BROWNIE'S BLOG: A WHIP ‘PROTEST’ WITH A DIFFERENCE

By Damian Browne | Thursday, June 18, 2020

It really is quite tiresome to have to deal with the same old issues created by the whip rule every couple of weeks … particularly when it is a whip rule which doesn’t work and which authorities don’t seem to want to change.

After being beaten by a horse whose rider breached the whip rules at Sandown on Wednesday, , jockey Jamie Mott posting this tweet (which has since been deleted) … "So I have decided with the current whip rules in place in Victoria, if the owner/trainer is happy to pay my fine, I will use to whip up to nine times before 100m mark 'breaking the rule' giving us a better chance of winning.”

Who knows if that was said tongue in cheek or out of frustration. Of course, Jamie is not going to go out and deliberately do that at any time but, in his own way, I think he was firing in a protest against the whip rule and I fully support the underlying sentiment in his comment … one hundred percent.

Do some owners and trainers pay whip fines for their winning jockeys when fines are imposed? In my opinion, of course, they do.

Racing authorities always talk about being transparent and trying to do the right thing and yet when somebody highlights something like that and tells the truth about something that happens, they get punished for it. Jamie was handed a $1500 fine for his tweet. An outcome which, in my opinion, was ridiculous.

Perhaps Jamie could have put it better. Perhaps he shouldn’t have said what he was going to do, in theory only, which I believe he was never going to put into practise … but, come on, that was certainly not what the tweet was really about.

There was a home truth in there and, if you are telling the truth, you certainly shouldn’t be getting into trouble.
______________________________________________________________________

I can’t blame the stewards for the whip rule issue because they I think they have to work with a dud rule.

There are only two clear options available to sort this one out. Either get rid of the rule or enforce the rule. One or the other. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

The first option is self-explanatory.

What I mean by ‘enforce the rule’ is that you have got to put a method of dealing with the whip rule in black and white that takes the boring argument of not being able to quantify how much difference the excessive whip strikes made to the horse’s performance, as well as any discretion, out of play.

Getting rid of the rule is the preferred option of many, because you will have as many people who aren’t happy with the rule the way it is, as not being happy with the way you change it.
If they want to retain the rule, they have to put strict parameters in place in black and white which will put everybody in the same boat. Then it won’t be such a contentious issue.

Put a measure of distance in place for every whip strike over regulation and, if there is a protest, the number of strikes over the limit equals this number of lengths. The horse won by less than that … then the protest can be upheld. If you break the rule you have got to face the consequences.

It does sound ludicrous but … two things. Firstly, You just can’t allow horses to go on winning races when their jockeys have broken the rule and the rider of the runner-up has ridden within the law … and, secondly, if those measures are written in black and white it will there for all to see with the riders knowing beforehand that the same rule will apply to everybody so there can be no complaints about any result.

I don’t like the idea but, as I said, there are only two clear options available to sort this one out.

As long as the rule is grey and not black and white, there are going to be people arguing about it.

Let’s, once and for all, take the vagueness out of it. T
Afterall, that is what the rules of racing are meant to achieve … not to open up a can of worms.
______________________________________________________________________

If we go the second option, it will still have to managed with strict scrutiny to be effective … and you can’t expect jockeys to do that.

There is probably something like three or four minutes between the horses hitting the line to when correct weight is called. There is somebody in the steward’s room all of that time and, in those four minutes, they can go back and see if any of the riders on the place-getters have broken the rules.

That can get cleared up even before the horses return to scale or before correct weight is declared.

So, in that second option scenario where a protest can be lodged, it shouldn’t be up to the jockey to lodge the protest. I know when I was riding, I didn’t have time to look at how many times my old mate beside me has had a hit. I was paying attention to what I was doing.

Jockeys don’t need to have more things to think about.
The essence of the steward’s job is to run their eyes over the races to make sure they are being run fairly … and having one person whose sole job is to monitor the whip aspect of the race accurately will bring more efficiency to that role.
______________________________________________________________________

When a horse is beaten by somebody breaking the whip rule, you have got to feel sorry, not only for the jockey as in Jamie Mott’s case on Wednesday, but also for the trainers and owners whose jockey stuck to the rules in so many cases in the past … and what about the punters who will be going, ‘that’s not fair, the bloke’s broken the rules and beat me, it’s just another way to do my money!

We all know that the whip rule was brought in to pacify the perception of the people who know very little about the sport to stop them jumping up and down.

As an industry though, are they really the people we should be trying to please … or is it the owners and the trainers and the punters and all of the people who keep the industry going that the industry should be focussing on?
____________________________________________________________________

In closing, just a cheerio to Matty McGillivray who is still out of action recovering from injury.

He would have had mixed feelings watching Vanna Girl take out her Group 2 race. He would have been spewing about not being able to take the ride but he would have been very happy for the stable.

I sent him a message a couple of days ago. He said he was on the mend and hoping to be back in a month or two.

Hope all goes well Matty.

We all look forward to having you back in the saddle!

More articles