THE GREAT WHIP DEBATE - STRIKE ONE!

By Graham Potter | Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Let’s start with two simple, logical, hard to oppose premises.

One: Any rule that is unmanageable is a bad rule and it should be erased from the rule book.

Two: Racing authorities should immediately stop pampering to the perception of those who have little interest, even less knowledge and zero investment in the industry.

The events at the Sunshine Coast on Saturday, where a protest against excessive use of the whip was upheld, was a disaster waiting to happen. Forget the stewards involved. Focus even less on the riders ... they were all merely pawns in a board-game in which racing could not come out a winner.

The fact that the ‘new’ whip rule is clearly unmanageable is compounded by the fact that it is a rule which was put in place for the wrong reason and racing’s rule-makers have to squarely shoulder the blame for both of those eventualities.

Sitting on their high horse they seem to forget that their collective responsibility is to serve horseracing and not take sides AGAINST racing in order to pacify anti-racing lobbyists, supposed animal lovers some of whom probably go off and enjoy a good steak after making their protest.

That is exactly why the ‘new’ whip rule was brought in ... to pacify ... for the WRONG reason ... against the will of the majority of riders, in spite of the fact that jockeys are the only ones who have first-hand experience of what can and what cannot be done in the saddle at high speed in closely confined quarters.

Desk jockeys would have no idea of what that involves.

Of all of the integrity issues in racing, the age old need for a rider to be seen to be giving their horse every chance of winning still rates on the ‘highest’ priority level. On the one hand, rule makers press that demand with the rider. On the other hand ... with the ‘new’ whip rule ... they restrict the rider’s capacity to do so.

It just makes no sense at all.

**********************************************************************************************************

The introduction of the padded whip was an acceptable advance in terms of how the horse is treated. Make no mistake, ninety-nine percent of those directly involved with racehorses are all for maintaining a high standard of animal welfare.

There was a point to the move to the padded whip and that change was easily implemented without any confusion.

Not so with the rule restricting the number of strikes with the whip for reasons apparently obvious to everybody except those who make the rules.

Did they ever consider what they were really asking the jockeys to do?

Sitting on top of a 500kg horse racing at speed at dangerous close quarters in a field of runners, some of which are tiring and falling back onto you, some are quickening up alongside you, against riders of vastly different degrees of experience, looking for a gap, trying to urge your horse through it when it comes to get there before a rival does, with turf thrown up by beating hooves coming back in your face, making split second decisions while always having the safety of the horses and your fellow riders in mind ... and, oh yes, when you have a spare moment, just count your number of whip strikes and make certain you don’t go over five strikes before the 100m mark, as if you know exactly where that is!

It’s laughable. Isn’t it?

**********************************************************************************************************

And to prove the point that it is all about pampering to ill-informed perception and not related to performance, the bottom line is that the effect of whip use can never be validated in terms of affecting a race result.

Why?

Because different horse will react differently to being hit with the whip. Some will resent it. Some will respond to it. Some will shy away from the whip. Others will knuckle down to the task under it.

And then there is the use of the whip by the jockeys. Some are competent users. Some are not. Some are stronger than others. There are veteran riders who have mastered its use. There are apprentices still finding their way.

The bottom line is that, because horses can’t talk, we will never know whether the whip helped or hindered them in any particular circumstance and therefore to talk about possible margins involved is a foolish past-time.

**********************************************************************************************************

To drive home that point, nobody can say with any conviction that Rosella, the horse that lost the race on protest at the Sunshine Coast on Saturday, was in fact not INCONVENIENCED by the extra whip strikes and might well have got home better under a strong hands and heels ride.

So, to my mind, the stewards at the Sunshine Coast erred in their reasoning behind upholding the first successful whip protest in Australia.

Had they just found the rider of Rosella in breach of the whip rule in terms of the number of strikes and adjudicated on that basis, the ‘Great Whip Debate’ would still have flared up ... but the point there would be that in a dead-heat finish, one rider rode within the rules and one didn’t.

Even allowing for the general dissatisfaction with the rule that would have been a difficult case to argue against.

However, when the stewards, in giving their verdict, stated they ‘were comfortably satisfied that this breach had a material effect on the result of the placings and therefore upheld the protest’ ... well, given the host of unknowns listed above with regard to whip use, that was just folly.

How many more times do we have to say it. We simply have no way of ascribing a margin ... positive or negative ... to a whip strike!!

*******************************************************************************************************

The whip rule argument will undoubtedly continue long and loud over the next few weeks.

While the already infamous Sunshine Coast protest is a ‘first’ in the record books, maybe, just maybe the stewards on that day have done racing a favour by bringing a situation, which has been simmering for some time, to a head.

Laws against the excessive use of the whip have been in place in racing forever ... well before this ‘new’ restrictive rule ... and if that principle is managed correctly with due vigilance by stewards and with non-negotiable harsh penalties for those who break the rule, then there will be no need for rules that are unpractical.

In the wake of the Sunshine Coast controversy the CEO of Racing Australia has reportedly already stated there would be “no revisiting” of the rules.

Talk about wearing blinkers!

The ‘new’ whip rule is a bad rule which has been put in place for the wrong reasons and it is devaluing the true competitive spirit on which racing was built.

Racing authorities to correct their mistake.

If they can’t see their way clear to doing so, perhaps it is time for those individuals to stand aside and be replaced by those who have a better understanding of the situation from a true racing perspective!

*********************************************************************************************************

*On November 26, three-and-a-half months before the proverbial hit the fan on Saturday, John Schreck, the retired, former Chief Steward in Sydney and Hong Kong, wrote this in his personal blog on HRO.

‘It just has to be remembered that racing is coming under more and more public scrutiny so far as animal welfare is concerned. That is a fact and whether jockeys like it or not they must be aware of that.

"Having said that a whip is an essential tool of the jockey’s trade and is an aid in maintaining control of the horse, a point I think even the anti-whip brigade would concede.

“Currently a jockey can protest if he believes a rival has broken the whip rule to beat him. The first thing I will say in relation to that is that it is important that there not be a rule that even talks about such a protest being allowed to be put in.

“That rule ought to be taken out of the book.

“That’s the first thing that should be done but, whilst the rule is there, I would defy anybody to determine a whip rule protest and uphold it for all sorts of different reasons.

“It is so terribly, terribly intangible whereas with a protest involving interference you can actually measure it. You can’t do that with the whip rule and the protest option should be taken out of the book straight away.”

That was on November 26. Schreck might be retired but, arguably, he is still ahead of the game.