More than the whip under trial
To whip or not is the question that was debated in India quite some ago before rules governing the use of the whip by a jockey in a race were introduced. India gets the distinction of being the first country in the World to introudce compulsory use of padded whips and also the number of times that a jockey can whip a horse. Australia is currently introducing several measures to protect the interests of horses. Here is a brilliantly written article, in defense of regulations about the use of the whip.
HERE's a question for you. Do you want to be a member of a society that introduces a rule that increases the ability of jockeys to hit horses? Or do you want to be part of a society that limits the amount of times a jockey can whip a horse? Consider, of course, that this repetitive whipping is done for the entertainment of a small group within our community.
The horses are whipped in the name of punting, pleasure, stake money and breeding value. Not one strike is for the health or welfare of the animal. Each whack of the whip is a punishment disingenuously described by the industry as a stroke of encouragement.
Every strike is for the owner who might make an extra $500,000 at the breeding barn; each whack is for the punter who might get a dividend for his $5 eachway; at spring it might be for your $2 sweep or a $1million Group race. Horses are punished for human pleasure.
Horses are also hit for a group of owners who enjoy the colour and movement of race day. And to the converted there is no greater thrill than barracking your horse to the line. But the jockey will whip the horse time and again so the owner gets his thrills. And the jockey gets his sling.
Right now, a part of the racing industry is arguing that it wants and needs the right to hit horses more than the new rules introduced at the start of August allow. This vocal segment of the industry says that the spring carnival will implode if the jockeys cannot hit their horses more often. That is disingenuous, too. What they are really saying is that they will encourage jockeys to breach the whip rules so they can indulge themselves in the riches of spring racing.
Importantly, these new rules to restrict the whipping of horses were introduced by the industry itself.
After long consultation with all lobby and interest groups, the Australian Racing Board agreed to new protocols that reduced the number of times jockeys could thrash their mounts. The stewards drew up the rules and the men commissioned to administer the sport endorsed them. This was no spur-of-the-moment decision.
The discussion moved a long way too. Early on in the four-month process, the bodies representing the trainers and the jockeys said no change was needed. Certainly, the introduction of the padded whip was deemed unwarranted. It was considered that the whip should not be used on two-year-olds but that had little support and was struck out. The rules have been pushed, torn up, massaged and moulded. As they stand now, they offer the greatest protection ever afforded racehorses in this country. It is something to be proud of.
And it follows a world trend where whip riding is being reduced. In India, no horse can be struck more than eight times. Suspension follows, repeat offenders risk losing the right to carry a whip. The rules were stiffened when the Indian government said that if racing did not modify the use of the whip, then the government would. Australia faces that risk because horse-racing is at the margins of popular sport. That it has not grown can, in part, be attributed to practices that first-time watchers see as barbaric.
The sport's loss of traction within the broader community is witnessed every spring in Melbourne when 100,000 people come for each of the four main days of racing then disappear for another 12 months. The sport of racing no longer has a hook. It might be that racing does away with the whip altogether because if it was banned tomorrow nothing in racing would change. There would still be owners, punters, breeders. The whip is not critical to racing but goodwill is.
The pro-whip defence has been mostly incoherent and hysterical. It first said the whip did not hurt horses, now argues the whip is required to urge horses to accelerate. Meaning it is a stimulus that hurts. It has demeaned the debate by arguing that it is a matter of occupational health and safety. That jockeys cannot whip and count at the same time. That has been revised and now assessed jockeys can in fact multi-task but not in the final 100 metres of a race.
As every argument was dismantled, a new one was dreamt up. It reached idiotic proportions when it was argued that flailing a horse with a whip had taken the artistry from the skill of horsemanship. Ah, the loss of poetry of the cracking whip. Finally, yesterday it was put that international jockeys would be disadvantaged and basically run amok. Dear God. Never mind that jockeys go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction coping with different rules all the time. If these visiting jockeys are as unprofessional and incompetent as suggested, the fools must be stopped at the airport.
If any argument is worth consideration it is this: owners, through no fault of their own, are disadvantaged if their jockey obeys the rule and another does not and pips their horse on the line. But it is a risk in every race that owners are undone by circumstances out of their control. That is why there is no certainty in racing. Blocked run, bad ride, interference, sloppy section of the track, slowly run race.
The ARB has worked assiduously on these whip rules. Much has changed for the better. However, that such ground-breaking legislation could be dismantled after barely a month's trial would fairly raise a question about the ARB's authority and ability to make sound rules and stick by them.
Jockeys, trainers, breeders will put their case to the ARB today. So will the RSPCA whose chief executive Heather Neil argues with great effect: "It is important that the racing industry appreciates that it has been given significant dispensation from the rest of the community. If a person whips a horse off a race track, they could be prosecuted under animal cruelty laws. The action taken by the ARB to reduce the impact of whip use on racehorses reflects and responds to increasing community concern over the welfare of horses used for sport."
