WHIP

The brothers Jim and Frank Mahon, the Stewards of the Jockey Club, Lord Oaksey, John Hislop, Nick Skelton, Wally Swinburn, Sir Peter O’Sullevan – all good people – combined to design and promote the most animal-friendly pain-free whip ever developed. It took twenty years, and it worked –it still works. This has been, I imagine, by far the greatest contribution to Animal Welfare ever made in the world of the racehorse.

Update to 2019 and what do we find? The BHA insists that racing is in trouble in terms of Animal Welfare. Just like that. It is simply not true. Racing can face up to any amount of Animal Welfare criticism with a confident smile on its face, and the padded whip is the backbone of that smile. The BHA is in a state of serious insecurity in perhaps the only area where it should be beating its chest and challenging all critics. That’s a pity.

RULES OF RACING

We are told that the Rules of Racing are being re-written. We are told that this will not involve much in the way of substantial change, it will be more to do with clarification. Another pity: there is room for quite a lot of substantial change that in some cases is long overdue.

Take Dangerous Riding, for example. There is a rule which says that if a jockey is convicted of Dangerous Riding the horse must be disqualified. Why? If the jockey is convicted, the jockey should be punished with the utmost severity. Two Dangerous Riding convictions and his licence to ride in races should be in jeopardy. But there is no justification for the horse, the owner, the trainer, the stable staff, and the punters to suddenly become accessories to the crime.

There is another aspect of that silly rule which justifies its removal. The racecourse stewards do not like the idea of “disqualification.” Whenever “dangerous” becomes part of the equation on the racecourse they substitute “careless”, and the tariff for punishing careless riding is miniscule. So that rule positively encourages jockeys to take the dangerous option. What goes on in the heads of the racecourse stewards I do not know, but it makes no sense, and the recycling of the racecourse stewarding system is going to make the situation not better, but worse.

Here’s another nonsense in the rule book:

Interference in Racing – Rules (B) 53 – 55

Page 16: Determining Result following Interference:

Guiding principles:

e) (After interference…) “the benefit of the doubt should go to the horse that finished in front.”

I suspect that the winner of a clash between two half-ton quadrupeds going at 30 m.p.h is more likely to have been the aggressor, and, all else being equal,  I cannot believe that the aggressor deserves any favours. Perhaps I am wrong.

STEWARDING – the recycle.

I am talking about the plan to reduce the presence and/or influence of the Amateur Stewards. If it has been introduced already, it is a pity – the amateur element acted as a near-perfect counter-weight to the power of the professional Stewards. The reduction or disappearance of the Amateur element will have dire consequences, in view of the fact that in recent years the professional stewards have been cheating the racing industry and the public by their manipulation of the rules to satisfy an agenda which I do not understand and which I am pretty sure is not in the best interests of the sport.

Whom do I blame? The Horsemens Group, for not opposing the changes more actively. As long as the BHA Board continues to impose dumb changes in an arbitrary manner, the only body that is qualified to provide legitimate opposition is the Horsemens Group. One way or another they (and the people they represent) are going to pay the price for allowing the BHA to treat the integrity of British racing as a mere inconvenience to be ignored whenever the BHA feels that way inclined.

Let me elaborate. For approximately a decade Racing’s justice department was a can of worms, because the regime in charge was morally brain-dead. The regime has now changed, with the creation of the Independent Judiciary as its magnificent flagship, but the professional stewards on the front line seem to be stuck in the Dark Ages, and Higher Command seems to be indifferent to this fact. A pity.

BORIS

Whether deliberately or by accident that awful woman has done everything to make life as difficult as possible for her successor, and Enable’s 14 out of 14 draw at Ascot was nothing compared with the disadvantage which Boris faces. As he is not a fool, I wondered if he might not do the sums, take a backward stumble and allow horror to settle upon his manly features. The news is good. Without access to his blood pressure or his pulse (are they the same thing?) I am confident that Boris is positively energised by the difficulty of what lies ahead, and an energised Boris is capable of good stuff.

