Horseracing Betting: Why the whip is detrimental in more ways than one

General / Jack Houghton / 09 May 2009 / 2 Comments

Jack Houghton revisits the issue of whether the sight of a jockey whipping his horse is a good image for the sport or indeed whether whipping actually increases your chances of winning the race.

Back in April 2006 I wrote a couple of articles for the now defunct Sportsman, querying the ethical basis for whip use in racing; and examining whether whipping a horse actually produced the desired result: increased speed.

And last year I revisited the issue on these pages, posing the question: is the use of the whip in racing alienating a whole raft of otherwise potential race goers?

As someone who has so vocally and unashamedly opposed the use of the whip in racing, it has been encouraging to see other, more influential characters, voice a similar opposition.

Reacting to the BHA decision to hold an inquiry should a jockey whip a horse 16 times or more during a race, John Francome, writing in The Sun in March said, "It's 13 too many in my view."

In the same article he goes on to suggest a two week trial should be held where riders are not allowed, "to strike their mounts." But of most interest to me is his comment that, "over the years I've grown certain very few horses run faster for being whipped."

In those original Sportsman articles I looked at some evidence that suggested the very same. Examining the performances of a sample of horses, over 70 per cent had returned their highest ratings under hand rides. And analysing the results of 141 races where a jockey was reported to have dropped their whip, the horses in question had performed better than their market price suggested they should.

Now, due to their nature, neither of these studies would pass any test of statistical rigour that readers of betting.betfair would be satisfied with. And, despite many hours pondering different methods of analysis that might reach that gold standard, I haven't yet come up with anything.

However, although difficult to prove the hypotheses with any great certainty, I am absolutely convinced it is impossible to find evidence to prove the contrary. And, to my mind, the overwhelming weight of anecdotal evidence - witnessed during hours of work with racing data - tells me that, for the majority of horses, whipping them makes them run slower.

This might seem counter-intuitive to those who watch races and ride in them, as often horses do seem to "respond" to the whip. However, I'm pretty certain this "response" is to the detriment of their overall performance. Physiologically, the flight reactions triggered when a horse is whipped might make them increase their speed. But this is momentary. And it leads to slower speeds soon after. Anyone who works with sectional timing data will tell you horses put up their best performances when running even paces, and so this start-stop approach will prove ultimately counter-productive: no matter what it might look like in the instant.

Writing in the Sun the following week, John McCririck - a long-time opponent of whip use in racing - followed up Francome's article. It was Grand National day and McCririck pondered the reaction of the millions of non-race goers - for whom the big race is their once-yearly exposure to the sport - when their, "lasting memory will be of exhausted horses being whipped." He went on to write of the, "increasingly adverse public perception" still misunderstood, "by racing's professionals and hierarchy."

His appreciation of the situation is apposite. With declining numbers of race fans, the powers-that-be need to take massive action. Instead they operate as flaccid creatures, commenting and acting with a dribbling impotence.

On the one hand the Professional Jockeys' Association manages nothing more than a warning to its members that rule infringements represent a setback to public relations. But what would you expect from an organisation that represents the worst kind of example of a trade body unable to see beyond the petty short-term of its current elite? On the other hand the BHA seem unable to recognise the realities of the leisure market, limping from one marketing initiative to the next, in the hope that en route someone might find where they left their trilby.

With increasing coverage given to the issue by high-profile racing media-ites, a tipping-point might one day be reached. Unfortunately, by then, the decline might be too great to arrest.

Link to last year's article:

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/general/banning-the-whip-from-racing-part-one-080608.html

Comments (2)

1. Simon Rowlands | 11 May 2009

   A good and thought-provoking article, Jack.

   I am largely in agreement with you/Francome/McCririck (an unlikely trinity), though instinctively so rather than on the basis of any statistical study.

   I suspect that jockeys dropping whips on horses that outperform their market position can be explained, in part if not in full, by the fact that jockeys on horses that are already outperforming their market positions (are in contention or even in the lead) are more likely to be making the sort of effort that could result in their losing their whips anyway.

   Also, racereaders are more likely to register the dropping of whips on horses that are prominent in the closing stages of races (and in many cases outperforming their market position) than those out the back.

   While on the subject of public perception of racing, do you have any views on other elements that could be seen as off-putting to sections of the wider population?

   In particular, what about jump racing - there were six equine fatalities at one meeting on Sunday - and about jump racing's continued association with hunting?

   Simon

2. Jack Houghton | 13 May 2009

   Simon

   You're spot on about the dodginess of the statistics, although I'm not sure I explained the "market position" point particularly well. I simply looked at the price of all whipless horses who had won, and all who had been beaten, expecting the average price to mirror whether they won or not, but the converse was actually true: losing horses had an average price of around 7-1, winning horses a little over 10-1.

   Nonetheless, both "studies" are unsatisfactory - and I hope I don't present them as anything otherwise above. The biggest issues for me are the small sample (there simply must have been more whips dropped than 141 in the period), which highlights the general reporting issues you draw attention to; and obviously when a whip is dropped will have a huge impact on whether or not it should be included in the sample. For example, if a horse is whipped repeatedly before a jockey drops the whip in the last two strides, it hardly deserves to be included in the whipless category - a point you make.

   I have promised myself a week at some point to really think about a more satisfactory methodology to look at the issue, but as I say above: I haven't had much luck so far. I think there's mileage in the highest ratings achieved by horse angle, but again I'm not sure how to overcome the reporting problems. And anyway, the likely "truth" - that some horses run faster for a whip and some don't - will require a sophisticated approach to really get to the nub of it. Any ideas welcomed...

   So I'm with you really. My belief is similarly instinctive, although looking at the things I have gives me a certain amount of confidence. It might all be anecdotal, but the weight of evidence in my mind is building on the side that whipping horses is generally counter-productive.

   As for jumping and hunting... mmm... I have written about these in the past... and feel a full blog coming on, so I'll keep my powder dry for the moment...