The Whip Rules in British Racing

The disqualification of Alphonse Le Grande from the Cesarewitch Handicap at Newmarket has understandably ignited a renewed debate about the use of the whip in horseracing. The rider used his whip four times above the permitted level of six in a Flat race.

The revised whip rules introduced in early 2023 provoke strong debate, it’s an emotive subject for those who both support and oppose its use. The BHA has a clear position, the foam-padded whip is an important tool for communication between horse and rider and its use for safety and encouragement within a race is justified, with strict controls in place.

Adherence to these controls helps protect the fairness of our races, safeguard the welfare of the horses at the heart of our sport, help protect racing’s longevity in society, and contribute to ensuring that we can grow our fan base now and in the future.

Contrary to the opinion of some, we stand up for this sport. In 2022 we carried out the most extensive consultation in the history of British horseracing to review the whip rules because it was the right thing to do and the right time to do it. A steering group involved representatives from both across the sport and external bodies.

As a result of the consultation, significant changes were made to rules and penalties, but the thresholds for acceptable use of the whip were reduced by just one stroke from the previous iteration. There were influential people and groups, both inside and outside of the sport, who wanted us to go much further. We stood by our principles, advocated for the sport, and sent a clear message that the use of the foam-padded whip for encouragement is appropriate, but together we agreed that stricter controls needed to be put in place.

The need for those strict controls revolves around three core principles:

1. Fairness in competition: The rules set a clear limit on the number of times the whip can be used, ensuring a level playing field. The penalties for breaches are strict to act as a deterrent to overuse. These penalties are stricter in our more valuable races as data has shown that it is these races in which the rules are more likely to be broken.

2. Welfare of the Horses: It is critical that racing safeguards the welfare of its horses. There are clear and unequivocal consequences for breaches of the new rules because this is the right and responsible thing to do for the horse.

We would reiterate firmly that the use of the whip is appropriate, where strict controls are in place. The whip is padded and shock absorbent. But we also have a duty to acknowledge that the science around its impact is inconclusive.

Detailed academic reviews were carried out in 2011 and again in 2022 and the findings were the same on both occasions. To quote the 2022 whip review:

“When assessing the scientific research into the impacts of the whip, the BHA’s 2011 Review noted that, “the evidence is limited in some areas and further research is needed”. When reassessing this evidence in 2019, the Horse Welfare Board (HWB) noted that, while there have been some further studies since 2011, scientific evidence relating to any potential welfare impact of the whip remains inconclusive.”

We must be careful to recognise the full picture as regards the science, and this is why we must have safeguards – something that is replicated across most other major racing nations.

It is our ambition to carry out more research. Some work is already underway and other projects being scoped, however the issue of the ethics of such research is a significant barrier.

3. Public Perception and Social Licence: The future of horseracing relies on maintaining public trust. No organisation can exist in a bubble or ignore what’s happening in wider society. This is not about pandering to critics who will never support the sport, but addressing the concerns of our current and future fans. It is an issue which is already affecting the sport, its fanbase and engagement. The use of the whip in racing remains one of the primary barriers to engagement.

Every organisation, brand, and sport uses data, insight and public perceptions research to inform strategy. This intelligence enables smart targeted spending, success measurement, and the ability to identify and track issues and reputation threats.

Nationally representative polling data from the likes of Savanta, YouGov, and Opinium carried out over the last 10 years and has clearly indicated shifting perceptions related to the sport’s place in society and the role of the whip in the sport.

The latest polling report shows:

• 39% of adults state that concerns about horse welfare discourage them from engaging with racing.
• The biggest welfare concerns are (in order of impact) deaths and injuries, perception of cruelty/use of the whip, and what happens to horses when they finish racing. of these:
• 74% say it has, or will, impact their engagement with the sport.
• 42% say they have either stopped engaging with racing or will stop in the future. This is not just a barrier to our future audiences, but our existing one as well.
• When asked what would improve their opinion, the public response cited limiting use of the whip (35%) and ensuring strong penalties are in place (35%) as the top two requirements.

The most negative perceptions of the whip come from younger audiences, particularly those aged 18-34.

As with most organisations, the details of such reports are confidential, are used internally and are not generally shared in the public domain. There are sensitivities in what the research might show, how external detractors might use it against the sport, as well as commercial confidentiality issues.