Talking of Enable, and thinking of all the wonderful performances I have been watching on the turf in recent weeks, I get the impression that the racing gods want us to “boldly go….” about our business in the next 90 days. I have always found that the advice of those particular gods is worth taking.

MORE WHIP

I was very impressed by trainer Fellowes and jockey Hayley Turner begging forgiveness for winning a race at Royal Ascot using an extra and illegal stroke of the whip in the process. I was tempted to wax humorous and suggest that they should talk to the horse’s owner and the lads in the yard and give back everybody’s ill-gotten gains with instructions to Weatherbys to place the funds accruing in the pockets of the righteous.

On reflection, who am I to interfere? I will simply suggest that Mr Fellowes asks Hayley to beat him ferociously across the buttocks with the padded whip before he says another word on the subject. I am guessing that he has yet to feel the full (i.e. minimal) force of the implement in question.  Further than that I will not go. Far be it from me to drag the excellent Miss Turner’s lower limbs into the gutter press.

Instead I turn to the equally excellent Pat Buckley, retiring clerk of the course at Goodwood and a very good jockey in years gone by – in 1963 aged 19 he won the Grand National on Ayala. He has the face of a saint, and the voice of an angel and when asked about the whip he simply said that, if the rules say 10 hits maximum, it means 10 hits maximum, and cited the case of a horse receiving eleven hits (one over the limit) finishing a short head in front of a horse receiving nine hits (legal).

At that point he drew breath and was silent. There was no more. I was shocked. He clearly did not think that the padded nature of the modern whip was worth mentioning. Am I mad to think he should have taken it into consideration in developing his opinion on the subject?

Which shows that this is a knotty problem, made even knottier as long as the stewards rely purely on the number of hits.

However in the rules (or is it in “Procedures and Penalties”?) please visit page 23 headed “When to hold an enquiry – Schedule (B) Part 2.” There follows about half a page of circumstances in which the stewards do not need to count hits. But they never seem to apply it. Why not?

I imagine it is there to remind Stewards and the BHA leadership that a pain-free whip is harmless, and that raceday Stewards are expected to have sufficient judgement to know the difference between “acceptable encouragement with the whip” and “excessive use of the whip.” So I repeat, why are the Stewards not reminded of that distinction, which is available to them as they sit in judgement, and is not in the book simply to gather dust?

MOANING

It occurs to me that there is too much complaint about this report. Let me remind myself and the reader of the superb quality of the horses, the amazing talent of the breeders, the lavish generosity and enthusiasm of the owners and the high level of achievement which is reached and maintained by more and more of the trainers. Let me remind myself of the jockeys: never in my lifetime have there been so many young jockeys of the highest quality emerging from “nurseries” which are superbly managed. As for stable staff, it has always been the case that top-class horsemen are gold dust and gold dust does not grow on trees. Nevertheless, in spite of the financial limitations which have for too long been a fact of racing life, standards remain high, and this is evidence of the attraction which working with thoroughbreds exerts on those who are closest to them.

Why, therefore, do I complain so much? Because if senior management does not improve its performance, a pincer movement will develop. Breeders and owners will tighten their belts or relocate, and the work force will give up the struggle to make ends meet. When I was close to the shop floor, it was a fact of life that many, many, many of the best lads were unable to recommend racing as a satisfactory career option for their children. I would be surprised if much has changed in that debate.

That’s why I keep encouraging the Horsemens Group to grab the BHA by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking. The creation of the Independent Judiciary shows it is capable of doing marvellous work. The other day I heard a good judge describe the Independent Judiciary as “a breath of fresh air.” How often has a BHA achievement been described in those words? Not often. But it should be normal. The rest of the industry does marvellous work “its wonders to perform”. Why shouldn’t the so-called “leadership” be expected to perform at the same level?

Best wishes,

 

Donec