Throughout the Whip Debate so far I have been intrigued by occasional expressions of concern, within the racing community itself, about the public’s “perception” of racing’s Animal Welfare (AW) arrangements,  and about  the possibility of legal action launched by those who think that racing’s performance is not up to standard in that department.

            I found this extraordinary, because it is my impression that the majority of punters and racegoers (a vast constituency, consisting of that section of our society which actually knows a bit about the sport) thinks that racing’s Animal Welfare arrangements are in very good order indeed. 

            This general reaction comes as no surprise. Racing belongs to a man/horse culture which has spent thousands of years learning that if horses are to feature in man’s activities (as cavalry,  or for farm work, or for transport, or for sport),  the human partner must treat the animal partner properly. In British racing that principle continues to be a high priority.  British Racing’s development of the horse-friendly racing whip is an outstanding example of this. British Racing took twenty-five years to perfect it, and you can hit a horse with it without causing any pain. If you find that hard to believe, talk to your local saddler, and let him hit you with one.

         It is also a fact that the influence of British racing in America (largely through the cultural exchanges at the Breeders’ Cup series) has led to vast improvements in the surfaces over which the Americans now race, and this must have saved innumerable equine lives in that country.

            The whip debate proper began in October 2011when the racing authorities introduced new rules and new penalties governing the use of the whip. These new rules were largely based on the number of times during a race that a jockey was allowed to hit a horse. I thought this was an extraordinary way of identifying and measuring abusive behaviour, since the racing whip cannot hurt the horse. Nevertheless that was the basis on which the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) legislated.

            On 11^th November 2011 I read in the Racing Post that a Mr Muir, RSPCA equine consultant, had declared that the use of the whip should be outlawed, except for “safety purposes.”

            I wrote to Mr Muir and asked him if he was not aware that the modern British Racing Whip does not hurt the horse and has many uses during a race apart from the safety purposes to which he has given his blessing.

            A few days later I received a letter from the RSPCA’s Cara Lynsdale, inclosing two pages of the society’s “Position Statement on the use of the whip in horseracing.” The letter refers to “pain”, “suffering” and “legal penalties.” Leaving aside the legal implications for the moment, the letter makes it quite clear that the RSPCA is campaigning against a whip that hurts, hence a whip which simply doesn’t exist in British racing, but is a figment of the RSPCA’s imagination and of its own propaganda. This is a) sad, b) counter-productive and c) intriguing.

            The letter also includes the following statement: “Whips can cause pain and suffering both directly and if they cause horses to exercise beyond their capability.” Is the RSPCA, I asked myself,  preparing the ground for the day when it can no longer get away with the cry of “Pain!” levelled at a whip which cannot inflict pain? Is its research department about to unveil a device which can measure not only every horse’s exercise capability, but also its whip tolerance level, so that an RSPCA “Inspector” can declare with certainty that such-and-such a horse was forced to “overdo its exertions beyond its capability” by the whip which its jockey was carrying, even though the offending whip was horse-friendly and never actually touched the animal?  

            The “Position Statement” contains two more references to “pain”, two more to “suffering” and Page 1 finishes with a detailed  lecture on the subject of how a jockey should approach an obstacle, a subject which has fascinated and perplexed  the racing world for hundreds of years, and one about which I suspect the RSPCA knows very little.

            The second page of the “Position Statement” refers, again, to the possibility of legal consequences and ends with an obscure and mysterious paragraph on the subject of “encouragement.” I suspect this is a further reference to the indirect pain which the RSPCA claims a whip can cause by encouraging horses to exercise “beyond their capability” – as described above.

            This exchange of information left me with the impression that the RSPCA is a very positive and determined organisation, which approaches problems with a certain robustness which is quite startling, but may not necessarily be a bad thing. I decided to find out more about it.

         What have I learned? The RSPCA was founded in 1824, and became Royal in 1840. Its overall aspirations are to reduce cruelty to pets (I think this means any animal that is under the personal control of one or more human beings), farm animals, wild animals and animals used for research. So the “territory” the society seeks to cover is enormous, and the number of its potential beneficiaries  must run into the hundreds of millions.

