This is not the first time the BHA has rewritten its whip regulations. Its authors must fervently hope, tweaks aside, that it will be the last
If it is possible to draw a lasting line in the sand, this was achieved on Tuesday. It now falls to party members not to engage self-destruct by stamping all over painstaking work. "These are not the old whip rules," racing declared. Unlike Ed Miliband, it had impact.
From Monday week, the number of times the whip can be used by a jockey in a race will be roughly halved. From start to finish, regardless of the distance, a Flat rider can take his or her hand off the reins and make a stroke seven times. For a jump jockey, it will be eight.
The penalties for breaking these rules are much harsher, with a five?day minimum suspension replacing a caution for some infringements to ? moving up the scale ? the loss of a jockey's prize money and riding fee, bans to be counted in months rather than days for multiple offences and the annual relicensing of riders to depend on their disciplinary record.
There are many unalloyed positives about the new rule book, and potentially some drawbacks. The removal of the deferral clause for suspensions, which allowed jockeys to serve penalties on days that did not clash with important rides, is welcome. It is predicated on the severity of the offence rather than implicitly evaluating welfare according to a jockey's status.
The British Horseracing Authority's renewed focus on education, remedial training and the constructive targeting of repeat offenders, rather than relying overtly on punishment, is long overdue ? as is their inclination to take a lead.
Having commissioned public opinion research, the BHA now also realises the imperative of better communication. There was an attempt by their man on BBC Breakfast to explain key differences between the traditional whip and the air-cushioned ones mandatory in racing, although not nearly as effectively as might have been. On the downside, putting a figure on the number of hits that trigger a breach has run racing into trouble before ? although the definition of what constitutes a "hit" and enduring emphasis on excessive force (rather than just frequency) will help.
The hefty penalties for those who may seek to compensate jockeys punished for a win-at-all-costs ride sound more idealistic than enforceable. Introducing the new rules only five days before the inaugural British Champions' Day, when the plain cost of not winning will be higher than ever before in the UK, is a risk ? we hope a calculated one.
But all this is beside the point. This new incarnation of rules needs to work for the simple reason that even the most entrenched of racing people ? almost a tautology ? must understand which way the wind is blowing. It is in the direction that, back on the Breakfast couch, quite naturally led the presenter Bill Turnbull to link the whip discussion with whether jump racing should exist.
This is not the first time the BHA has entirely rewritten its whip regulations. Its authors must fervently hope, tweaks aside, that it will be the last. There is little scope left for greater restrictions. Indeed, this review turned to address the elephant, asking the fundamental question of whether a whip is needed at all. Most pertinently, given all but the most deluded abolitionists allow that it must be carried for steering purposes to ensure the safety of horse, rider and others around them, the review examined whether the whip is a valid tool "for encouragement". After taking varying evidence from within racing and from animal welfare organisations and crunching some numbers, the BHA concluded that it was.
The "acceptable use of the whip" is now defined. It is to "focus and concentrate a horse so that it performs at its best". Its use must be justified within the context of a race. The horse must be in contention, able to respond and given time to do so. This is where the breakthrough can be made. Crucially, this report links overreliance on the whip with inferior riding, most likely to result in an inferior performance from the horse. Only four of the 30 Flat jockeys with the most wins rate above the national average for whip offences. The message is clear: if you break the whip rules, you're probably bad at your job.
This is no surprise. Anyone who watches a lot of racing sees, daily, horses underachieving because their riders have not exhausted their portfolio of physical communications with their horse before reaching for their whip. This review ends that culture.
Now everyone ? jockeys, trainers, owners, punters and the media ? knows what is good riding and what is not. The erroneous link between using the whip again and necessarily getting the best from a horse is broken. The connection between achievement and riding within the rules is enforced. These rules say that getting a whip ban carries the stigma it always should have.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/sep/28/whip-use-racing-animal-welfare
No comments:
Post a Comment