the number of jockeys receiving riding suspensions is becoming ridiculous.

​Firstly, as of this moment, 5 am, I have yet to read my on-line Racing Post and I am not up-to-speed with the numbers and facts of the jockeys banned from the July Cup meeting as a result of their riding at Royal Ascot and, secondly, my views are contrary to my argument that when the top jockeys are missing for whatever reason, it gives those lower down the order opportunities to ride a better-class of horse in a better-class of race.
If the Professional Jockeys Association were to propose a strike of their members over the issue of the present rules regarding use of the whip, I would support them. They will not go on strike, of course, and I doubt it would even be debated. But there must be severe disquiet in the weighing room over the number of jockeys receiving draconian punishments for what is in effect only technical infringements of what is, I believe, unnecessary restrictions imposed for cosmetic reasons. 
As things stand, I believe, Frankie Dettori came out of Royal Ascot with 17-days- worth of bans, 9 for being the cause of a rival jockey having to snatch-up to avoid an accident and further 8 for his riding of Inspiral in the Queen Anne. The first 9-days is, I believe, an appropriate suspension, the other eight-days are questionable. The July Cup will also be without Oisin Murphy for similar reasons.
What message the B.H.A. believes it is sending out to the wider public only they can know. If I were an outsider looking in, the spread of suspensions, especially to our highest profile jockeys, would suggest British jockeys possess carpet-beating mentalities when it come to use of the whip. There has to be a better way of presenting our sport to the public than bans, bans and more bans.
Let’s not beat about the bush: the B.H.A. have fucked-up this issue for the entirety of their existence. They have proved themselves incapable of producing whip reform that work in the real world of the final furlong. So many jockeys riding today have suffered shoulder injuries and shoulder surgery that maybe it is physically impossible for many of them, not withstanding how dedicated they are to changing their whip action, to conform to rules instigated by people who have never ridden a finish on anything more dynamic than the back of a settee.
I maintain that ‘one hit and that’s it’, is the way forward as everyone can count from zero to one and such an imposition requires no rule about ‘above shoulder height’ or where the strike lands on the horse. It would be a draconian rule but it would be draconian, and perhaps unfair, to all. Jockeys would rebel from such an imposition, of course, as would punters who believe horses go faster the more times a jockey cracks a horse’s rump with their pro-cush.
The B.H.A. believe, wrongly, they have achieved the right balance with its latest attempt to reform use of the whip and give themselves kudos for on-going dialogue with jockeys over the matter. Yet professional jockeys were so hacked-off with the new rules they took root a branch approach to their own leadership, believing their professional body was not engaging on their behalf with the B.H.A., the same executive committee that took sides in the Frost-Dunne dispute and made an unholy mess of that issue as well.
In the U.S. defenders of private ownership of firearms will say, ‘it is not guns that kill people but people who kill people’. It is a stupid, selfish argument in the aftermath of school and mall shootings. Take away the guns and the act of wholesale murder becomes far more difficult to achieve.
So, to return to the point in question. Why not take away the offensive weapon from the jockey. Instead of banning Frankie from the racecourse for 17-days, take away his whip for 17-days. Instead of banning a jockey from riding for breaching whip rules, for excess or over shoulder height or hitting in the wrong place, have them ride in races where they can carry a whip but not use it for anything other than preventing possible injury to their horse or other jockeys?
I have suggested many times before and will suggest, perhaps, many times in the future that there should be ‘hands and heels’ races for professional jockeys, as there are for apprentices. After all, what is the point of apprentices riding in races when they cannot use their whips if in later life they are subject to the same rules as their seniors?
The sport should be walking towards the day when a whip is carried but not used as a tool of ‘persuasion’. The ‘public licence’ will, eventually, be taken away. It might not be in my lifetime but you can be assured that wildlife documentaries that make it clear all animals are sentient beings will outsway any argument the B.H.A. can put forward to help preserve the sport.. ‘Animal Rising’ are right when they say man’s association with animals needs to be looked-at. That does not imply, of course, that a whole species of horse should be obliterated just because a few ignorant people take offence at people racing horses for a living. But we should take an inward look at ourselves, everyone of us, and that includes the B.H.A., jockeys, the whole racing industry.
Banning jockeys from earning a day-to-day living as punishment for small indiscretions, especially when the misdemeanour is caused by the actions of their mounts, is in need of a radical rethink. If a jockey is banned from using a whip for a period of time, it becomes the responsibility of owners and trainers whether that jockey can earn a riding fee. Without a whip, jockeys will be forced to drop their irons a few holes and learn the art of keeping a horse running in a straight line through the strength of their legs and body position, an art their forebears knew but which is lost to flat jockeys of today.