as a result of someone being able to count, especially as it is arguable what counts as a hit.
Oddy top write up The rules need changing. Simples. National Hunt racing in December ground round Chepstow with only 8 backhanders for these half ton beasts? Someone, somewhere must be on the wacky backy and is getting paid an exuberant amount to come up with this nonsense of rules. Which appear to have been fired out without proper consultation with the jockeys. Should that not have been key??? Common sense does seem an alien concept to many governing bodies and appears so here.
Say what you like about the Jockey Club being an old boy's network, but they had a far better idea of running the sport than the BHA. This was in no small part thanks to the fact that they were all horsemen.
In the interests of objectivity, i'll play Devil's advocate here. Nobody is saying an air cushioned whip hurts the horse. The issue is more to do with exhausted horses being flogged round in the mud - not an uncommon sight in deep midwinter, as any renewal of the Welsh National would bear witness to. I think the flat jockeys will soon get used to 7 strikes in a race, though the sanctions may still be too extreme. But I can see the problem being more intractable as regards the winter game. And bear in mind how this issue came about in the first place, after Jason Maguire wore his right arm out whipping Ballabriggs home in the Grand National. Bringing the whole sorry saga to a conclusion acceptable to all interested parties should be easily acheivable on the flat. To acheive the same for the NH game will require imagination, courage and common sense, qualities in noticeably short supply at the BHA.
