British racing is in turmoil after proposed new, more stringent whip rules were scrapped following opposition – mainly from jockeys. Looking to Scandinavia as a test case, international racing expert Geir Stabell argues for more radical action
Scandinavia is a small corner of the racing world – yet when it comes to the farcical whip debate once more dominating headlines in Britain, perhaps it is worth looking to the Nordic region to find a meaningful example.
Back in 1986, when I was publishing Scanform, a form book covering all races in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, a ban on the use of the whip was introduced in one of these jurisdictions (Norway).
It was a political decision, made by the Ministry of Agriculture – and it was irreversible. Like the majority of racing professionals, I was convinced the change would cause problems and be detrimental to the sport.
How wrong I was. The change actually helped save the sport in a country where it has been up against it on several snowy fronts for more than a century.
Without any question, the prevailing feeling at the time was that races staged without use of the whip would lead to fluky, less formful results with horses underperforming and showing little consistency.
As the ban came into force in Norway, the whip was still allowed in Sweden and Denmark. Thus we so-called experts also thought that horses would show improved form when shipped from Norway to compete in the neighbouring countries – and others might be reluctant to put in a good effort at the finish when returning to whipless events at home.
We were assuming these things – and we had a lot of support, particularly from riders, though the whip ban had come to stay, both in Thoroughbred racing and on the much bigger harness racing circuit.
However, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Slowly but surely we had to admit that we were badly mistaken. We had made assumptions based on theories, not facts, nor on any tests.
As the seasons went by the new rules were put to the test. Horses showed the same consistency as in the past, favourites were winning at about a 30% clip, like they had always done – and what about those shippers we thought would run so much better when being whipped?
Well, in short, hardly any of them did. Yes, there were a few examples of horses running better in Sweden than they did in Norway – but so few that we had to confess; we were probably dead wrong on this point as well. That a handful of horses did better at Täby Galopp, a flat US-style oval, than around the undulating Øvrevoll, could easily have more to do with the track configurations than with the whip.
Handicap figures showed that the form was just as reliable in races without the whip. There was absolutely no evidence supporting the theory that jockeys need to use whips to make horses run as fast as they can.
BHA's big step backwards
While this is an emotive subject that causes rancour across much of the racing world, Britain seems to have a unique ability to make a bad situation worse.
Witness recent developments. Giving in to pressure from the jockeys, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) last week went back on their decision to ban the use of the whip in a forehand position, a decision that had been announced last July.
This is a mistake, in my opinion. Not only is the BHA showing its weakness and losing credibility, they are taking a big step backwards in a field where racing badly needs to make a giant leap forward – in the public image department.
Let's face it, whipping animals is not acceptable in the real world. In June 2022, Premier League footballer Kurt Zouma was sentenced to 180 hours of community service after having kicked and slapped his cat. He was also banned from keeping cats for five years. Several voiced their opinion and said it should have been a lifetime ban.
A couple of weeks later, Frankie Dettori was found to have used the whip above the permitted level as he rode Stradivarius to a third-placed finish in the Ascot Gold Cup. Dettori was given a two-day suspension, while the horse kept its placing and the £53,800 that went with it. Back in 2011, Dettori hit the horse Rewilding 24 times when winning the G1 Prince Of Wales's Stakes. Frankie was banned for 11 days – but Rewilding kept the first prize of £227,080.
Dettori is by no means alone. Several top-flight jockeys have been banned for excessive whipping when winning valuable races. So why do they do this? Because they can't count?
No, it's because they know that they can break the rules and still win – and they are probably of the opinion that suspensions and fines are worth it. It is what is called a ‘win at all costs’ attitude – and the rules let it happen.
In Britain, the situation is similar when it comes to interference. Take the 2022 Norfolk Stakes as an example, when the winner, The Ridler, absolutely wiped out two rivals, yet was allowed to keep the race – even after an appeal.
Former champion jockey Paul Hanagan was given a ten-day suspension though, much like Dettori's ban after his win on Rewilding. Is there something fundamentally wrong here that needs fixing? Or shall we continue like this – saying to the world that it is absolutely fine for riders to whip away and bump away as much as they like in horse racing, even world-class riders in action during the world's finest racing week?
Apprentice testing ground
The whip rules announced last summer had not even been given a test period, yet now they’ve been scrapped. But actually, one can say that they had already been tested, as Britain has staged the 'hands and heels' series for apprentices for years – races where young riders have shown that it is perfectly possible to compete without the whip.
If these jockeys, still learning the trade, can manage without the whip, why can't fully fledged professionals? Does Britain have such moderate riders?
I don't think so. Britain, in fact, has one of the strongest jockey colonies in the world; there can be no doubt that they would be capable of adapting to new rules – if they wanted to. It's what they do all the time when riding abroad, under various differing sets of rules.
Jump jockey Tom Scudamore, who was on the BHA's Whip Consultation Steering Group, spoke to Sky Racing on January 5, expressing that he was pleased the BHA had reversed their decision and arguing that some riders would find it physically difficult to use the whip in a backhand position only.
But does it make sense to put riders who are struggling to use the whip for backhanders up on half a tonne of racing animal in the first place?
Partially blind
While racecourse attendances are dwindling, more and more people question the use of the whip, and those of us closely involved in the sport might have to admit to the fact that a life in racing has made us at least partially blind to so many things.
Like horses being whipped. To newcomers, it is often the first thing they notice. When I invited a friend to the races for the first time, straight after the first race, they said: “Why do they whip these horses?”
Why, indeed. Is there any evidence that horses run faster for being whipped? Moreover, to whom does it make perfect sense that a rider can be suspended and fined for excessive use of the whip when winning a big race, without the horse being disqualified?
If horse racing wants to survive, the sport needs to be more in line with the rest of society. Otherwise, it is no exaggeration to suggest our days may be numbered. The sport could conceivably be shut down, something that would certainly have happened in Norway if whips had not been banned 36 years ago.
Horse racing is still too far removed from the rest of the world. Get rid of the whip and it will go a long way towards getting rid of the problem.
• View previous articles in the View from the Rail series
Charles Hayward: No looking back – HISA is the only way forward
Charles Hayward: I do not believe Flightline has anything further to prove on the track
Nicholas Godfrey: Why the Breeders’ Cup was just a blip for Japan
View the latest TRC Global Rankings for horses / jockeys / trainers / sires