the BHA whip report - a critique

Forgive me in advance for the length of this commentary on the BHA whip review.  It is ultimately intended to be constructive.  For those interested, the report is found at:

http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=129

From it, it is apparent that a great deal of effort has gone into the report and there is much to be admired in the detail.  Alex Merriam in the foreword summarises almost all the points of principle and with the first 6 of these, no one with an interest in racing could disagree:
1)    The BHA as regulator “works hard to ensure racing’s continued health and successful development”
2)    The safety of horses and riders are central to this
3)    Racing is part of the British Heritage – it is the second most attended sporting activity (5.8 million p.a.)
4)    Britain should “continue to lead the world in equine welfare standards”
5)    There is a legitimate use of the whip and “with appropriate design and controls the use of the whip does not compromise the welfare of horses during a race”
6)    There is a wide range of public opinion and “therefore more needs to be done to explain to the public why the whip is needed, its effects on horses, the type of whip permitted and controls on its use”

Up to this point, so far so good.  However, what follows is where, to my mind, the mischief lies.  It is this:

7)    ”we recognise that the Authority’s Rules controlling whip use must be seen to be credible and fair”… [and prophetically] it goes on to say “ to ensure safety and horse welfare, be proportionate, avoid unintended consequences and finally be enforceable and be seen to be enforced”

When you examine the report, you find in fact that the basis of the imposition of these new rules was a “feeling” – a value judgment - which (yes, with the benefit of hindsight) most now would say was a misjudgment.  It can be found in para. 2.28 of the Review:

“Those who expressed acceptance of the current Rules felt that the number of occasions on which jockeys breach the Rules is unacceptable. In the opinion of the Review Group, supported by many of those consulted, this is due to an ineffective penalty structure where the deterrent was inappropriate”.

What was the basis for this “feeling”?   In the report itself, I was startled to read that:

•    there were only 20 occasions out of 90-100,000 when horses were seen with a weal. 
•    there were only 5202 whip offences  out of some 691,461 races = 0.75% of races between 2004 and 2011

The corollary of this statistic is that, in 99.25% of races, any use of the whip was legitimate and within the old whip rules – how did that translate into the “feeling that this was an ineffective penalty structure?”  Take the analogy of a football match- if you had a penalising system which effectively stopped players fouling each other in 99.25% of matches, most people would say that the rules was highly effective, and not that the "deterrent was inappropriate".

The composition of the Review Group (page 37) mainly consisted of “enforcers” – stewards, regulators, disciplinarians and a vet.  When you look at the consultees, a large number were regulatory authorities, and animal welfare groups.  Almost, it appears, as an afterthought, there was added “also consulted with a wide range of Racing and equestrian audiences”.  It may be that this explains the draconian “zero tolerance” recommendations.   

It seems to me, in this sorry episode, that the one thing that was not properly examined was the effect of the proposed changes upon a horse race itself, especially steeplechasing.  The Review accepted that a whip could be used for “encouragement” but in that context, when a jockey in a chase uses a whip to encourage a horse to jump at the right time, the idea that that strike should then count towards an arbitrary limited number plucked from the air, sends a jockey a mixed message.  The jockey is thinking at that moment of jumping a fence – i.e. about his and the horses’ safety: how can he realistically also think “that is one of my 8”?    This is an inherent contradiction exposed by the inflexibility of the new rules: it is “acceptable” at the time of the jump but because other whip strokes are used (perhaps on another fence, perhaps again legitimately to encourage the horse to improve his position) it retrospectively becomes unacceptable.     

Alex Merriam’s prophetic phrase “unintended consequence” has come to haunt the BHA.   The major unintended consequence is to bring a lack of confidence in the integrity of each race itself.  If we, the racing public (not the general public) think that horses are not being encouraged sufficiently because of a jockey’s fear of transgressing whip rules, we can have no confidence that horses are running to their best ability.  That will turn people away from racing rather than attract them, especially those who enthusiastically support it now.  If one of the roles of the BHA is to “ensure racing’s successful development”, then its “success” in bringing in enforcement measures in order to be “seen to be credible” by the general public is destroyed by the potential impact upon many of the 5.8 million people who already supported racing without rule changes. 

Can I suggest to the BHA that there is much to be proud about in the report but that its one mistake is to make the wrong value judgment about the need for and method of enforcement?  The solution is to be found in the report itself – namely that “more needs to be done to explain to the public why the whip needs to be used”

In short, scrap the new rules and concentrate on informing the public.