debates that linger; plus a new idea or two.

​If there is one aspect of horse racing in this country that maddens the mind, it is the way controversies and debates are never speedily put to bed. Yes, in the past, with so many sectors of the sport having a veto, it was hard job to achieve agreement on any one subject, and with the B.H.A. now having a casting vote dispute and debate should be brought to a conclusion with more alacrity than in the past.
Yet, after many, many decades, the whip remains a talking point. Although I would be happier if the number of permitted strikes were to be lowered to match the French standard, which would be fairer on jockeys from Europe riding here and vice-versa, the majority in this country seem to think the number is now about right. I would still like to see a number of races each season restricted to no strikes at all, if only for the data such races would provide. But if the majority are happy, let sleeping dogs lie, yes?
Now, of course, the debate is to disqualify or not to disqualify when a jockey breaks the permitted number of strikes in winning a race. In France, they disqualify if a jockeys goes over the permitted number by four, I believe. In Britain and Ireland jockeys receive a suspension but the horse is not disqualified. The problem the B.H.A. have given themselves is that if they unify with the French rules, a horse would not be disqualified on the day but up to a week later, if the race was run on a Tuesday as racecourse stewards must forward their findings to a disciplinary panel that sits on Tuesdays.
As someone who is an advocate of ‘one strike and that’s it’, I believe instead of a jockey being suspended for a long period, he or she should have their right to use a whip in earnest in a race removed for the same length of suspension they would receive at the moment. So, if a jockey at present would receive a ban of fourteen-days, for example, under my system they would be allowed to ride and receive an income during that period but would have to ride under a licence that does not permit them to strike a horse with their whip. I would also impose a fine of 10% of the value of the race in which the whip rules were infringed. I would also disqualify the horse and place it second, third or fourth, depending on how many horses were involved in the finish.
The whip debate, though, continues to be part of the conversation and it is time every effort was made to bring it to a conclusion that is acceptable to the public and helps to ring-fence the future of the sport.
The debate on small field sizes and lack of competitiveness has the potential to be as long-running a topic as the whip. The whip is by comparison a monster of a debate to resolve, with small field sizes a minnow that could be caught in tea strainer. While the sport languishes at the bottom of a curve, the number of race-meetings should be reduced. The strength of this strategy might well be proved over the coming days with frost forecast for much of the country, the result of which will be abandoned race-meetings and larger field sizes when winter eventually relents its grip on the sport. It’s a no brainer, isn’t it? So why is the B.H.A. meddling with the race program when the solution is so obvious. Yes, racecourse finances will be hit, yet is it not possible they could recoup short-term losses by better marketing of the meetings that remain?
Good ideas and good marketing are needed. Here’s one ‘good idea’. Carlisle’s most popular meeting, lost last season due to the weather, is the all-female jockeys meeting in the summer
. The Shergar Cup is also one of Ascot’s most popular days racing outside the Royal meeting and Champions Day. Though the ‘team’ idea shouldn’t be stretched to breaking point, with teams that people can associate with and support, not mythical and pointless as is tried every summer, a combined flat and jump jockey competition between British, Irish and perhaps European riders, with the flat races taking place at one track and the jump racing at another, might be popular with spectators.
I also believe a ‘no whip’ flat meeting would intrigue the public, even if it infuriated jockeys. We already have ‘hands and heels’ races for apprentices, so its not too much of a bridge too far.
The Racing Post these days is smattered with bad news stories. I realise it is not the thought or desire of the Racing Post to be doom-mongers and it is no doubt a long-term strategy of politicians and their overlords to wither the sport to the point of being unable to sustain itself, to use the land racecourses hold for purposes encased in the mantra within the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’. Now, more than ever in its history, it is imperative the sport provides for itself good news stories, a mantra for survival, to solve its nagging internal problems and allow the sun to shine brighter over our sport, to protect its heritage and to provide a future history.