Racing Australia’s decision to remove the ability to protest over breaches of the whip rule has been widely welcomed across the industry, with plenty describing it as a common-sense move.
Assistant trainer, Manny Gelagotis went even further, labelling it the “best thing that’s ever happened”.
That is ultimately for individuals to assess, but while I can understand the reasoning behind the change, I reckon we are celebrating the renovation of one room when the foundations of the house are broken.
Removing whip protests does nothing to address the fundamental problem with Australia’s whip rule. In some respects, it actually makes the situation worse because one potential deterrent for breaking the rule has now disappeared.
The current rule allows a jockey to use the whip five times before the 100-metre mark, but once they reach the final 100 metres its use is effectively at the rider’s discretion.
I have never understood the logic behind that because it seems fundamentally at odds with what the rule was designed to achieve.
If limiting whip use is about horse welfare and improving the public perception of racing, why is its use least restricted during the most watched, most replayed and most scrutinised part of a race?
Watch virtually any racing advertisement, highlights package or sports bulletin and you will invariably see the finish, when horses are under maximum pressure and jockeys are doing everything possible to win.
If racing wants to demonstrate that it takes responsible whip use seriously, allowing significantly greater use at precisely the point everyone is watching seems completely at odds with that objective.
But there is another problem, and this latest change only magnifies it: we are asking jockeys to choose between remaining within the rules and doing absolutely everything possible to win for owners, trainers and punters.
Some jockeys clearly worry more about whip breaches than others, and the incentive to push the boundaries inevitably changes according to the importance of the race.
Yes, penalties increase with the significance of an event, and suspensions can be costly. But so too does the incentive to win. I suspect there wouldn’t be too many owners disappointed with their jockey for copping a fine after doing everything possible to deliver them a Group 1.
Winning major races builds careers, relationships and loyalty. There will inevitably be circumstances where the potential reward substantially outweighs the consequences of breaking the whip rule, particularly now there is absolutely no prospect of the result being changed.
Take the Melbourne Cup as the most extreme example.
Two horses are locked together with 200 metres to run, millions of dollars in prizemoney on the line and the prestige of winning Australia’s biggest race at stake. One jockey remains within the rules while the other decides winning the Melbourne Cup is worth whatever punishment comes afterwards.
They hit the line a nose apart and the jockey who breached the rule wins.
The result stands. The owner keeps the Cup, the trainer is forever a Melbourne Cup winner and the jockey deals with the fine or suspension afterwards.
It is hard to argue there isn’t an incentive to push the boundaries in that situation.
Racing Australia says removing protests will not diminish the deterrent because stewards retain the power to impose severe penalties for flagrant breaches. That may prove correct, but one deterrent has unquestionably disappeared: the possibility that breaking the rule could cost connections the race.
More importantly, it highlights the impossible position in which jockeys have been placed.
We tell jockeys they must ride every horse on its merits and give it every possible opportunity to obtain the best finishing position. Owners expect it, trainers expect it and punters certainly expect it, yet in the biggest moments we also ask riders to calculate whether strict compliance with another rule might compromise their chance of winning.
A well-designed rule shouldn’t create that conflict.
The other central argument for abolishing whip protests is that it is impossible to determine how much advantage additional whip use provides.
I understand that argument, but determining the outcome of almost any protest is subjective.
Stewards regularly have to decide whether interference cost a horse more than the margin separating two runners. There isn’t a stopwatch or formula that tells them exactly how many lengths an incident cost. They use their experience, watch the vision, consider the margin and make a judgement.
Why is subjectivity suddenly an insurmountable problem when it comes to the whip?
At the very least, we know why jockeys use the whip. They believe it helps extract performance from a horse; otherwise there would be little point carrying one.
And consider the two occasions on which whip protests have actually been successful in Australia: both resulted in dead heats. If two horses hit the line together and one jockey has significantly breached the rules while the other has complied, is concluding that the illegal whip use may have contributed to that tiny margin really more subjective than determining what a severe check at the 200 metres cost a horse?
I’m not convinced it is.
None of this means Racing Australia was necessarily wrong to remove whip protests. There were legitimate problems with the provision, it was rarely successful and I understand why many participants wanted it gone.
But removing protests treats a symptom rather than the disease and, if anything, further exposes the problems with the underlying rule.
The real question Racing Australia needs to answer is much bigger: what are we actually trying to achieve with the whip rule?
If it is about horse welfare, design a rule around horse welfare. If it is about public perception, design one that makes sense to the public watching a race. If it is about limiting whip use, establish a limit that is clear, logical and enforceable across the entire race.
But don’t maintain a system where jockeys can use the whip only five times before the 100 metres and then significantly increase their use when the race reaches its most important and visible stage. And don’t create rules where, in racing’s biggest moments, participants may have a genuine competitive incentive to break them.
A good rule shouldn’t require a jockey to weigh up obedience against opportunity. It shouldn’t rely on fines and suspensions being greater than the value, prestige and career benefit of winning a major race.
Removing whip protests may well be common sense, and Manny Gelagotis and the many others who have welcomed the decision may ultimately be proven right.
But let’s not confuse removing one flawed element of the rule with fixing the rule itself.
The whip rule remains confusing in its purpose, questionable in its effectiveness and unfair in the position it puts jockeys in.
Rather than continuing to patch it up every few years, Racing Australia should go back to first principles, decide what the rule is actually supposed to achieve and then build one that achieves it.
Scrap the bloody thing and start again.
