The use of the whip is set to divide the racing community once again
A fraught debate is ensured when when the British Horseracing Authority reviews penalties for jockeys’ use of the whip next month.
Balancing the needs of the sport and its players with the demands of Animal Rights organisations has been a conundrum too far.
Aintree, where activists are at their most vociferous around the time of the Grand National, have made constant alteration to the obstacles, mainly at the landing side of fences.
The whip or “persuader” has also been amended many times over the years, so much so that it really does need another name.
I have tried the latest air-cushioned, foam version and it is rather like striking yourself on the flesh of a bare leg with a magazine.
There is little, if any, pain involved, and so jockeys have had to adjust their use of the whip from the bad, old, regulation-free days.
Then there was no dubiety. Horses were struck with venom, far too often, to propel them forward, toward that first prize at the winning post.
Now riders try to use the whip to get their mounts to concentrate on the job in hand. They are, of course, working animals.
They also have a safety element to their use, when jockeys can help with the task of directing half a ton of horse into a preferred position.
Racing also suffers from perception, where the force used is much less controversial than the way jockeys are viewed by the public.
There was nothing attractive about Jamie Moore’s finish in Cheltenham’s Bet Victor Gold Cup last month, which Baron Alco won by two lengths.
A flailing right arm, raised too high in my opinion, up the straight and used many times.
He was banned for two days – but still bagged a £90,000 first prize.
And it’s the big-money end of the sport that the BHA are most concerned with, so much so that the high-profile Saturday features have a different code.
Flat jockeys can use seven strokes, and the jumps guys have eight, with a limit of five in the final furlong, or from the final obstacle.
The BHA will form a new Welfare Board, and although huge changes are unlikely in January, there seems to be a determination to insist on discipline.