BHA Whip Report – 27th September

[yeats]

I can’t remember which of the northern jockeys alluded to the existence of these briefings when asked for a quote the other week (it may have been Richie McGrath – I’ll check the press cuttings I kept later), but his comment echoed yours almost word for word, i.e. that the BHA speaker let the attendees know in no uncertain terms that they had come within a whisker of losing use of the whip outright.

Message to messrs Thornton and Moore – for better or for worse,

this is actually happening

.

Why should anyone just accept what the BHA speaker says if there’s no logic to it? Where was the consultation with other racing countries on the subject?

Thornton and Moore are correct, the BHA are weak.
I see that guy at Towcester (Kevin Ackerman) is whinging again about having whipless racing, the BHA should tell him to either put up or shut up.

[Anonymous]

Either that or they didn’t bother to attend any of the jockey seminars that certainly took place immediately before the new rules went public (or else did attend, but deigned not to take any of the message on board).

"Not bothering" indeed. And who will blame them? given the fact that BHA have insulted professional jockeys by riding roughshod over them and their opinions on the matter. Would you really expect them to take this nonsense gracefully?

I can’t remember which of the northern jockeys alluded to the existence of these briefings when asked for a quote the other week (it may have been Richie McGrath – I’ll check the press cuttings I kept later), but his comment echoed yours almost word for word, i.e. that the BHA speaker let the attendees know in no uncertain terms that they had come within a whisker of losing use of the whip outright.

Message to messrs Thornton and Moore – for better or for worse,

this is actually happening

.

Alas, GC, you are quite right about that! Let’s wait and see how the BHA deals with the torrent of litigation, court challenges and punter disaffection that will follow the introduction of the new rules.

[Steeplechasing]

Boringly, I must return again to the key point of the new whip rules, keeping the RSPCA’s support.

I have no ‘ inside info’ but, shortly after the National, I interviewed David Muir, who’s worked closely with racing and with Aintree in particular, on behalf of the RSPCA.

David left me in no doubt that banning of the whip in forehand use was the only acceptable outcome for them. The BHA has worked a miracle in persuading David that this would have resulted in the horse being hit more often in the wrong place. Doubtless this would be so but it wasn’t David Muir’s problem; that would have been for the BHA to address.

Instead they won a concession on it – the pivotal point, and the BHA got a result. Perhaps they did use scaremongering among the pros in order to be assured of their backing, but even that shows how much influence the PR team at High Holborn are now having. ‘Fighting dirty’ is not for everyone but I think it is a sign of the maturing of Mr Struthers’ dept that will stand the sport in good stead.

I think Paul Struthers will tell you that he has few stronger critics than me, but credit when it is due.

The vital fact many forget is that the RSPCA do not ‘support’ racing. They are there to try and assist the BHA in making the sport as safe as possible for horses. From that position it is a relatively short step to turn against racing. I that ever happens, the sport is doomed.

Remember what the last three initials stand for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

[Anonymous]

Steeplechasing

, I find your post sinister in its hypothesis as to the politicking that may have gone on in this (it would seem) entirely orchestrated "whip debate" which in reality, you say, has been decided behind closed doors. It surely adds fuel to the fire of those of us who are accusing the BHA of a complete lack of spine and moral courage on this issue.

Your conclusion is essentially that British Horse Racing’s only important negotiation partner here is the RSPCA, an organisation which is very often under fire –

from both sides of the "moral debate"

– for its focus on power-mongering and empire-building, at the expense of the job it is supposed to be doing.

IF

you are right … In order to appease this powerful and potentially destructive "ally" (which fundamentally, as you point out, would like to see Racing banned) BHA is prepared to

(a)

ignore their own constituents,

(b)

put the frighteners on the jockeys about the scope of what is on the table for debate – in plain anguage, to lie to them – and

(c)

spuriously evoke the backing of that 45% of the public which cares nothing for racing and is completely ignorant about use of the whip.

I find this situation extremely alarming. Serious questions should be asked about what has been going on here; and perhaps this Forum ought to be one of the public organs that starts asking them.

I’d like to hear from

Silvoir

as to how much of your hypothesis is true, and how much mere supposition. In any case, your theory pinpoints just how dangerous it is to attempt to appease such an organisation as the RSPCA.

He who sups with the devil should take a long spoon.

It seems BHA pawned theirs some time ago.

