New whip rules debate: Graham Cunningham on the proposed changes
He's been dragged back into the whip debate following Tuesday's news of the forthcoming new regulations. Check out Graham Cunningham's thoughts.
Whip back in the spotlight as BHA makes racing an offer it can’t refuse
‘Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.’
Al Pacino’s memorable line from the otherwise hugely forgettable The Godfather: Part III came to mind when Sportinglife guv’nor Dave Ord floated the idea of a comment piece in reaction to the BHA’s long-awaited whip rule review.
It’s hard to think of a more polarising racing topic and years of personal experience debating the issue on television and in print have left me in zero doubt that hat no amount of advocacy, reasoned or otherwise, will ever persuade someone to alter their stance.
But the steering committee has, via long months of toil and copious Zoom conferences, guided us towards what the BHA must hope will be the end of a decade-long journey.
I don’t expect you to agree with all the scattergun thoughts that follow. But I hope they add some value to a debate that nearly always generates far more heat than light.
Perception rules as BHA raises the stakes
Cards on the table: I’ve never had a problem with seeing a 500kg thoroughbred being hit ten or twelve times with a padded whip. (I’m begging you, please, please don’t call it a ProCush).
Correction, I really enjoy the visceral call and response method that has played such a vital part in deciding thousands of big races over the years.
That makes me something on the spectrum between dinsosaur and monster in the eyes of some - and it also means I think most of the BHA’s whip reforms in the last eleven years have been built on a foundation that is fundamentally flawed.
But I am not naïve and inward looking enough to think the rest of the world should see things as I do. The BHA aren’t trying to win the approval of ageing gasbags weaned on seeing Lester and Jeff King lifting horses over the line by any means necessary.
They are trying to secure the continued approval of a wider society that has a reduced tolerance for anything that involves animals being ill-treated. Perception is queen, king and ace in such a scenario – and even us dinosaurs have to fold on one vital issue…..
Doubts remain despite persuasive data
And that concession involves recognising that, after a distinctly painful labour, the baby that the BHA gave birth to just over a decade ago has grown into a highly efficient youngster.
I don’t have up-to-the-minute data but I do know that, despite the fact that jockeys were being forced to ride to an appreciably tighter threshold, the number of whip bans handed out by stewards between 2010 and 2019 reduced from 624 to 391.
Did you feel that British racing lost a little of its soul or that close finishes were robbed of their sense of vibrancy and drama because of that first wave of serious restrictions?
No, nor did I. The perception that British racing had taken steps to address a serious problem was matched by a reality of (most) jockeys taking significant steps to adapt to changed circumstances.
If you don’t feel that long-term trend has been beneficial to the sport then your name is probably Matt Chapman (and more of Matt, shortly) but the fact that the 2011 measures had the desired effect doesn’t mean the latest radical proposals will provide a direct route to sunlit uplands where the whip debate becomes a distant memory.
BHA betting the farm on expulsion tool
News that using the whip in the forehand position is set to be banned came as a surprise to many and PJA President P J McDonald did a passable job of persuading RTV viewers that it’s a change for the better between races at Beverley on Tuesday afternoon.
Time will tell how many of PJ’s less committee-minded colleagues react to such a significant and surprising recommendation but there is one factor that stands out above all others in this latest review.
AND THAT IS THAT WINNERS WHO ARE HIT FOUR TIMES MORE THAN THE PERMITTED LEVEL OF EIGHT TIMES OVER JUMPS AND SEVEN ON THE FLAT WILL BE TOSSED.
Those who are comfortable with jockeys hitting their mounts ten times or more have always found it hard to counter when someone asks “how can the jockey who breaks the rules keep the race while the one who obeys them gets shafted?”
Make no mistake, the BHA are prepared to bet the farm that the threat of being thrown out will provide the ultimate deterrent.
And at the root of the bet involves various members of a Zoom gathering fiddling with the mute button and asking itself “what sort of idiot would go way over the limit if they knew the punishment was so severe?”
