Whip protest: Landmark decision or just common sense?

Saturday’s dead-heat whip protest decision against Blake Shinn immediately lit up social media. Phrases like ‘landmark decision’ were being used by those in mainstream media within minutes. Is this really that groundbreaking though, or is it just common sense that led to a just decision?

In my opinion, as soon as the protest was lodged by stewards on these grounds and the margin was a dead heat, it was a forgone conclusion that it would be upheld. The whip is used in racing to ensure a horse concentrates and therefore puts in its best effort. It has to then be concluded that with less use of it, in most cases the horse’s performance would not be at its full potential. So in this case, My Yankee Girl would not have made sufficient ground in the final stages of the race to draw level with Invincible Caviar. If stewards had dismissed their own protest, they’d be making a mockery of the whip rule.

The can of worms this decision now opens though is whether automatic relegation should occur if a dead heating jockey breached the rule, automatically placing that horse second.

If you ask me, if the rule is to have any integrity, that should be the case.

However, the conundrum that has existed for some time remains. Can a protest for whip breaches be upheld where a margin exists?

I’d say no, nothing changes. It’s impossible to quantify the impact of performance enhancement from the whip without reasonable doubt.

So why have a whip rule?

Where we come to is the debate that’s existed ever since whip rules came into play: whether there should be a rule at all.

In this case, it seems Shinn had no regard for the rule, using his whip more the double the amount of permitted times prior to the 100m mark. He’s not alone when you consider how many times this rule is breached by different jockeys on a regular basis.

It could be argued jockeys feel safer using the whip and keeping their mount under control, but more likely the lure of the win outweighs the associated penalties.

PROTEST: A protest has been lodged against Blake Shinn for use of the whip aboard My Yankee Girl.#CarboneLawyersProtest @carbonelawyers pic.twitter.com/UvE0UUNS9s

— Racing.com (@Racing) December 17, 2022

It’s my view that a whip is a necessary tool of the trade and should not be restricted in its use.

Over the years, whips have been modified to a point where no harm can be caused to the animal. For this reason I ask why the rules have become tighter. Is it simply to maintain an ‘image’?

Personally, I consider the rules ridiculous. Should a jockey need the whip to rectify a horses behaviour for safety reasons, but has used the amount of strikes allowed, are they to compromise their safety?

And in any case, when travelling in excess of 60 kilometres per hour on a beast weighing more than 500 kilograms, is it reasonable to expect a jockey to count strikes of the whip?

My views are just that, my views. The stewards have made it abundantly clear that no changes to rules or policies will be made following Saturday’s decision. Therein lies the problem. The current rules leave racing authorities ‘half pregnant’ on the issue.

One thing does seem clear: it’s the stewards’ view that excess use of the whip does enhance performance. If it didn’t, Saturday’s protest would not have been lodged or upheld.

For this reason, I think racing administrators have two options: either abolish the whip rules, or get serious and relegate or disqualify horses when the rule is breached to put everyone on a level playing field once again.