IT’S absolutely clear to me that so-called World Horse Welfare has no interest in horse racing.
Indeed, one could easily argue WHW wants to bring about the end of the Sport of Kings.
Our man Chappers has some strong opinions over the whip
That’s the only conclusion I can come to after its reaction to the recent U-turn over the whip rules.
Jockeys were on the verge of being prevented from using the foam-padded pro-cush whip in the forehand position but will not be banned from doing so after all.
WHW is meant to be an animal welfare group, and as such were involved in the original whip consultation.
It was quick to slam the sport’s governing body for its change in stance, describing it as “extremely damaging” to relations with the British Horseracing Authority.
It was bizarre in the extreme, as all intelligent and educated people know the whip is not a welfare issue. But that apart, it was the language used by WHW which proved its real motive.
Roly Owers, chief executive of WHW, said: “We’re dismayed. There was an announcement in July after a year-long consultation about changes to come in that would work.
“And then at the 11th hour, something different has happened – and these are not insignificant changes to July either.”
He added: “We felt that removing the whip for encouragement entirely would have been the right action to take.”
And there we have it. Let’s deal in facts Roly.
There has been one change. Forehand and backhand. And for very sensible reasons that actually mean that every jockey can use the whip easily in the correct place.
Under the ban horses might have been struck in the wrong place which would have been a welfare issue.
Not that WHW seems to care about that! Bit odd don’t you think? The hypocrisy is dangerous and suggests a clear agenda.
The whip has been a hot topic in horse racing in recent years
There were twenty recommendations made by the whip steering group. It’s still incredible that 19 are going to be implemented. An extraordinary decision. But that’s as it is. Crucially, though, only one change.
There’s a school of thought from the BHA that there is a mass of people out there that will start coming racing if the whip is banned.
I couldn’t disagree with this more if I tried, but that’s my view.
But what I would add is that if the whip is not used, even more people will stop betting and stop going racing. It will be the beginning of the end of the sport.
I have been to Scandinavia where there is whipless racing and it is an absolute mess. Horses all over the place, honest horses who need to be encouraged not being able to show what they can do.
And who knows what goes on behind the scenes? Does anyone think training methods would not change?!
Added to that, when the people in this country were asked about the whip’s use in horse racing, only about 500 could be bothered to respond. Why? Because it’s not a ******* issue.
We recently had massive holiday crowds at Kempton, Chepstow and Warwick. I suspect not a single person talked about the whip. And if they had, who was there to educate them?
Yes, in general crowds are down, but that’s because most people are skint. The idea that people will go racing if there is no whip is crazy – they can stick that idea where the sun don’t shine.
Back to our friend Roly.
So, we have established there was one change that he did not like. But actually the rules were made even harsher in two areas.
The bans are now longer for those who break the rules and there are less strikes allowed. Once again this merely adds to the WHW agenda. There was no logic at all in allowing the forehand but dropping the number of strikes.
WHW – and to be honest you can throw the RSPCA into the mix now as well – have shown their hand. And it’s no surprise.
Back in July, Roly said: “We believe that the recommendation on whip use to be used in a backhand position only, while welcome, does not go far enough. We want to see a move away from the use of the whip for encouragement.”
Attacking racing like the WHW and RSPCA does is stupidity in the extreme. It just alienates many people that would actually be behind them.
I’d say the majority of people that are involved in racing have pets and many look after retired horses and ponies. Why would any of them support WHW or the RSPCA?
WHW and RSPCA don’t want racing to be united. They want disruption. Now it’s up to the jockeys to get it right. And policed correctly it will be.
As for the BHA board, desperate to show the world it cares about horses more than the people who actually look after them, it’s clear that for a long time too many of them have nothing to lose if they cause mayhem.
They pop into this great sport that deserves love, make a mess of it and then go off somewhere else.
I’d have Mark Johnston on the BHA board straight away if he was willing to join. He’s been a board member before so the sport might have to beg him, but he is just the type of person we need.
I’d also make sure Frankie Dettori was on it as well once he retires. The public generally love Dettori and will believe him on topics they don’t trust bigwigs about.
The BHA board simply refuses to learn that every time they’ve changed the whip rules there’s so many disagreements because the alterations don’t make any sense.
They should be focusing on poor use and bad technique. Numbers are irrelevant, every world-class rider will tell you that, and were brought in to essentially protect the lesser talented riders.
Rather than snuggling up with, and living in fear of, WHW and the RSPCA, the BHA should be standing up to them, and letting them know the damage they could do to people that are real animal carers.
The BHA board is full of smart people. The need to use their brains for once.
There’s much to do. Racing is a fantastic game. The horses are so loved. The whip and welfare is simply a red herring for people and organisations with agendas.
I’d be pretty sure with the current new whip guidelines we will all be discussing this again in three years time. Something has to be done at all levels. And quick.