[Anonymous]

David left me in no doubt that banning of the whip in forehand use was the only acceptable outcome for them. The BHA has worked a miracle in persuading David that this would have resulted in the horse being hit more often in the wrong place. Doubtless this would be so but it wasn’t David Muir’s problem; that would have been for the BHA to address.

Instead they won a concession on it – the pivotal point, and the BHA got a result.

So, just to make it clear to those here who still support these new

"rules"

:

(1)

The RSPCA did not get what it wanted.

(2)

BHA consider they got a "result" in giving away as little (!) as they did, unilaterally and without reference to Racing in other jurisdictions.

(3)

Your friend "David" will not be satisfied with this, and will await the next tabloid scandal to push the envelope a little further.

(4)

It is obvious that "David" and the RSPCA have a broader agenda: to work slowly but inexorably towards a BAN on horse-racing entirely, as it is in essence "cruel" to them, despite what the scientific evidence has to say on the matter.

My questions:

* Why does the BHA continue to appease this sinister and double-faced organisation, working "hand in glove" with them?
* What power does the RSPCA wield over British Racing’s rulers?
* And who is going to have the courage to tell them to concentrate on their own, charitable brief rather than continue taking advantage of Racing’s PR and Media troubles to incapacitate our Sport?

[Kenh]

"Alas, GC, you are quite right about that! Let’s wait and see how the BHA deals with the torrent of litigation, court challenges and punter disaffection that will follow the introduction of the new rules."

Who exactly is going to bring this "torrent of litigation and court challenges" ? And on what basis will they happen ?

[Kenh]

(4)

It is obvious that "David" and the RSPCA have a broader agenda: to work slowly but inexorably towards a BAN on horse-racing entirely, as it is in essence "cruel" to them, despite what the scientific evidence has to say on the matter.

You keep mentioning scientific evidence so what exactly is your evidence that the RSPCA want horse racing banned ? This really is scaremongering, without any evidence whatsoever.

Also what exactly do you mean by scientific evidence ? Scientific evidence for what ?

[Steeplechasing]

Pinza, it is all supposition on my part. As I said, I have been a strong critic of the BHA – I believe they lack strength in leadership and have ‘committeed’ suicide in their attempt to manage racing by committee.

But I do not write from a general, biased standpoint on any subject and am always open to persuasion.

The personal note that stays with me here is my chat with David Muir. I know well you believe that the RSPCA and such groups should not be ‘appeased’ and I respect your opinion even though I disagree.

Nonetheless, for the RSPCA to completely withdraw from racing, having ‘tried to help keep it safe’, could only imply that they believe their continued involvement could be read as an endorsement of the sport.

Had they never been involved, this issue would be viewed differently. But to have been involved so closely for so many years and then withdraw, that can only be a condemnation in the eyes of the public.

One stat from the BHA survey stand out starkly: 14% of those with no interest in racing want it banned: add to that smoking gun a few headlines that say ‘RSPCA condemn horse racing’ then watch how quickly and how scarily that percentage grows.

[Pompete]

For anyone interested in facts, the

Professional Jockeys Association

and the

National Trainers Federation

offical responses to these changes.

The PJA state

(on their website);

THE PJA today commended the BHA for introducing revised rules regarding the use of the whip that are "consise and easy to understand".

We have worked closely with the BHA during this important review for racing and have been consulted throughout.

The NTF state

(on their website);

Our experience was that the BHA approached this review with an open mind and there was thorough consultation. We are therefore satisfied with the outcome and although the nature of the subject leads to strong views, the conclusions are a balanced response to the issues raised earlier this year

So we have clear evidence of support for these sensible rule changes from those that actually matter.

[Anonymous]

The PJA state

(on their website);

THE PJA today commended the BHA for introducing revised rules regarding the use of the whip that are "consise [sic]

and easy to understand".

We have worked closely with the BHA during this important review for racing and have been consulted throughout.

The NTF state

(on their website);

Our experience was that the BHA approached this review with an open mind and there was thorough consultation. We are therefore satisfied with the outcome and although the nature of the subject leads to strong views, the conclusions are a balanced response to the issues raised earlier this year

So we have clear evidence of support for these sensible rule changes from those that actually matter.

No, we do not. Quite the reverse. There is an astounding gap between these official statements, the result of much official leaning and the understandable desire to put forward a (completely bogus) united front, and what jockeys and trainers are actually saying about the new rules "at the coal face".

