The whip and all that

I saw a very good thing which was put up on Twitter a week or so ago.  It was posted shortly after the end of the Irish Flat season (turf) in which Donnacha O'Brien and Colin Keane had again duelled for the title.  It also came at around the time that Michael Walker had needlessly flouted the whip rules in the Melbourne Cup (on Prince Of Arran) just on the off chance that it might increase his chance of winning the race, thus bringing a whole load of negative publicity onto the race at a time when it really needs nothing but positive publicity.  Anyway, this was the observation which struck me as being so good (and I must apologise that I did not note who wrote it, so can't give him/her the credit he/she deserves):-

"There has been a lot of negative reports and heated debates about the stick this year.  I personally believe no jockey should find themselves in breach of the rules regarding the use of his/her stick.  It is simply a jockey's option to misuse it.  Take for an example the Irish jockeys' championship battle between Colin Keane and Donnacha O'Brien.  Between them they rode 1,174 rides and 214 winners.  The battle went down to the last week of the season and neither one had a whip suspension throughout the season.  (It's OK - take a moment for that to sink in).  An amazing statistic, and one that should not only be thoroughly recognised but an example for all young jockeys coming through.  We have seen a serious bunch of talented apprentices this year and our two best jockeys have just set a fine example of how to use a stick."

The problem with whip rules is that we have to have them to ensure that we don't see the awful sights that we would see if there were none.  (If you don't know what I mean, watch Thunder Snow in last year's BC Classic, or the cases at a Cheltenham Festival in the early '80s which got the whole ball rolling - Batista in the Triumph Hurdle was one, and possibly Flame Gun in the Stayers' Hurdle).  The whip rules are wonderful if they are observed; but if they are broken slightly, then they do the opposite of what they are meant to do, ie they bring massive negative publicity to the sport.  This is because they inevitably lead to a punishment, and that equates to stating in black and white that a jockey has abused his whip.

And that's meat and drink to the sport's opponents, who can compile statistics about how many horses have been "abused".  And they know that they have been abused because the stewards' reports tell them so.  So the answer is that jockeys must obey the rules.  No ifs or buts.  And I don't know what we have to do to make jockeys obey them.  Any punishment is bad because that comes with a guilty verdict.  And that that is what does so much harm to the sport, much more than the sight of a horse being hit one more time than the rules allow.  In fact, the bigger the punishment, the worse it is, because it makes the whole thing seem more 'high stakes' and it just makes the jockey look greedy, as happened in the Melbourne Cup, and that just makes it worse.

I don't think that disqualification is a good idea because it opens up an avenue for corruption (ie a way of ensuring that a horse doesn't win) and because it would only really piss punters off for having a worthy winner thrown out because of the jockey's stupidity.  But I do think that declaring the horse a non-runner (and, furthermore, not paying the jockey his riding fee) would be a good idea.  Then there are no bets lost on the horse, so it takes away both the corruption worry and it doesn't piss off the people who have backed the horse.  If the horse thus declared a non-runner has been beaten anyway, you would annoy the backers of the winner who would be hit by a Rule Four deduction, but it's an imperfect world and you can't please all the people all the time, and that's probably the least imperfect solution.

I think that that would sort the thing out in the swiftest and most painless manner.  Once that had happened a couple of times, then no jockey would ever break the rules - because, as Donnacha O'Brien and Colin Keane have demonstrated so well, it's always possible to ride within the rules: breaking the rule is only one option, the other (equally easy-to-take option) being not to break them.  Once the jockeys realise that nothing can be achieved if the rules aren't observed - no winner, no prize money, not even a riding fee - then they wouldn't do it.  (Over and above the fact that any owner or trainer would be unlikely ever to use a jockey again who unnecessarily caused their horse to be deemed a non-runner).

So that's that.  And, on the subject of the whip, by the way, I can't help feeling that Danny Brock has been very badly treated.  Whatever his reason for putting two rubber bands around his whip, it wouldn't have been to try to circumvent the whip dimensions to make his horse go faster.  Nobody could be stupid enough to believe that putting two rubber bands around a whip would make a horse go faster.  Furthermore, he apparently made no attempt to hide the fact that the rubber bands were there, which is a sure-fire indication that he had not put them on the whip believing that he had done anything wrong.  Jockeys have a thing with rubber bands and whips, just as they do with knots in reins.  Completely pointless, but a time-honoured habit.

When I started riding and having my own kit, one of the first things I was told was to put a couple of rubber bands around my whip as it makes it easier to hold on to when you are twisting it through your fingers.  I did that, and pretty much every whip I've owned subsequently has had a few elastic bands wound around it at some point.  Completely pointlessly.  Just in the same way that I was told to put a knot in my reins, as was everyone else.  Watch horses in the parade ring, and you'll see all the jockeys tying a knot in their reins once they are mounted.  (Ones riding for me don't have to do this because, anticipating that they will do so, I tie the knot in the reins when I saddle the horse, because I would rather have them concentrating on the horse once they are aboard than concentrating on the reins - or, as the BHA would probably say, concentrating on modifying the reins).

The reason for putting a knot in the reins is that it would come in handy if the buckle were to come undone and, having slipped the reins out to the fullest extent when leaning back while landing over a fence, you were to drop the reins and then find that you can't re-gather them because they have come apart and, rather than hanging around the horse's neck, are now flapping around beneath his head, out of your reach.  This happened to Lord Mildmay on Davy Jones at the second last fence in the 1936 Grand National, but I haven't seen it noted as a problem since then.  And as for knotting the reins in Flat races - well, you'd be better off worrying about being struck by lightning.  Jockeys always do it, though, probably nowadays without even knowing why they are doing it (ie because Davy Jones ran out before the last fence in the 1936 Grand National).  Totally pointless, but something which jockeys have always done, like winding rubber bands around their whips.

Anyway, the story of Danny Brock's supposedly modified whip is just absurd.  The way it has been told is so misleading.  The correct response would have been to say, "Danny, take those bloody elastic bands off your whip."  The actual response instead was to tell the world that Danny Brock was riding with a modified whip (technically true, but totally misleading) and to give the implication that he had somehow "modified" his whip to circumvent the whip rules and to increase his chance of winning the race by compromising the safety of the horse.  Utterly absurd.  In another era it wouldn't have mattered because no one would have paid any attention; but nowadays, in the era of the keyboard warrior who probably has no understanding of the subject on which he is sounding off, it was very irresponsible to open Danny Brock up to the avalanche of abuse which he has unjustly received.