BROWNIE'S BLOG: THE WHIP STRIKE RULE AND LATE NIGHT RACING ... SOMETHING HAS GOT TO CHANGE

By Damian Browne | Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Multiple Group 1 jockey Damian Browne puts the inaction on whip rule protest results into perspective following the saga at Doomben on Saturday. He also calls those who schedule extra late night racing to account in this edition of Brownie's Blog which appears exclusively on HRO

So where are we with the whip rule?

With Brad Stewart’s whip rule protest being dismissed at Doomben on Saturday, even though it was established that the winner had breached the whip rule, the debate is on again.

Usually we ride and the race is run on the understanding that if you break a rule you face the consequences.

That is the way it is supposed to be, but with the whip rule it has been shown time and time again that hasn’t applied ... or at least there has been no consequences in terms of the race result ... and I think that is very frustrating thing for not only those watching but for the participants as well and for the punters who are doing their money.

We, as jockeys, don’t really know where we stand. We are allowed to protest on the basis of the whip rule being breached but, on the results so far, we seem to be wasting our time by doing so.

In fact, whether this correct or not, the general perception of many racegoers is that stewards will not uphold a whip protest in the current circumstances.

All that jockeys who feel they have been compromised by a rival jockey’s excessive use of the whip can do is make a point, as Brad did on Saturday ... and, even if he was never going to win the argument, the point was well worth making because it showed up just how ridiculous a situation this aspect of racing has become.

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

There is a school of thought that says if a whip protest is never going to be upheld the whip protest option should be taken out of the rule book ... but that the option to penalise the rider for his or her indiscretion should remain firmly in place.

Let’s be real about that.

All that does is bring us to the point where owners could say ... you just do what you have got to do to win and I will pay your fine or compensate you for whatever penalty you get.

Arguably that hypothetical situation could even encourage jockeys to break the rules in the ‘right’ circumstances.

If anybody goes ahead and does that, to me, that is just blatantly breaking the rules and those actions should have serious consequences.

The bottom line for any jockey is that if you are riding within the rules of racing and get beaten by somebody who isn’t ... and there are no consequences in terms of the result of the race ... you can’t help feeling aggrieved ... as will owners, as will punters.

Try explaining it to some of them! It is a very unsatisfactory situation.

So, in my opinion, it would not be appropriate to leave the whip rule in but take the protest option out.

That wouldn’t help matters at all. It might just complicate it all the more.

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

So if the whip rule as it stands now is unmanageable, problematic ... whatever you want to call it ... something has to change!

As I see it there are two options.

Firstly, we can do away with the ‘new’ whip rule altogether. Just take it away.

Prior to the whip rule changes of recent years there was always a watch by stewards on excessive use of the stick and we could revert to that way of policing the matter effectively enough.

Realistically though, this option is very unlikely to occur because it would be seen by many as a step backward in terms of the animal welfare reforms that racing has been trying to introduce to appease animal rights welfare groups.

Like protesting against excessive use of the whip, it is probably not worthwhile to even go there.

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

That leaves the second option which will also have its detractors.

It comes from the simple premise ... if authorities are going to have the rule pertaining to whip strikes they have got to quantify it.

Stewards argue that they cannot quantify the impact of extra whip strikes on a horse ... and they are correct.

As has been well documented, some horses respond to the whip, others resent it ... so we will never know the factual detail of how any result was affected by whip use but, for the purpose of taking it from an unmanageable rule to a rule which has a clear directive ... I say again ... it is a rule that has got to be quantified.

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

The rule should be rewritten to say, for example, two strikes over the limit is worth so much in terms of a margin. This different number of excessive strikes is worth a head ... a neck ... a quarter of a length etc.

If you then get beaten a nose and the winner has gained a ‘strike advantage’ of more than that as per the new directive then it can be measured and worked out mathematically and the result can be challenged accordingly.

Alternatively, if you go over the strike limit there might be disappointment but very little room for argument because you knew the rule and its consequences before you left the starting stalls.

Also, they could just have one person who sitting in the steward’s room while the race is on ... watching and being vigilant about the rider’s use of the whip.

Any issues could then be identified before we even come back into the jockey’s room.

Jockeys rode without this stricter whip rule for many, many years. We, as a whole, have adjusted to the new rule ... so, if they bring in a version where margins are allocated to excessive whip strikes it won’t take long for all of us to adjust our thinking once again.

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

As radical as that might sound to some people, I guess that is a solution to the underlying problem of finding the fairness in the race to the line that we are all looking to achieve.

If the number of excessive strikes equates to a particular margin and that is set out in the rule book then everybody ... and I mean riders, trainers, owners, punters ... everybody, knows where they stand.

We would all go into a race knowing exactly what the rule is. It will be black and white and not grey.

You might not like this idea (because it flies in the face of whether the horse was reacting positively or negatively to the whip) but it does create a clear point of reference ... for everybody ... on which these matters can be judged fairly ... and that is surely something that is needed as a matter of urgency.

As I said, that looks to be the only fair way I can up with. It’s either that or get rid of the rule.

I believe the current situation is unacceptable to just about everybody in the game and the debate it provokes does racing no favours.

The frustration is real.

That situation needs to be acknowledged ... and a decision on change needs to be made sooner rather than later.

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

I rode a winner at five past ten on Friday night at the Sunshine Coast night meeting.

It made my evening more worthwhile but it didn’t change my view that I don’t think anybody should be racing at that time of night. If they want night racing it should be from six o’clock to nine o’clock latest. That’s it!

I stand by that view one hundred percent.

I know it is not the club’s fault or the stewards or anybody like that. What I would also like to know is what those people who made that decision to have races run so late were doing a five past ten, half past ten or eleven o’clock on Friday night when many of the participants were still up working ... tending to the horses, travelling back home etc.

A lot of those people would only have got home after midnight and then they would have to be at work in the early hours of the morning.

Again, and I think it is another fair question, what time did those people who made the decision to race so late have to get up on Saturday morning?

My point being ... do they actually have any way of relating to what they are asking others to do?

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

Saturday is supposed to be our main day of racing. You’d want everybody to be fresh for it wouldn’t you?

Other sports might be a good fit for Friday nights, but those players don’t have to back up on Saturday!

Authorities did bring a rule that apprentices who ride at these night meetings couldn’t ride work the next morning which is probably fair enough ... but what about the strappers, the trainers, the jockeys.

Surely it comes down to common sense.

I think the turnover would have shown that racing that late wouldn’t have been a profitable exercise. I don’t know anybody involved who was happy about it. I don’t think punters would have been that happy about it ... so why push the envelope unnecessarily.

There is a niche time there for night racing ... but it not as late as ten o’clock at night.

It is not that any of us are not prepared to do the hard work. This industry is built on people who not only love working within racing but people who love their horses and will do anything for them.

They don’t do it for the money because a very small percentage make any money out of it and those who do are certainly not the strappers, stable hands and truck drivers who all do late night duty on these occasions.

They do it with good intent ... so why take advantage of their goodwill and make life harder for them?

It might have seemed a good idea to somebody at the time.

To me it is just an ordinary idea that needs an urgent revamp!

More articles