"Consultation"

(from

Steeplechasing

‘s account of the Jockey seminars) consisted of bullying scare-stories. And of course punters and regular racegoers were not "

consulted

" at all.

You must be worldly wise enough to understand,

Pompete

, that there is almost always a gap between official utterances and reality: such statements no more represent "fact" than any other official press release. They are there to present a unified front, and a front (and an affront!) is all it is.

[Anonymous]

Here, for

Kenh

and anyone else who’s interested, is a digest from the RSPCA’s current official policy document, as it concerns British Horse Racing. I will add a few comments in a separate post to clarify my own position on the charity’s work and stance.

5.1 General considerations
5.1.1

The RSPCA is opposed to the infliction of pain and suffering on, or the killing of, any animal in the name of sport, entertainment or fashion.

5.3.1

The RSPCA is opposed to the use of all animals of whatever species for any form of entertainment […] in any environment in circumstances where distress or suffering is likely to be caused.

6.3 Racing
6.3.1

The RSPCA is opposed to methods and conditions at racecourses or during training that may cause injury. The RSPCA is concerned about the excessive production of horses for racing, and the likelihood of future welfare problems for unwanted, retired or injured animals. The RSPCA believes the racing industry should make provision for the future well-being of these animals.

6.3.2

The RSPCA is opposed to the use of drugs which are administered with a view to altering the performance of an animal including by masking pain.

6.3.3

The RSPCA is opposed to the racing and training of horses where distress or injury result from the placing of excessive demands upon the animal.

6.3.4

The RSPCA is opposed to the use of whips which cause pain or suffering. The RSPCA believes that the only permissible whips should be those of proven shock absorbing designs. Many whips used in horse racing are capable of causing excessive pain and injury to a horse. The rules governing the use of whips have been strengthened and better enforced by the Horseracing Regulatory Authority in recent years. The RSPCA advocates that the rules should further specify only whips based on shock absorbing designs be permitted. The design of such whips, while being perfectly adequate for all normal riding purposes, must minimise any pain and must not injure the horse.

6.5.1

The RSPCA opposes the firing of horses for allegedly therapeutic purposes Whilst this practice is illegal in the UK, it is carried out in some other countries and horses may be sent abroad to have the procedure carried out. The RSPCA believes that firing is a cruel and ineffective practice and should never be used.

The ‘Five Freedoms’ are:
• Freedom from hunger and thirst
by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
• Freedom from discomfort
by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
• Freedom from pain, injury or disease
by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
• Freedom to express normal behaviour
by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.
• Freedom from fear and distress
by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

[Anonymous]

There is a contradiction here. The RSPCA’s

overall agenda

(5.1)

would clearly lead to a total ban on Racing (along with rodeos, bullfighting, hunting … and angling) because, in their terms it

"inflicts pain"

(5.1.1)

on the race horse, and is a form of

"entertainment… in [an] environment where distress or suffering is likely to be caused"

(5.3.1)

.

Yet the specific terms of

6.3

are very limited indeed. It is interesting how little they’ve concentrated their efforts on the vital conditions of

6.3.1

and

6.3.2

, and how huge an effort has been spent on

6.3.4

– the minor policy clause which mentions whips.

David Muir

has already achieved everything in this clause, and yet still persists in pushing BHA for more and more concessions. It’s clear (contra

Steeplechasing

) that it was

he

– and not BHA – who got the "result" in the recent round of "negotiations" by getting the Sport’s ruling body to agree to further concessions

beyond the terms of the RSPCA’s policy document

.

Yet

6.3.3

states the RSPCA

"is opposed to the racing and training of horses where distress or injury result from the placing of excessive demands upon the animal.

" What does it mean by "

excessive demand

"? Forcing a horse beyond the pain barrier (i.e. running as fast as it can to win) would certainly seem to come under this clause. Would horse

racing

be possible without this "

excessive deman

d"? Clearly not. The RSPCA’s attitude to Racing is, to put it generously, ambiguous.

So what is Muir’s (and the RSPCA’s) agenda? Will they ever be satisfied? Once the whip is banned, will they stop there? Will we never see a clause to outlaw "hands and heels"? Will RSPCA ever stand by BHA to say "enough is enough" next time the Media Circus hits town?

