Right: a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) anti-whipping protest outside the Victorian Racing Museum.
.Arguments against the new regulations restricting the use of the whip
1. The new padded whips should make further regulation unnecessary
It has been claimed that the new padded whip are so painless that the make further regulation virtually unnecessary.
John van Veenendaal, senior veterinarian at the Flemington Equine Clinic has said that the feel inflicted by padded whips was akin to a footballer offering a teammate a tap on the behind.
Van Veenendaal has claimed that the whip debate should be 'knocked on the head' by the 'scientific fact they don't hurt'. He has claimed, 'The whip does not inflict pain, simple as that...I heard Hugh Wirth (RSPCA) make an extraordinary statement, along the lines of, "If you hit me on the bum with one of those padded whips, it'd hurt'"
The sensory perception of humans is totally different to that of horses. It is simply a ludicrous analogy. If you research it, that is the fact.'
Van Veenendaal has also claimed that the whip had evolved in a way that should satisfy animal welfare groups.
Van Veenendaal has stated, 'Go back 20 years. The whip was far more flexible and hurt. You'd see welts on horses. That was a measure of pain. But since the padded whip came in, you just don't see it. Jockeys have also become a lot more conscious of putting the whip away when a horse obviously resents it.
Overwhelmingly, what we're seeing is jockeys allowing horses to run and chase, and enjoy themselves. The whip has become little more than an encouragement device and a steering guide.'
2. Horse racing is not cruel and needs no further regulation
It has been claimed that neither owners, trainers, nor jockeys wish to harm horses and that the use of the whip is an encouragement and a guide for safety purposes. It has further been claimed that horses have been breed specifically for racing to the point where it is a natural activity for them and one for which they do not need to be beaten in order to perform.
Des O'Keefe, of the Australian Jockeys' Association, has claimed that horse welfare is at the front of the industry's mind all the time. Mr O'Keefe has stated of whip use, 'It's encouragement for an athletic horse to do its best, not under pain or discomfort. It's also been a tool of the trade to correct horses that are running in or running out.'
It has further been claimed that there is evidence, notably from the behaviour of foals, that despite the huge physical demands of galloping, slowing, accelerating, jostling for position involved, the horses may enjoy racing. Veterinarian and horse researcher, Dr McGreevy has argued, 'The horse is a thoroughbred, selected over three centuries for nothing but racing.'
The Welfare Guidelines for Australian Thoroughbred Horse Racing make it clear that the horses' wellbeing is the central consideration. These Guidelines make it appear that further regulation is unnecessary.
The Guidelines state, 'The Australian racing industry is committed to the welfare of the Australian racehorse.' They further state 'At all stages during the preparation and presentation of horses for racing their welfare should be a primary consideration.
The housing, feeding and training of racehorses should be consistent with good horsemanship and must not compromise their welfare. Any practices whether in stables, training or racing which are inconsistent with contemporary standards of husbandry should not be tolerated.
Breaking and training methods which unreasonably influence the normal behaviour of racehorses should not be used. Horses should only be given training schedules which are suited to their physical capabilities and level of maturity.
Horse shoes and racing plates should be designed and fitted to minimise the risk of injury.
The risk of injury and disease should be minimised when racehorses are transported. Vehicles should be safe, clean, well ventilated, regularly maintained and disinfected.
Long journeys should be planned carefully and horses allowed regular rest periods and access to water. Respiratory problems can often be reduced if horses are able to lower their heads to ground level during rest periods.
Racecourses and racing surfaces should be designed and maintained to reduce risk factors which may lead to injuries. Particular attention should be paid to crossings, uneven racing surfaces and extremes of surface quality.
Due care and attention should be paid to the welfare of horses racing in extreme weather. Provision should be made to cool horses quickly after racing in hot and/or humid conditions.
Excessive, unnecessary or improper use of the whip cannot be condoned, for example, on a beaten horse, a horse unable to respond or a horse clearly winning. Any post-race whip weals clearly indicate injury.'
3. Jockeys who abide by the regulations will be at a disadvantage relative to those who don't
It has been claimed that the new regulations are potentially unfair as jockeys who adhere to the new regulations will be at a disadvantage relative to those who ignore the regulations.
Under the new regulations, a jockey will be penalised for not following the rules, however, should his mount win, that victory will remain. This means there may be an incentive for some trainers and owners to encourage jockeys to ignore the regulations in order to gain an unfair advantage.
In August, 2009, apprentice Daniel Ganderton was found to have breached the whip rules aboard Deer Valley who won the Silver Shadow Stakes by a half-head over Melito whose jockey Corey Brown did not stray from the rule book. Ganderton was fined and penalised but Deer Valley kept the race.
