I am sure there is a thread where the new whip rules were discussed until the cows came home but I can’t find it.
Personally, I think the rules are a mess. I would go back to leaving it to the discretion of the stewards but realistically that is not going to happen.
If the BHA insists on putting a number on it (6 on the Flat, 7 over jumps) don’t they have to enforce the rule? In other words, disqualify any horse where the jockey goes over the limit?
As it stands, there is a grey area. Flat jockeys know they can use the whip 7, 8 or 9 times and keep the race, albeit at the cost of a fine and a suspension. Likewise, jump jockeys know they can strike their horse 8, 9 or 10 times and not lose.
With a big race on the line, isn’t the case that some jockeys will use this grey area? They might not mind getting a few days and who knows if they pay the fine personally?
Take Cheltenham last month. Charlie Deutsch went two over the limit in the Grand Annual and won by a short head, whereas the jockey on the runner up stayed within the rules. Does anyone think those two extra strikes didn’t produce a short head worth of difference? If they didn’t, why do jockeys carry whips at all if they don’t do anything?
I realise the example I have chosen is not so clear cut. Jazzy Matty steered a slightly erratic course up the run in and maybe didn’t help his cause. But the fact of the matter is he was beaten a short head by a horse on which the jockey broke the rules. In what other sport can you break the rules and still win?
As I said, I would prefer a system where the stewards have some discretion. But if they insist on going down the number of strikes permitted route, it makes no sense to have this grey area which invites rule breaking and creates confusion. If jockeys knew they would lose the race if they went over 6 or 7 strikes, wouldn’t they have a greater incentive to stay within the rules?