The answer to all these questions has to be

"no"

: RSPCA cannot be seen to be condoning "

cruelty

" or "

distress

" caused by asking horses to exert themselves at all, and they will never draw any line in the sand. They are, therefore, useless allies. And ultimately, they would be happy to stand by and see Horse Racing banned, washing their hands of it. It’s implicit in their charter.

So back to my question:

what has the BHA to fear by standing up against RSPCA’s continued interference and "pushing of the envelope"?

Nothing, if recent questions concerning RSPCA’s current agenda, power-mongering and bureaucracy continue to escalate. This is no longer a charity seen as beyond criticism, whose every pronouncement is Holy Writ.

Anyone interested might read this

Times

article for starters, and other examples are legion.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen … 061091.ece

Racing clearly needs to draw its own line in the sand, rather than go along the route to damnation with the RSPCA. The route to hell is paved with good intentions. Supporters of a whip ban are pleased right now, because they see this as simply another station along to the line to an inevitable destination. Those opposed to change see it happening, in spite of the evidence, in spite of the advice of professionals, and in spite of the outcry from punters which is bound to grow once the effects of the new laws are seen.

We will see how legal challenges are mounted when the bans (and fiscal confiscations) begin: there’s a case for challenging the new rules, as demanding disproportionate penalties under European employment legislation. Demands from punters for "

a level playing field

", where their horse loses because a jockey obeyed the rules and didn’t do everything to win, will intensify.

The next appeasement will be

disqualification

. Then a

complete ban

. Then the focus will shift to the complete banning of "

heels

" riding out, presented as "

booting a horse in the belly"

. Eventually NH itself will disappear (30 years or so, by my guess) and the Flat will follow.

UNLESS

, of course, we – and most of all BHA – stand firm, against the RSPCA as much as against the Media. "

Thus far, and no further

" has to be the watchword – and of course, a gradual retreat to

harmonisation

with what is rightfully allowable with the whip, throughout the rest of the civilised racing world.

[Steeplechasing]

Pinza, firstly, I did not give an ‘account’ of the seminars, I wasn’t there so could not have done. My views in that post were based on supposition which might be wildly wrong.

I am not arguing for the RSPCA or against them They are not racing’s "allies", they are the de facto policemen of racehorse welfare with whom the BHA co-operate in the interests of having an independent expert view, trusted by the majority of the public.

If racing ‘takes a stand’ against the RSPCA’s views, it might give moral satisfaction to those with views similar to yours, but racing would be sunk. The public has no appetite for screeds of quotes and science put forward in "The case against the RSPCA"

I’m not saying your anger isn’t righteous, it is just naive. Would you surrender the sport so a point of principle could be upheld?

Your argument is driven by "This is the fair way, the way things should be, we should pursue it at all costs"

The BHA argument, well, my interpretation of it, is "This is the real world and we need to deal with it pragmatically"

[Anonymous]

Steeplechasing

, I’m glad we agree that the RSPCA are not Racing’s allies. I appreciate your caution, but it seems to me that there is absolutely nothing going on in British Horseracing (with regard to what goes on at the racecourse at least) which the RSPCA could use as a stick with which to beat the BHA, if that organisation ceased to treat David Muir as some sort of Holy Man of Animal Rights whose anathema should be shunned at all costs.

In plain words, they’ve done what the RSPCA asked for in its charter regarding whip usage – in fact they did it years ago when they introduced the cushioned whip

which Muir himself approved as the perfect solution

. At that point they should have waved that organisation (and Muir) a cheery goodbye.

There’s

nothing

in the RSPCA charter about "number of strokes", "fiscal penalties", "forehand drives" or any of the other things that were on the table this time around, all nibbles which the RSPCA representative played for – and mainly won.

Nor is the General Public quite so uncritically enamoured of the RSPCA as you say – read the many negative recent articles about that charity in newspapers from

The Times

downwards to get a handle on the suspicion with which it’s increasingly viewed by ordinary people. For that reason your doomsday scenario as to what would happen if BHA ceased to be hand-in-glove with them has no basis in fact, though the BHA seem to have been spooked (or sweet-talked by Muir) into following the scare-story too.

Again in plain words, there is no evidence that Racing would be "sunk" if it ceased to rely on the (non-)support of the RSPCA, and the sooner the BHA tumble to that fact the better.

Broadening the point, there’s too much hooey about "focus groups", "surveys", "polls" and the rest. It is tedious, stupid and puts the cart before the horse (pun intended!) The passing of the most successful market man of our time, Steve Jobs, ought to remind us how unnecessary that was. Jobs didn’t believe in such baloney. He knew what people wanted, even where they didn’t have a clue themselves, and gave it to them. And they loved it.