The Racing and Sports Magazine of August 21, 2009, stated, 'It just may be that disgruntled owners and trainers will hold the whip hand when it comes to issuing instructions to their riders, particularly when a million dollar prize is at stake.
The question many are asking is how long will it be before the connections of a favoured runner in a major race tell their rider not to worry about the penalties for over-stepping the new rules governing the number of times the whip can be used effectively in the last 200m.
The private edict to the jockey will be "go for broke if you can win - we'll cover the fine" will give the rider confidence that he will not be out of pocket for an infringement of the stringent rules and penalties.'
Patrick Smith, in an opinion piece published in the Australian on August 13, 2009, stated, 'Rather than going too far, racing may not have gone far enough. If a horse wins a race but the jockey has breached the whipping rules to gain an unfair advantage then consideration should be given to disqualifying the horse. Trainers and owners will soon be very selective about which jockeys they pick for their horses.'
4. Punters will object to jockeys not getting the best from their mounts
It has been claimed that jockeys would face significant pressure from disgruntled punters if they abide by the new regulations and as a result their mounts fail to secure a place.
In an article published in The Daily Telegraph on August 27, 2009, Mark Evans stated, 'Spare a thought for jockey Kerrin McEvoy aboard red-hot favourite Denman in the Golden Rose at Rosehill Gardens this Saturday.
It's the first Group One race of the season, worth a cool $1 million and $650,000 to the winner.
Denman, a heavily backed favourite, roars to the lead inside the final 200m. He has runners to his outside trying to run him down, horses on the inside are fighting back.
What does he do? Does he bow to the pressure and disregard the new whip regulations, risking $32,500 in prize earnings, or does he comply with the law and face the brunt of punters and connections wanting answers if he is beaten in the final stride?'
On August 24, 2009, Craig Young, wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald, 'Racing's new whip laws have stung favourite backers. How can that be fair? Those sending out Melito as the $4.60 favourite in the Silver Shadow Stakes at Randwick were flogged. Melito was beaten a half-head by Deer Valley, whose rider, apprentice Daniel Ganderton, was floored by Racing NSW stewards.
Ganderton was found to have breached the whip rules, not once but twice over the final 200 metres. He struck Deer Valley with the padded whip on four consecutive strides and a short time later five times in a row. The laws allow for only three such strikes over the final furlong. The rider must then give the horse time to respond.'
Thus, Evans claims, punters will see the new regulations as unfair because jockeys who abide by them may lose their money to horses ridden by jockeys who ignore the regulations.
5. The new regulations are not rigorous enough
A number of animal rights groups have argued that the revisions, allowing jockeys to employ more discretion when using the whip over the last hundred metres of a race, have seriously compromised the new laws.
RSPCA chief executive Heather Neil said of the revised regulations,'The RSPCA is glad that the ARB hasn't given jockeys the mandate they wanted - to whip horses as much as they like in the end stages of a race. But we are disappointed they felt the need to capitulate at all.'
Patrick Smith, in an opinion piece published in The Age on August 13, 2009, argued that no changes should be made to the regulations to respond to jockeys' supposed concerns. Smith argued these concerns were spurious and that 'easing in' the changes was a poor idea. Smith stated, 'Jockeys argue that it is hard to stop whipping horses to the line when they have been doing it all their career. That is an unsustainable position. When trainers tell jockeys a particular horse is thin-skinned and to resist whipping it they don't dismount after the race and tell the trainer, "Sorry I have been whipping horses for 20 years so I just kept whipping him". They obey the trainer's instructions. If they don't then they don't get rides.
Jockeys also report back to trainers that the horse resented the whip so, "I put it away and just rode him hands and heels". Jockeys will stop whipping if a horse ducks in or shies away from the pain. It is not an involuntary action.
As for counting, the jockeys can rate a horse to the tick of a stop watch, so the mathematics of counting to five and then three might well be within their grasp. The further argument that the compulsory padded whips do not hurt horses therefore it does not matter how many times a horse is struck, is irrational. If they don't hurt, then there is no purpose in whipping them in the first place.
Racing folk are loath, even frightened to rework traditions. Only when jumps racing was halted in Victoria did the hurdling and steeplechasing community take serious steps to alter how horses were prepared and ridden and what type of tracks and obstacles were appropriate. The sport could always have been improved and made safer but no genuine attempt was made until livelihoods (women, men and horse) were on the line...
Given that whipping has been curtailed because it is considered cruel, it is fanciful to think that rules restricting its use and accompanying punishments should be eased in.'