General / Jack Houghton / 08 June 2008 / 4 Comments

Jack Houghton has the second part of his series on one of the most contentious issues in racing

The bigger question is not what will happen if the BHA acts to remove the whip from British racing, but what will happen if it doesn't.

Reacting to falling racecourse attendances in the first quarter of 2008, Racecourse Association chief executive Stephen Atkin outlined what the industry needed to do: "What we have got to do is compete actively for attendances. It is also about explaining what our product is - it might be common knowledge to you and I that children go free but I don't think that is as widely known as we think it is."

That Atkin chose to focus on his target market not knowing that children go free as a primary reason for attendance decline is somewhat startling. Does he really think that if everyone knew this fact, families would start flooding racing's turnstiles?

A lot is made of the costs of taking a family to a Premiership game, and whilst racing - with this kids-go-free offer - might just about undercut a top-flight football match in terms of price, it doesn't even begin to approach football in terms of demand for its product. And no matter how cheaply you price something: if no one wants it, no one buys it. Football can charge what it charges because the demand is insatiable: going to a match is a cool thing to do; something you're happy to tell your friends about.

Racing doesn't have this status. So Atkin's focus on "explaining what our product is" is futile. What racing needs to do is change its product so it becomes as fashionable and acceptable to a family audience as football is. Banning the whip from racing - or at least severely curtailing its use in the manner suggested in part one of this article - would go a long way towards achieving this.

Whip advocates argue that banning it would fundamentally alter the nature of the sport. Many of our past equine heroes, they suggest, would not have achieved their successes without frequent and liberal application of the whip. There are examples where this is undoubtedly true. Giant's Causeway springs to mind as a horse who seemingly ran his best only when under frequent urging from the whip. And we can all think of many other examples. But to say this alters the entire nature of the sport is specious: we might have had different champions without whip use, but we would still have had champions.

At its heart, racing is about the athletic ability of horses, just as it is with any human sporting endeavour. For a human to be successful at any sport, talent has to be matched with an unrelenting desire to succeed. So why don't we expect the same from our equine athletes? If a horse doesn't want to be leader-of-the-pack, then it hasn't got what it takes to be champion. Is it really in the interests of the sport if its winners get there through force, rather than through a natural competitive instinct?

I started this two-parter by talking of a "shifting social paradigm that increasingly views racing as an unacceptable abhorrence." They were strong words - and perhaps largely meaningless; after all, what is a "social paradigm" and how do you measure its movement?

A less emphatic statement would have been to say that animal rights' issues have moved from being fringe, to more mainstream, debating topics. Wherever you stand on its merits, the fact that a bill banning hunting with hounds - widely criticised as expensive and ultimately non-enforceable - was pushed through parliament shows, at least, that many politicians, despite fervent opposition, felt the proposed law's moral statement reflected a majority view.

It is also the case that many in racing have begun to query the role of the whip. Both Stan Mellor and John Francombe have gone on record questioning its effectiveness and pondering its future. And some owners have asked that whips are not used on their horses. How many other racing fans, uncomfortable with what they see, feel the sport would be better off without it?

Ultimately, that's a moral question for every individual who patronises the sport. I know I have made a decision not to introduce my kids to racing in the same way my dad introduced me. I just won't be able to answer the inevitable question: "Why are the horses whipped?" My dad couldn't answer it either.

But morals aside, the BHA's overriding responsibility is to secure the future of horseracing in Britain. And to do this - whether they think it namby-pamby liberalism or not - they have to act to shift a deep, broad and widening public perception that racing is cruel because it allows jockeys to whip horses. Marketing initiatives focused on "educating the public" won't succeed; banning the whip will.

* * *
Part one...

By banning whip use, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has an opportunity to catapult itself, and the industry it represents, to the forefront of world racing.

But perhaps catapulting is all too active an activity to be considered by a bumbling monolith that; in its various guises, has conservatively governed, administered and regulated the sport over the years. Instead of proactively positioning the sport as in-tune with public opinion, it will likely react - slowly and inadequately - to a shifting social paradigm that increasingly views whip use in racing as an unacceptable abhorrence.

Announcing a "shifting social paradigm" is highfalutin stuff; but evidence exists that society is rapidly modifying its views of what is tolerable with regards to animal treatment. Moreover, evidence also exists to say that racings' governing bodies are being tardy in their reaction.

In response to concerns that jockeys riding in Britain could face prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act of 2006, the BHA's director of licensing and standards, Tony Goodhew, recently spoke of the dangers of whip abuse at a jockey's seminar at York's Dante meeting. This was part of a wider attempt by industry bodies, including the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA), to educate jockeys on the issue.

But is lack of education the primary issue here? Was there not an elephant at that seminar trumpeting a more relevant question?