            We also know that in 2009 the RSPCA investigated  141,280 cases of alleged cruelty, and rescued 135,293 animal victims of alleged cruelty. In 2008 the RSPCA’s income (all from charitable donations), amounted to £119,926,000, and it expended £114,090,000. At that time its reserves were £70,656,000. I form the impression that it advertises extensively, vigorously and intelligently, which is to be expected of an organisation that depends on charitable donations for its survival. I note, incidentally, that in 2010 it received a grant from the Lottery. I understand that this was the first contribution from that source.

            So far, so good. Is there a downside? Criticism of the RSPCA has been on two counts. First, its inspectors are called “Inspectors” and uniformed in a style that could lead to them being mistaken for policemen. Less senior employees are similarly uniformed and called “Officers,” which could add to any confusion that might arise.  Second, when RSPCA operatives “caution” a member of the public in connection with alleged cruelty, they use a form of words that is remarkably similar to a police caution.

            Critics say that they cultivate an image which could inspire a level of respect from the public to which they are not entitled. The society rebuts the criticism: the uniform, it points out, incorporates insignia which clearly identify their inspectors and officers as RSPCA operatives, and the similarity between their “caution” and that of a policeman is not surprising because they are attempting to convey a similar message. It is hard to fault the logic of this explanation.

            In fact the powers of the RSPCA are very limited. It has no right of arrest, entry or search. However, it can bring a private prosecution – a right available to any private citizen – and if it did so it would probably  operate under laws such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006.  

            In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the primary prosecuting authority with a discretionary power to take over any private prosecution. The CPS must apply a two-part test of a) sufficiency of evidence and b) public interest before making a decision to take over a prosecution for the public good or leave it as a private prosecution.

            The CPS can also prevent a private prosecution from continuing by taking it over and then discontinuing it. The CPS will do this only where there is not enough evidence to make a proper case or where a prosecution is against the public interest or where a prosecution could cause an injustice. In reaching this decision, it must balance the public good against a duty to preserve an individual’s right to prosecute under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

            From the RSPCA’s website I discoved that the organisation consists of approximately 1,500 fulltime employees. When I think of all the dogs and cats in Britain, plus all the cattle, sheep and poultry, plus all the wild animals, and then add those animals which are used for research, I am persuaded that those 1,500 must be working flat out seven days a week to keep abreast of their workload.

            In those circumstances one can be forgiven for thinking that when the RSPCA looks at the racing industry’s long tradition of looking after its horses, its vast knowledge of how best to do this (which far exceeds the RSPCA’s own), and its existing arrangements in that area, it would express its feelings in the words: “Thank God we don’t have to minister in that parish, it’s well taken care of already.”

            Strangely, this is not the case. As my postbag has revealed, the RSPCA feels that racing is delinquent in its AW arrangements, and that the RSPCA is qualified to point out the error of its ways and to prescribe the changes that it should make. It also feels entitled to make repeated references to the possibility of legal consequences if its advice is not followed.

            It could be deduced that the object of this campaign is to create the element of uncertainty within the racing community that I referred to in my first paragraph. In a way this would make sense. The RSPCA does a wonderful job in combating cruelty to animals – no doubt about it. On the other hand, if cruelty was eliminated, the RSPCA would become redundant and the charitable donations might reasonably go elsewhere. So it must be a fact of life, of survival even, for those involved in combating cruelty to animals to be constantly on the lookout for fresh fields to conquer.

            In such circumstances, it would be easy for a crusading organisation (however pure its motives) to make a mistake; to identify heresy where no heresy exists; to mount a campaign against a mirage (an excruciating whip, for example, which in reality cannot inflict pain); to exaggerate the seriousness of a crisis that may not be a crisis at all, partly with the best intentions in the world, and partly in order to maintain the goodwill of those who provide such an organisation with its bread and butter.

         So what is the bottom line? In my  opinion, the racing community should simply continue to review its AW arrangements on a regular basis so as to ensure that they are top class. I would also suggest that, among their priorities, the leaders of racing’s many diverse elements should consult the best lawyers available and ascertain exactly where the industry stands with regard to the Animal Welfare Act 2006.             

            On the basis of such solid foundations, racing can praise the RSPCA for the generality of its work, listen to its suggestions politely, cooperate where there is common ground, and take no notice in those areas where it is obvious that racing’s philosophy and that of the RSPCA can never be in harmony. Too much appeasement will only encourage misguided criticism, and too much defensiveness can only harm racing’s image. Racing has no reason to be defensive about the way it treats its horses.

 

Andrew Simpson

February 2012

          

 

 

 

.