The BHA has announced what it describes as ‘fundamental change to the rules governing use of the whip’. What they promise is a change from a number based rule which they describe as ‘fundamentally flawed’ to a method which places ’an emphasis on reviewing the manner in which the whip is used’.
I can’t tell you how pleased and excited I was to see that wording. The way the stick is used is so much more relevant than the number of times that it is used and when I saw those lines, I thought we were going to see significant movement on the failed whip rules at long last. The devil however may yet turn out to be in the detail.
I’ve already argued here on my blog that I think the whip rules are failing primarily because of the arbitrary low stroke limits that have been introduced. Because the limits were not based on research, analysis, experience or trialling they have unfortunately turned out to be unfit for purpose. The bad news is that those limits remain. The ‘fundamental flaw’ has not actually been addressed.
The BHA states that the limits will now trigger enquiries rather than automatic bans but if you look at the penalty structure it still revolves around a stroke count. One over and two over are lower level breaches and so on. This means that ‘banning by numbers’ will in fact continue. It must continue since it informs the entire penalty structure.
We’ll need to see this new system in practice to judge it properly but there is such a clear disconnect between the theory of discretion and the reality of stroke count based penalties that I’m genuinely bemused as to how it is supposed to work in the real world.
The BHA argues that stewards will analyse rides and be able to use their discretion in order to decide whether a breach has occurred and should be penalised. It is my understanding though that good safe effective use of the stick will still attract a penalty if it involved more strokes than the limit. That means a ride like Tony McCoy’s most recent, much lauded but ban inducing effort will still be punished. That the jockey is using the stick safely, that his horse is responding and that the whip use is effective, controlled and productive won’t matter if 9 contacts are made rather than 8. It wouldn’t have been a ban under the old (pre Sept 2011) rules but will still be a ban under the new, revised, rules.
I think we can expect to see some latitude applied in more extreme or unusual circumstances. Where a horse is being prevented from running out or refusing for example stewards will probably feel confident to exercise discretion. The other area where the PJA is clearly expecting some slack to be cut is for jockeys who stop using their stick thinking they’ve hit their limit but miscount by one, say. The truth is though that most stick use is not so easy to dissect.
A good horseman or woman will anticipate the horse. That can mean using a stick even before the behaviour being corrected is apparent to an outside observer. Stewards will have the scope to listen to representations from jockeys about such instances but realistically have little prospect of judging their accuracy. What’s more stick use often fulfils more than one function simultaneously. The recent much talked about Nicky Mackay ride is a good example. Because the filly was hanging across the track in the straight the jockey could argue his right handed stick use was intended to correct her. Whilst undoubtedly true, it is undeniable that it was also intended to drive the filly forwards and try and win the race. Expecting stewards to divine the intention behind such strokes is, to be blunt, a fantasy.
The upshot of all of which is that jockeys riding good finishes on their horses will still need to put their sticks down if they are close, or think they might be close, to going over the arbitrary and unsuitable limits of 7/8.
Jockeys who have used their sticks earlier in races in ways which they hope will be disregarded by stewards won’t actually know one way or another whether or not the stewards will see their use in the same way and so will have no idea how many strokes, if any, they are permitted in the finish. A difference of opinion over just one stroke out in the country could still be the difference between being banned or not at the end of the race.
Combined with some further reductions in penalties, it’s hard to see how the latest proposal will have any positive impact at all on the number of frequency offences being committed either. In fact I’d happily wager on an increase in frequency offences at this year’s Festival compared to last.
It’s clear that the BHA has listened to jockeys concerns regarding trivial, unfair or blatantly silly bans. They’ve also realised they were in danger of banning our jockeys out of business. The number based system that today’s statement describes as ‘fundamentally flawed’ still remains though as far as I can see. I hope I’m wrong. I really do but such low limits have caused real damage to the sport already and it’s a major let down that this particular nettle hasn’t been grasped.