One of the core tenets of the Animal Welfare Act is that animals should be: "protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease." Isn't whipping a horse a very obvious infliction of pain? Could then racing's regulatory body not be prosecuted for framing its rules in such a way that allows, and some would say actively encourages, jockeys to whip horses?

At this point a number of readers will challenge the implied link between whipping a horse and causing it pain. There is a view in some quarters that a horse doesn't feel much when whipped; apparently they have "a very thick hide." This view might not be shared in a horse's hind-quarter. If they don't feel much, why do it in the first place?

When a horse is whipped, flight reactions are triggered, releasing adrenaline into its body. This is scientific fact. Whether or not this physical reaction is indicative of pain being "felt" - in the same way humans "feel" pain - is difficult to prove; but it is known for certain that horses react to being whipped in the same way they react to more obvious inflictions of pain.

In the event the BHA were prosecuted in the manner suggested, the case might pivot on this issue of directly equating whipping a horse with pain. That the word "pain" is enshrined in the act itself assumes a workable legal definition and, no doubt, the BHA is confident in being able to disprove the link.

Nonetheless, the BHA should act to ban the whip in racing not through a reactionary fear of their legal position, but because it would open up a massive new audience of potential race-goers who perceive whip use as cruel.

In an independent survey carried out on behalf of the British Horseracing Board (BHB) by TNS Sport in 2003, more than one in three people who said they would not go racing cited horse safety and welfare issues as a reason. And this is backed up anecdotally: how many people have expressed moral concerns with racing when finding out it's a sport you patronise? Perhaps there are fundamental reasons for these moral concerns, encompassing more than a simple dislike of the whip. But surely it has to play a part?

The survey, whilst recording the information regarding welfare concerns, didn't make any recommendations as to how to address them, focusing instead on a number of other marketing possibilities. In the same way that alcoholic drink manufacturers presumably ignore teetotallers when marketing their products, the BHB apparently chose to write-off this large segment of the British public as "too difficult".

This decision, if it was even a decision (it might not have occurred to anyone to think about it), was short-sighted. By persuading horseracing's regulators to implement a rule whereby jockeys are not allowed to take their hands off the reins - effectively precluding all whip use other than slaps down the shoulder - the BHB could have given themselves a marketing message with which to approach this enormous new audience.

And assuming that current race-goers aren't expressly attending race meetings because they want to see horses whipped, existing stakeholders would not be alienated. A horse would still come first, a horse would still come last, and the sport would still be as exciting to watch.

Comments (4)

1. Andrew Hughes | 31 May 2008

   A thought-provoking and interesting article. Perhaps extending the hands and heels series of races would be a useful trial.

2. Stella | 02 June 2008

   A very emotive subject. I do not like to see horses whipped, or indeed any other animal, and we are all animals. Why the exception for horses? There are races where horses are whipped almost from the start of a race, with no hope of improving a place, and unless it is a high profile race, jockeys are rarely seen to be punished. Speaking personally I would like to see it banned altogether. Until that happens, I quietly hope that the horse will throw the jockey who abuses it high into the air.

3. charlie | 04 June 2008

   Unreal

   
   If your so concerned about horse welfare shouldn't you be calling for NH racing to be banned instead of whip ban?? as i believe this where most of horse racing related deaths and injuries occur

4. Jack Houghton | 13 June 2008

   Thanks for the comments all.

   Charlie, with regards to your comments, I take it you mean "unreal" in the negative, rather than positive, sense?!

   I do have concerns about horse welfare in racing, but this wasn't the focus of the articles. Rather, the focus was a large, and increasing, animal welfare concern among the general public and how the use of the whip in racing alarms a lot of that general public. I tried, as much as I could, to keep my personal feelings about whip use out of the article, and was arguing that it should be banned for business reasons rather than moral ones. If your potential market doesn't like something about the product you offer, then to increase demand for that product you need to fix the perceived fault. Racing's "perceived fault", rightly or wrongly, is whip use. And so to guarantee a future audience for the sport, we should get rid of it.

   Your point about NH racing is an interesting one. Injury and death rates are higher in that code of the sport, although interestingly, a study by Pinchbeck et al demonstrated that much of this increase could be attributed to whip use (the abstract of the study can be found here: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/evj/evj/2004/00000036/00000005/art00003).

   So perhaps it's wrong to take the two issues independently; they are clearly interdependent.

   My personal view about NH racing is that it is much easier to defend and explain to non-racegoers than whip use is. My experience of working with horses is that many relish and enjoy jumping obstacles; but I've never come across a horse who relishes or enjoys being whipped. And as I say above, the evidence suggests that if the whip wasn't a factor, NH racing would dramatically reduce its inherent risks anyway.

   Thanks for taking the time to share your comments Charlie. And please come back with more if you still think my position is unjustified - it's good to know that someone is reading this stuff!

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comment: