TIME TO TAKE A STAND

By Graham Potter | Thursday, September 10, 2009

The first month of the new whip rules in Australian racing brought no real surprises.

It was never going to be a case of waiting for the Cox Plate or the Melbourne Cup, because of the big incentive on offer, for a rider to draw the whip in a now illegal manner to try to win a race. It will happen there of course, but betting coups do not need a feature race to succeed and neither does a rider’s natural competitive nature easily take a back seat in a close finish - particularly when he or she puts the stick away after reaching the regulated limit in terms of the number of strikes only to watch another rider flaunt the rules and land the odds on a horse that would have been beaten under traditional conditions.

This situation cannot sit well with anybody within the industry except those who use these flawed rules to their advantage. To a degree, you cannot blame the transgressors for taking their chances. With any other rule where a horse and rider gain an advantage to the detriment of another runner, the horse at fault can be disqualified or relegated from its finishing position. With the new whip rule, the winner keeps the race and any jockey in breach of the rules gets fined or picks up a ‘holiday’.

For any rule to open the door to an interpretation which says, if you can win a race in an illegal manner without ever being faced with the prospect of a protest and losing it - and somehow, as connections, that is worth your while - the question for some would be, why not?

On the other hand, hypothetically, should somebody want to lose a race, the rider just has to put the whip away when in contention and say he thought he had hit the horse the full complement of times (whether he had or not). As unlikely as that might be, even allowing for that possibility to exist does racing a disservice as it puts the policing of the sport, which has made such great advances in the last couple of decades, firmly on the back foot.

Or, as happened in Adelaide, what about a rider being reprimanded for hitting his horse too often when he was clearly winning the race? What happens if, next time out, a rider in a similar position, in full cry with a race seemingly well won, puts the whip away and the horse switches off ... maybe even becomes unbalanced ... and then loses? The fallout doesn’t bear thinking about.

Apart from that, it is simply outrageous to have a rule which is so farcical it forces form-guides to differentiate between those racing within the law and those who don’t abide by it, when they give their form commentary.

For an example of that go to the comment for the Gerald Ryan trained Melito published in the September 5 edition of Best Bets prior to the filly’s run in the Furious Stakes. The comment reads, ‘Gave winner 3kg first-up and didn’t get the advantage of her jockey breaking the new whip rules,’ ... which the winner (Deer Hunter) did.

Explain that to a potential new owner and see if he still wants to invest in the industry!

To most racing enthusiasts that comment is entirely accurate. A senior Steward in Sydney is of the opinion that nobody can say with any certainty how any narrowly beaten horse would have responded had the whip been used at will, implying that, for example in the Melito / Deer Hunter exchange, the result might well have been the same.

That is not the debate.

The debate is about finding a level playing field in a competitive finish - as it was before changes to the whip rule were implemented - and to eliminate the clear areas of dissatisfaction.

All of the above symbolises the problem you get when authorities pander to perception.

The well-being of the thoroughbred racehorse is of importance to all but a minute minority of those involved in the industry. By the same token it is probably fair to suggest that the large majority of the animal rights activists, who have been lobbying for the whip changes, have little to no knowledge of how racing works or the degree of care of the horse that trainers and jockeys are obliged to maintain.

So why should they have a say? You don’t have to phone a friend. The answer, quite clearly, is that they shouldn’t!

Suggestions ... yes ... comments, observations, requests ... they all should be welcome from anybody, and genuine good can come of that exchange.

Take the padded whip for example. The padded whip is a good innovation. The debate about the padded whip is generally settled with the belief that its implementation goes most of the way needed to alleviate the concerns about the use of the whip on a runner. Its effect on motivating the horse to run is drawn more from the sound aspect (it makes a lot of noise) as opposed to the actual striking of the horse. In fact studies have reportedly concluded that while the horse obviously does feel the whip, it doesn’t hurt the thoroughbred.

This once again begs the question that has already been asked many times over the last three and more months ... if the padded whip doesn’t hurt the horse why do you need the restrictions on the number of times it can be used?

Which sadly brings us back to pandering to the perception of those who, for the most part, don’t know what they are looking at.

Racing authorities are there to serve their industry first and, as such, the informed views of the core industry participants should always outweigh the concerned views of outsiders looking in.

The modern world where political correctness has reduced logic to an also-ran is no place for those who don’t defend positions that are defendable. Appeasing some protest group at the expense of your core business, even with all the good intentions in the world, is a counter-productive exercise and racing has come close to crossing that line.

The Australian Racing Board gets the opportunity today to put its hand up, to show some teeth and to find a remedy the whip controversy. The padded whip (to stay) and an adjustment to the terms of the use of the whip over the last 100m to 150m (only when a horse is in contention to win) is all that is being called for by the majority of racing’s stakeholders.

The downside of not making this stand is all too obvious, as per the examples posted above.

It was reported this week that it has been said to change a law which has only been in place for a little over a month would not be good governance.

On the contrary, given its fatal flaws, it would clearly be good governance to change the law with immediate effect.