So what matters here is what

Racing

has to sell. Which is, as we agree, fundamentally a highly attractive package. It needs to be marketed for what it is, not sanitized out of existence by ignorance, focus groups of the uninterested, rock music in the parade ring, Animal Rights agendas (hidden or otherwise) – or indeed by third-rate administrators who have no real passion for, or knowledge of, the Sport.

It’s about assertive confidence, not cautious appeasement. That, with respect, is the

real

"real world"!

[jose1993]

Mr Struthers – Silvoir in these parts – is making a strong attempt via other mediums to convince critics that the BHA didn’t change the rules to solely appease animal welfare groups because "they didn’t ban the whip."

No, but the BHA have reduced the number of times a jockey can use the whip without a shred of scientific evidence from Mr Morris.

There’s obviously a difference between the rules having the appropriate deterrent in the form as punishment, which they didn’t previously, and the rules – i.e number of strokes – being wrong. But, remember, they didn’t ban the whip……

Mr Stier appeared on ATR and stated the review was on the BHA agenda from November last year.

I’d love to know why the BHA only announced the whip review immediately after the Grand National. What was the hidden intention behind that decision? Any other scheduled reviews we don’t know of?

Mr Morris was again quoted on October 5th in the Racing Post.

"If behaviour doesn’t change then the sanctions become much worse. We are highlighting improper use of the whip and changing the behaviour of jockeys."

If only you were highlighting improper use of the whip, Mr Morris. If only.

[Marginal Value]

.
.
.
Meanwhile, the (unconsulted) authorities in France, Ireland and most of the rest of the world will be rubbing their hands over this self-inflicted wound. Quite what there is in these arbitrary new rules for you to "support" – or anyone else who wants British Racing to remain the best in the world – I really cannot see.

I would not wish to upset you further in the matter of regulatory authorities and use of the whip. However, I stumbled across an article in the Racing Post published last year which seems to indicate that other countries may follow the same path as the BHA.

" … Louis Romanet forecast on Monday that within the next five years major racing nations would outlaw use of the whip other than for corrective purposes.
.
.
.
Romanet was speaking in his role as chairman of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities in a panel debate on animal welfare.

He pointed out that the IFHA had recently set up a welfare committee, chaired by the BHA’s Tim Morris, to address welfare issues, exchange information, promote best practice and raise awareness of specific issues by talking to welfare organisations."

With Tim Morris chairing the IFHA committe, it is likely that his views will permeate the deliberations of other major racing authorities.

http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/ifha-louis-romanet-romanet-whip-will-be-outlawed-in-five-years/702647/

[Anonymous]

Jose

, I’ve tracked down a Powerpoint Presentation by

Tim Morris

which supported a lecture on Welfare Issues he made a couple of days ago at the

IFHA annual conference

. It’s hard to say what he might have actually said of course, but the slides give an idea of his major headings, summary and recommendations.

As far as the (short final section) dealing with whip use is concerned, here’s the text of the slides:

SLIDE 11
Whip use

• No welfare assessment
• No clear overall statement on acceptability
• Poor communication of why and how whips are used
• Article 11 not related to an ethical framework
• No scientific basis for harmonised specifications
• Minimal engagement with welfare organisations

SLIDE 12
Recommendation 4

• The Horse Welfare Committee will develop a clear statement on whips, defining conditions for its use within a wider ethical framework, with consideration on design and usage, respecting variations in approach internationally, and proposing an approach to improve public understanding of whip use.

Now this is interesting, although murky. "

No scientific basis for harmonised specifications

" should prove interesting to unpack. Whilst "

respecting variations in approach internationally

" seems to accept that UK will remain out on a limb. The usual educational postscript "

to improve public understanding of whip use

" is also in place.

Fudge, fudge and more fudge. As to what

Silvoir

has said publically, his political skill hardly disguises the fact that BHA have pretty clearly been out-negotiated by Muir and the RSPCA, conceding vital ground way beyond the terms of that organisation’s chartered demands.

This looks on the face of it like a serious dereliction of duty by BHA to Racing’s stakeholders, in the light of the clear lack of scientific evidence – again stressed internationally by Tim Morris in his Paris lecture.

[Author]

Posts