'Unnecessary, unjustifiable, unreasonable': Racing's whip rule makes no sense at all

I work in the racing industry and can assure you Thoroughbreds are equally as sensitive to pain as humans but unlike humans' racehorses are required to perform under duress because they have no choice ... nailing aluminium plates into fragile hoof tissue and placing instruments of torture in a horse's delicate mouth are significantly more painful than whipping The problem I have with the whip is the perception by the general public that it is unnecessary and cruel ... if we are to survive, we need to be mindful of how we are perceived by our stakeholders and more importantly, the next generation of race-goers, influencers and policy makers

If the same as any argument in the nanny state. On one side you have the Conservatives who like the way things are or were. On the other you've got the do-gooders, wokes and corrupt self interested types. I've stopped listening.

I tend to avoid writing about horse welfare for two reasons. First of all I have no experience with horses on a day to day basis, and secondly greyhound and horse racing are to some extent competitors. Therefore I feel much more comfortable writing about greyhound welfare than horses, where my position could be criticized as a conflict of interest. In saying that, my writings on the Roar were extremely successful, on a topic where every politician, journo and academic had their say, at the end of the days the successful reforms implemented were more or less based on what I wrote, so I kinda feel I don't have more to add. So don't be discouraged, but do be your own harshest, but fair, critic. We'll agree to disagree on the research articles, I just don't agree that it's a reasonable extrapolation with all we know about pain processing. In saying that, I really don't think that they can answer the questions you're asking with indirect methods which at a basic level is "when does the force applied with the whip go from a mechanical sensation to a painful one". After all, rushing to find a proxy for pain has been the downfall of many attempts of the pharma industry to produce better painkillers.

Nathan, I think the position advocated about the similarity of anatomical structures as reflecting a similar capacity to feel pain (ie. how transduction of pain occurs) was a reasonable one to make (and for me to repeat given the blanket ‘can’t / doesn’t hurt them narrative trotted out by some in racing’). It obviously involves other mechanisms to result in ‘felt pain’ as you said (and which were not tested). I couldn’t agree more in principal about ‘research’ but racing authorities have rejected research proposals to build a more rigorous evidence base for over 30 years. They have also perpetuated the ‘opinion only’ discussion of the use of the whip in racing over the same period. You won’t find any authorities encouraging a discussion & analysis such as yours which begs the question ‘why not’. Perhaps the starting hypothesis of whip use in racing needs to be flipped - that the whip should only be used if there is evidence that it causes no harm (pain)? And perhaps this would help shed light on Racing’s proposition about the physiological mechanisms that ‘prevents a horse from feeling pain but does not stop it from feeling ‘encouragement’ (as opinioned by McGreevey et al.) I also agree that there are other equine welfare issues that need attention (that have more consequential outcomes) and will pen an article about that soon :) Perhaps you should too - to encourage debate and discussion about Racing on roar.

So, my personal view is that if a race consists of a number of horses, one of them will win and two will place regardless of whether the jockeys are allowed to use the whip or not. From the punters perspective, it changes how you might analyze the performance of a horse and predict their odds, but it won't fundamentally change your profits or losses on the work you put in. I have no issue with whatever the authorities decide the rule to be. However, the science you have presented here is, in my opinion, well short of the evidence base that ought to be used as a threshold to change policy. Taking the second paper first, without a sensitivity analysis the statistical methods ought not to be used to draw such a conclusion. The average difference between the two groups is half a second, several lengths, but they find no statistical difference. But the lack of a statistical difference does not mean there's no difference between groups, just that the variation in the way they've normalized there samples is too great to detect a difference in the margins that many, if not most, races are decided by. The conclusions that are drawn are simply not justified by the data presented. The first paper is, in my view, a superficial method in drawing conclusions about the pain sensing in the horse compared to the human. Even the most simple pain models will not draw on the number of sensory fibres on the skin as a proxy for pain. It doesn't even answer the simplest of questions such as how much force is required to initiate action potential propagation, let alone how many excitatory inputs are required for a pain sensation. It's interesting information, solid analysis but nowhere near enough to draw the conclusions that humans and horses will have similar pain thresholds. Now, personally, I don't think that there are major animal welfare consequences in banning the whip. However, there are other situations where changing practices can have severe negative animal welfare consequences. I think it's very important as a general principle that racing insists on high quality evidence when making changes that impact animal welfare, as poor quality studies or overinterpretation of data has in the not too distant past led to quite profound negative consequences.

Max Power, If it's true the primary purpose of the whip is to straighten horses, then why don't riders use them in show jumping & 3 day cross country eventing, for example? I know these above events don't require speed, but the principle of your suggestion still applies.

i wish there was no whip but jockeys who risj their lives say it is an essentail safety tool to straighten horses

somehow you have used the whip rule to go on a rant about your favourite racing issues

Sadly Sheek, I think we’ve been tarred with the same historical brush and are destined to live in modern racing’s purgatory. I just wish I could find some credit to give when industry insiders (like James McDonald) argue that the padded whip “prevents the horse from feeling pain but does not stop it from feeling encouragement” (courtesy of McGreevy & co). Clearly those that prosecute this argument have a hide far thicker than a horse’s ……

Ross Wright, I’m with you. Racing exists purely for gambling. Originally, rich folk back in the early 1700s in England (& certainly earlier elsewhere, eg, Roman times) would match-race their champions & bet huge wagers on the outcome. As more rich folk became involved, modern thoroughbred racing as we know it evolved. The folk who developed this industry made no bones that it was about wagering above all else. By extension, the use of the whip is also gambling related. If there was no money resting on the outcome of any race, then whips would be surplus to requirements. But since there is money to be won or lost, whipping a horse becomes necessary. And isn’t it just like humans, whether they be owners, trainers or jockeys, to say it doesn’t hurt a horse. Really? And the horses agree with this? Has anyone asked them? Oh hang on, they can’t talk. Except Mr. Ed. And his thoughts are lost to history. I came into racing as an aesthetic lover in the mid-60s. I loved the champion horses, the great jockeys & trainers. I loved the variety of different distances, eg, 1200m, 2000m, 3200m, etc, & racing conditions, eg, hcp, wfa, set weight, etc. But over the past 50 years racing has changed for the worse as a spectacle. Oz has followed the US by becoming obsessed with shorter distances over longer distances. Now our racing is infested with short distance races from 1000-1600m. The Melbourne Cup run over 3200m may not last another 25 years! Simply because, fewer & fewer horses are bred to stay. At present we rely on European horses to provide the quality in the Cup field, with Oz & NZ breeders having abandoned the idea of breeding stayers. Adding to this, owners, trainers & breeders now want quick turnarounds (all money related), retiring champion 3yos to stud to begin the breeding process all over again. The removal of good horses too early robs the racing industry of champions racing against champions. It’s no surprise the last 3 great champion horses of the track in Oz have all been mares – Winx, Black Caviar & Maybe Diva – because mares can only produce one foal per year. Obviously, their value at stud, & to the industry, is so much lower than that of a potential great stud stallion, who can impregnate dozens & dozens of mares each year. And to compensate for the bland homogenisation on the track, promoters fill our TV screens with corporate bookie gambling ads, & sell a day at the races as “getting drunk & picking up a chick” type of entertainment. And also ‘lose your money’ which is tacitly not mentioned at all. I would ban the whip altogether. But of course, this won’t happen. It’s all about the wagering, after all. The rights & welfare of the horse is an afterthought. As always.