salmon - I was being slightly sarcastic but all the same, I dont think that banning the whip would result in owners dumping horses overnight. Plenty of owners have horses for years without winning (and certainly without winning often). A whip ban would be unlikely to make things worse for such owners and you never know, it might even improve their lot.

I`m not convinced. I agree some owners seem to persevere with horses that look unlikely ever to win,but others cull pretty ruthlessly. I think there are plenty of horses whose oners will think they can`t win without the whip. Of course their perception might be wrong. I can think of other examples of that       

Arklearkle, i dont see the link between whipping and prize money but happy to hear about it. Like I said, i enjoy the whip as an entertaining aspect of the sport but I just dont see how its going to be defended.

Accept your point that it sounds like i think everyone should behave and do what theyre told but thats not what im trying to advocate. Imo the jockeys need to make a proposal and back it up. In fact they should have done this ages ago when they knew a review was going on. What they have done instead is be coerced into endorsing the original joke rules, then they had their say and said scrap the final furlong thing and leave our money alone (which the BHA agreed to), and now theyre moaning again because they keep getting suspended. Its not winning them any points. Its an idiots guide to getting what they want imo.

Please there is a very wide variety of jockeys - flat, jumps, experienced, in-experienced, rich, poor, shy, vocal etc. Some are not in a position to/cant speak out and some can. Even AP and Frankie allowed themselves wittingingly or unwittingly to be used at the start of this mess. There are probably only about three days in the year when they could all come together in the one place to say have a meeting. So it is not as simple as you say for them to come up with a single policy especially if it is true that the penalties were sprung upon them in the first place. There is a big connection between whips and prize-money. If the current rules remain or if whips are banned betting/interest in the sport will decrease and the sponsors will disappear and that will be the end of it and there will be no way back. Unfortunately that is a fact.

Arkle, yes, it's hard for the jockeys to get organised. Thats why theres a PJA. Unfortunately they dont appear to be able to organise for sh1t, which could ultimately be a big problem for pro-whippers and I dont think this fact is lost on the BHA either.

If racing goes hands & heels, then your prediction may well be fact and fans might desert the sport. The question is how will anyone argue this point if hands & heels is proposed? 'We can't go hands & heels because the racing fans want to see horses whipped?'

Salmon spray, I havent really got anything against that point of view, but my point is still how that point can be pressed if the BHA propose hands & heels as a way out of the current mess.

Horses CAN still race without being encouraged with an air-cushioned foam stick. If nobody comes up with a set of rules with a balance between 'use a whip to win, but dont over-do it' then what is the argument to keep it?