whip and interference rules.

​Common-sense has prevailed. The Haydock stewards got their interpretation of events in the Lancashire Oaks completely wrong, with the culprit getting off scot-free due to their incompetence. Whether the B.H.A., who must be commended for intervening and throwing out the Haydock verdict, will hold inquiry into the affair, and whether the result of any inquiry will be made public, has not been announced. Also, in deciding Rab Havlin had caused ‘considerable interference’, the charge against him could be upgraded to ‘dangerous riding’, a charge stewards are loathed to post. I wonder if anyone from the Haydock stewards’ panel or the B.H.A. has apologised to Havlin, jockey fate continues to persecute. 
Even the jockeys themselves seem to believe the rules regarding ‘interference’ and ‘dangerous riding’ need to be clarified. Nobody should suggest that any professional jockey would do anything in a race to deliberately endanger the life of a colleague. And anyone who has ridden a racehorse will know that they are sentient beings with, on occasion, a will and a mind of their own. Paul Hanigan’s riding in the Norfolk Stakes at Royal Ascot, for example, where he received a 10-day suspension yet was allowed to keep the race, is a clear example of poor decision-making by a jockey leading to at least two other riders having to stop riding in order to prevent an accident with possible far-reaching consequences.
I am reminded of Ryan Moore’s reply to Her Majesty when she asked if his slight change of direction in the Ascot Gold Cup on Estimate, which resulted in a two-day ban, was accidental. ‘No, ma’am, he replied succinctly.’ In Paul Hanigan’s case, if asked the same question, hand on heart he would have to say ‘no, ma’am’, too. To jockeys, such manoeuvres come under the heading ‘race riding’. Yet Hanigan’s ride at Royal Ascot came dangerously close to ‘dangerous riding’, as to my mind any incident with the potential to cause harm to jockey, horse or both, is in itself self ‘dangerous’ and if stewards were to charge jockeys more frequently with ‘dangerous riding’ they would soon do more to either keep a straight course or not dive into gaps on the rails or between other runners. Christophe Soumillon, I am pleased to report, is now to appeal against the severity of his punishment for causing ‘considerable interference’ after the finish of the Eclipse and though obviously guilty of nearly putting James Doyle over the rails the offence was committed after the winning line and could not be deemed a deliberate act and as such he should not have been given a sentence far harsher than the one received by Hanigan and the wrongly prescribed penalty given to Havlin for breaching the same rule as Soumillon.
When a jockey commits an offence which results in a penalty of ten-days and upwards, disqualification should be standard. Such a measure is the only way to persuade jockeys to ‘play fair’

As someone who advocates ‘one hit and that’s it’ when it comes to the whip, you would think I would be supportive of the ‘no whip at all’ rules in Scandinavia. You would be wrong.
To ban the whip, and in Norway it is banned even for matters of safety, is to lay the sport open to charges of historical abuse and animal cruelty. My argument for severe restrictions on the use of the whip is that such a move will eventually improve, albeit it would bring about change, standards of riding as the emphasis will go from using the whip to achieve forward momentum to leg and body strength to keep the horse moving in a straight line. I also believe far fewer horses will suffer tendon and back injuries through becoming unbalanced in the final furlong due to jockeys moving around while pulling their stick through from one hand to the other.
The Scandinavian approach is pure wokery masquerading as ‘enlightenment’. 
My overriding concern, though, when the B.H.A. finally get round to publishing the latest amendments to the whip rule, is that on a set date jockeys will have to change overnight to a completely new way of riding a finish. This will be both unfair and a recipe for critical headlines in the media. Whether my proposal for ‘one hit and that’s it’ is the preferred option, which I doubt, or some other number or, god forbid, the Scandinavian approach, the new formula must be trialled, with, perhaps, one race per day restricted to the new rules, followed quickly by one race per meeting and ever upward to the dawn of the new socially acceptable way forward.
And what should also be considered in this debate is the paucity of sponsors coming forward to support the sport. No business would want to be associated with a sport with a public perception of being cruel in any way. You can argue to you are blue in the face otherwise, produce data and witness statements that prove that the sport is anything but cruel, but when ignorant people can say ‘look, jockeys beat horses with whips’ it will always be an upward climb to persuade potential supporters to come on board. For this reason, though not taken in isolation, it is in the long-term interests of the sport if the new whip rules verge on draconian. I am sure that when spurs were out-lawed there were people in the sport who prophesied doom and gloom and a downward curve to destruction for the sport. It will be the same with a severe limitation on the use of the whip. What is required is true enlightenment not pure wokery.