It is not so much a rule that is on trial today but our community.
Courtesy: The Australian
HERE's a question for you. Do you want to be a member of a society that introduces a rule that increases the ability of jockeys to hit horses? Or do you want to be part of a society that limits the amount of times a jockey can whip a horse? Consider, of course, that this repetitive whipping is done for the entertainment of a small group within our community.
The horses are whipped in the name of punting, pleasure, stake money and breeding value. Not one strike is for the health or welfare of the animal. Each whack of the whip is a punishment disingenuously described by the industry as a stroke of encouragement.
Every strike is for the owner who might make an extra $500,000 at the breeding barn; each whack is for the punter who might get a dividend for his $5 eachway; at spring it might be for your $2 sweep or a $1million Group race. Horses are punished for human pleasure.
Horses are also hit for a group of owners who enjoy the colour and movement of race day. And to the converted there is no greater thrill than barracking your horse to the line. But the jockey will whip the horse time and again so the owner gets his thrills. And the jockey gets his sling.
Right now, a part of the racing industry is arguing that it wants and needs the right to hit horses more than the new rules introduced at the start of August allow. This vocal segment of the industry says that the spring carnival will implode if the jockeys cannot hit their horses more often. That is disingenuous, too. What they are really saying is that they will encourage jockeys to breach the whip rules so they can indulge themselves in the riches of spring racing.
Importantly, these new rules to restrict the whipping of horses were introduced by the industry itself.
After long consultation with all lobby and interest groups, the Australian Racing Board agreed to new protocols that reduced the number of times jockeys could thrash their mounts. The stewards drew up the rules and the men commissioned to administer the sport endorsed them. This was no spur-of-the-moment decision.
The discussion moved a long way too. Early on in the four-month process, the bodies representing the trainers and the jockeys said no change was needed. Certainly, the introduction of the padded whip was deemed unwarranted. It was considered that the whip should not be used on two-year-olds but that had little support and was struck out. The rules have been pushed, torn up, massaged and moulded. As they stand now, they offer the greatest protection ever afforded racehorses in this country. It is something to be proud of.
And it follows a world trend where whip riding is being reduced. In India, no horse can be struck more than eight times. Suspension follows, repeat offenders risk losing the right to carry a whip. The rules were stiffened when the Indian government said that if racing did not modify the use of the whip, then the government would. Australia faces that risk because horse-racing is at the margins of popular sport. That it has not grown can, in part, be attributed to practices that first-time watchers see as barbaric.
The sport's loss of traction within the broader community is witnessed every spring in Melbourne when 100,000 people come for each of the four main days of racing then disappear for another 12 months. The sport of racing no longer has a hook. It might be that racing does away with the whip altogether because if it was banned tomorrow nothing in racing would change. There would still be owners, punters, breeders. The whip is not critical to racing but goodwill is.
The pro-whip defence has been mostly incoherent and hysterical. It first said the whip did not hurt horses, now argues the whip is required to urge horses to accelerate. Meaning it is a stimulus that hurts. It has demeaned the debate by arguing that it is a matter of occupational health and safety. That jockeys cannot whip and count at the same time. That has been revised and now assessed jockeys can in fact multi-task but not in the final 100 metres of a race.
As every argument was dismantled, a new one was dreamt up. It reached idiotic proportions when it was argued that flailing a horse with a whip had taken the artistry from the skill of horsemanship. Ah, the loss of poetry of the cracking whip. Finally, yesterday it was put that international jockeys would be disadvantaged and basically run amok. Dear God. Never mind that jockeys go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction coping with different rules all the time. If these visiting jockeys are as unprofessional and incompetent as suggested, the fools must be stopped at the airport.
If any argument is worth consideration it is this: owners, through no fault of their own, are disadvantaged if their jockey obeys the rule and another does not and pips their horse on the line. But it is a risk in every race that owners are undone by circumstances out of their control. That is why there is no certainty in racing. Blocked run, bad ride, interference, sloppy section of the track, slowly run race.
The ARB has worked assiduously on these whip rules. Much has changed for the better. However, that such ground-breaking legislation could be dismantled after barely a month's trial would fairly raise a question about the ARB's authority and ability to make sound rules and stick by them.
Jockeys, trainers, breeders will put their case to the ARB today. So will the RSPCA whose chief executive Heather Neil argues with great effect: "It is important that the racing industry appreciates that it has been given significant dispensation from the rest of the community. If a person whips a horse off a race track, they could be prosecuted under animal cruelty laws. The action taken by the ARB to reduce the impact of whip use on racehorses reflects and responds to increasing community concern over the welfare of horses used for sport."
It is not so much a rule that is on trial today but our community.
Courtesy: The Australian
Comments
Post a Comment