The concept of public perception is often dismissed, but this is short-sighted and it will be a catastrophic mistake for the sustainability of the sport if that view is allowed to prevail. Those describing this as “pandering” or “the folly of public opinion” should consider one simple fact: The future of horseracing depends on retaining and growing our fanbase. Without fans, there is no sport.

Education is often cited as the answer, and we agree that steps must be taken. That is why we included facts around the whip in the HorsePWR campaign. More needs to be done, centrally and across all areas of the sport – everyone can play a part. But we should not convince ourselves that perception of this scale can be altered by education alone, especially with the resources available.

Riding under the new rules

Since the introduction of the new whip rules, the vast majority of jockeys have adapted well. Their ability to adjust their riding styles, while maintaining competitive performance, is commendable. Many jockeys will have ridden many times with very few or, in many cases, no breaches of the rules.

However, breaches do still occur, and when they do, the BHA must act decisively. The penalties are firm. We acknowledge this. We appreciate the impact on jockeys. But history and data show us that firm deterrents are needed in this area of the rules to prevent breaches.

There is a significantly higher likelihood of whip rule breaches among amateur, apprentice, conditional, and non-GB jockeys. Fully professional jockeys have accounted for 78% of rides but only 59% of offences. Apprentice and conditional jockeys are twice as likely to offend as professionals, and amateur and international riders nearly five times. The BHA is actively working to better educate these groups to reduce future infractions.

Disqualification

Disqualification is the most severe penalty available, and it is reserved for the most serious breaches. The decision to disqualify Alphonse Le Grande was not taken lightly. The whip was used four times above the permitted limit, for which there is no justification.

Disqualification was intended to act primarily as a deterrent to offences. In around 16,000 races there have been only three winning rides which have faced disqualification. In total there have been eight disqualifications from 150,000 runners.

Secondly, disqualification is designed to send a clear message that we do not tolerate overuse of the whip. This is an important message which we stand behind.

There has been an understandable reaction to the fact that the disqualification decision, as with all decisions referred to the Whip Review Committee, has taken place away from raceday.

After the initial recommendations from the Whip Consultation Steering Group were published, further consultations and technical discussions took place with various stakeholders, including jockeys, participants, customers, bookmakers, and racing broadcasters. A prevailing consensus emerged from these discussions that decisions on whip rule breaches should not be made on raceday. This was especially supported by the betting industry domestically and internationally, as well as by racing broadcasters.

By removing these decisions from raceday, the Whip Review Committee (WRC) can ensure a consistent process and approach to decision-making. The whip review consultation showed a clear majority view that there needs to be greater consistency. The WRC is a small group of people, reviewing rides on a regular basis. We have huge faith in our raceday stewards, but through this system consistency is inevitably increased.

This process also allows for checks and balances, such as determining whether the whip made contact, whether its use was for safety reasons, or if a particular usage should be counted, using a consistent methodology. This has proven vital in several cases, where potential incorrect disqualifications were avoided because the WRC found that certain whip uses should not be counted. A ride being wrongly disqualified would be a terrible outcome.

Moreover, British racing is part of a global racing environment. We rely increasingly on revenue that we generate as a sport from product fees and betting in other parts of the world through commingling arrangements. In our consultation we didn’t just consult with our own domestic customers and fans. We consulted globally and we received responses and feedback from around the world.

Strong views were shared with us by consumers and betting operators from other parts of the world, and in particular in Asia and the Far East, that our disqualifying a horse for a whip-related offence on a raceday would be something that they would have a lot of difficulty dealing with. To give that some perspective, an amount equal to around 10% of our annual betting revenue comes from 17 race days that are run by the World Pool alone. That’s not taking into account the views of all those other international consumers that are involved in other commingling arrangements every day.

So, we had to design a solution that struck a balance between the views of our domestic fans, broadcasters, customers, betting operators, our international consumers and our own participants.

In conclusion

We reiterate that we understand the broad range of views around what is an emotive topic. However, the BHA has a clear position on this issue. The foam-padded whip has a place in racing, with use for encouragement and safety. It is a tool for communication between horse and rider.

However, there must be strict controls on its use, and deterrents against misuse, to protect the fairness of our races, safeguard the welfare of the horses in our sport, protect its longevity  and improve public perception among the sport’s fans, present and future. This is why our rules are framed in the way they are.