Soumy precedent shows big deterrents don’t always work
Well, how about a Belgian superstar who went way over the limit and was fined £52,000 – his percentage of the winning prize money – for hitting Cirrus Des Aigles six times in the final furlong of the Champion Stakes.
It took Christophe Soumillon five whole days to bring the 2011 whip crackdown into sharp focus and the memory of him asking steering committee member Nick Luck for money for a taxi to Heathrow – and the subsequent awkward BHA climbdown on fines – remains fresh in the memory.
True, it’s possible Soumy would have soft pedalled had he known that stewards had the power to brandish the expulsion tool but it would be folly to think the nuclear button won’t have to be pressed at least once before the message gets through under the new proposals.
National takedown the nightmare scenario
And what happens if that nuclear option blows up on one of the biggest days of all?
Sam Waley-Cohen is a bright man by any standards but do you really think he would have restricted himself to eleven strikes of the whip while driving Noble Yeats to victory in the 2022 Grand National on the very last ride of his career?
Can you imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if the National winner was demoted for an extra crack or two in such circumstances?
Would bookies have to shelve their double result policy because of the ‘ruinous’ financial implications? Industry expert James Knight certainly thinks so.
How often and for how long will the ‘hold all bets’ flag have to be hoisted in order to establish that the winner is alright?
And how would the BHA’s PR spokespeople handle the fallout if they are wide of the mark in betting that jockeys will be too savvy or scared to risk crossing the perilous new line?
Blocker Brant stresses it’s a team effort
Which brings us back to Matt, Mr Boycie and their lively encounter with the BHA’s Brant Dunshea on Sunday’s Racing Debate.
Matt Was Devon Malcolm, shirt slashed open to the navel and snorting in off his full run-up with a punchy mixture of jaffas and wides; Mr Boycie was a trusty Glenn McGrath, probing away at line and length; and Brant D was an Aussie version of Geoff Boycott, blocking every ball gamely but copping a few bruises along the way.
Joking apart, several notable points emerged. Chapman wasn’t wrong to return to the ‘if the whip doesn’t hurt why are you scared of jockeys using it?’ line, though that stance carries echoes of the last Japanese prisoner in the jungle nowadays.
Dunshea clearly had no intention of pre-empting Tuesday’s steering committee reveal but the fact that his first words on the matter were “this hasn’t been a BHA process in terms of the decision making” was telling.
The under-fire Aussie added that “this has been a process facilitated by the BHA…and the industry has come together to come up with a suite of recommendations that complement each other.”
Those recommendations will be digested by the wider world over the next day or two - and the story was covered in detail on the BBC’s Six O’Clock News on Tuesday evening - but the real test will come when recommendations become reality at the back end of this year.
Further Steering Committees set for choppy waters
But until then, the circus will roll on and most people will remain entrenched in the position they held before this latest review was commissioned.
The ongoing thought that this august committee was set up more to decide the route to the destination rather than to establish the destination itself still bothers me.
And the thought of the global reaction if the winner of a top-class race is tossed because its rider erred on the wrong side of the new line makes me very nervous indeed.
But, as with the 2011 crackdown, I suspect that the most likely scenario involves one or two major blow-ups with all the attendant controversy followed by a change in culture that results in the vast majority of riders towing the BHA line.
Try as I might, I can’t join Chappers, nursing a grievance about not being directly involved in the decision-making process as he leads the call for a return to times gone by. In fact, I suspect that, in some important ways, it’s time for the old guard to throw down their arms.
But then I look at the risible excuse for competitive sport that is British racing’s Wednesday offering this week.
I think about and the glacial pace of meaningful change both on the vital issue of small fields and the ongoing debate about reckless and dangerous riding. And the thought that occurs comes not from The Godfather but from another Hollywood blockbuster.
And, with apologies for borrowing and mangling that famous old line from Jaws: ‘I think we’re gonna need a bigger Steering Committee.’