Whip Use in Thoroughbred Racing

James Willoughby gives his reaction to Victor Espinoza's ride on American Pharoah from the other side of the Atlantic

The minimum requirement for responsible use of the whip is that the horse be given time to respond. Victor Espinoza's actions in the Kentucky Derby suggest he was not mindful of this internationally accepted principle, detailed here andhere. 

Espinoza became the latest rider around the world to jeopardize an important facet of the sport's ethical defence when he hit American Pharaoh approximately 30 times at Churchill Downs. The number of strokes was arguably not the most egregious aspect; rather, it was the overwhelming impression that Espinoza was working on the horse–not with him. 

Thoroughbred racing would be denatured if the whip were ever banned. Horses are not cognisant of the ambitions of a race, but it is part of their eternal appeal that they are mostly complicit with them. The sport depends on this because a horse's will to win is at least as important to the essence of competition as its natural ability to run. 

If the sport isn't particularly careful, use of the whip may be demonised and its important role forever misapprehended. 
This isn't a problem specific to U.S. racing. In thrall to the ambition of winning, jockeys in many countries and jurisdictions have been guilty of injudicious use of the whip over the years. 

Nobody can ever forget Frankie Dettori's absurd barrage in the 1998 GI Breeders' Cup Classic which caused Swain to hang across the track and forfeit victory. On that occasion, many U.S. writers rightly took Dettori to task. Are we to understand from the muted response to this incident that the end justifies the means with American Pharoah? 

And here in Britain, even A.P. McCoy, the recently retired jumps jockey proclaimed as the best ever, was once banned for striking Deano's Beano “approximately 50 times” in a vain attempt to get the notoriously lazy hurdler to jump off for a race at Cheltenham which was nationally televised. 

Gradually, there has been an awakening among rules-makers globally, usually provoked by high-profile cases, that the sport must be proactive in aligning its ethics more with those of the world which surrounds it. And, when the rest of the world queries any of its practices, it should be able to stand up for what it does with intelligence. 

It is no longer going to wash to say 'this is the way it has always been done' or 'we know what is best.' Just like every other pursuit in the world, racing must have a robust, well-considered defense for its practices which can remain true to racing tradition without being hidebound by it. 

Indeed, whatever the local values held about the sport, surely nobody would stand up for hitting a horse without giving it time to respond. 

The other jockeys in the Kentucky Derby didn't flail away at their mounts like Espinoza. The brilliant Gary Stevens got everything out of runner-up Firing Line while his mount responded gamely; the highly impressive Joel Rosario produced a tremendous run on fourth-placed Frosted which showcased man and horse working as one. Neither rider was excessive; neither rider conducted a one-sided communication but a dialogue through action and reaction which elevated man and horse. 

Stevens, to his credit, has worked with the California stewards to draw up whip rules motivated by the response of the horse which will be enforced from July 1. This is something of which racing in the U.S. should be proud, and which should be adopted in every U.S. state. It was disappointing to read that the chief steward of Churchill Downs said: “We watched [the Derby] many, many times before making it official and [Espinoza's use of the whip] wasn't anything that got our attention.” 

Even though whip rules in Britain are more stringent than in the U.S., especially since their 2012 revision, the issue of whip use is on the national political radar. A motion tabled in January was signed by 66 MPs to ban jockeys using the whip to “improve their chances of winning.” 

Even more recently, new scientific research in Australia has suggested that a racehorse's pain receptors may be more sensitive than previously supposed. There is some suspicion of the independence of the authorship as regards pressure groups, but the point remains that this is an era in which old values can be re-examined in the light of new evidence, and it behooves racing wherever it takes place to have an intelligent response to potential criticism. 

Without the whip, racing would be denied some of its most intense moments. It's hard to believe that its proper, measured application with modern, air-cushioned whips is traumatic for racehorses, especially within the context of the adrenalin-rush of competition, despite the conclusions of the Australian report. 

However, responding to Espinoza's use of the whip as if it represents nothing potentially detrimental to the sport's reputation is dubious, because he did not give American Pharoah time to respond. Even if you believe in the rider's good intentions, it is time to establish global unanimity on this point.