As the Melbourne Cup approaches, a unique atmosphere pervades this year’s event, largely shaped by the ongoing COVID-19 situation. However, one persistent element, an annual reappearance of apprehension regarding equine welfare, is something we anticipate will remain unchanged.
In the days leading up to the Cup, the Victorian parliament has been apprised of accusations suggesting that retired thoroughbreds continue to meet their end at knackeries and abattoirs within New South Wales, as reported by The Guardian.
Gerry Harvey, the billionaire executive chairman of Harvey Norman, has reportedly issued an apology after one of his former racehorses was dispatched to a pet food processing facility for slaughter. This occurred despite the racing industry in the state having instituted prohibitions against such practices in 2017. These are not isolated incidents; this is not the first time such disturbing instances have come to light.
Beyond these disclosures, enduring worries persist concerning the historical methods employed in the riding of racehorses over the past century. Specifically, the utilisation of the whip to “motivate” horses to achieve greater velocity and maintain a more consistent trajectory has been demonstrated to carry potential for both discomfort and peril.
Our research, published yesterday within the esteemed journal Animals, involved an in-depth analysis of over one hundred race reports to ascertain precisely how the application of the whip impacts the dynamics of a competitive race.
We concluded that whips exert no discernible influence on a horse’s directional control, jockey security, or even their speed. Our findings provide scientific evidence that corroborates Racing Victoria’s recently unveiled initiative to progressively discontinue whip usage, with the ultimate aim of reserving whips solely for situations of absolute necessity.
Rationales offered by the equestrian fraternity
Proponents of whip usage, including entities such as Racing Australia and the British Horseracing Authority, assert its indispensability for the safety of both horses and riders. They posit that it facilitates the directional guidance required to mitigate potential collisions between equines on the track.
An additional rationale presented is that whipping enhances equine acceleration, a factor considered foundational to racing integrity. Within an industry generating billions and intrinsically linked to wagering, all stakeholders—encompassing bettors, trainers, breeders, and owners—seek assurance that the horse they have financially committed to will have every possible advantage to secure victory.
For a substantial segment of racing enthusiasts, any transgression against “integrity” and the notion of a horse not being fully “tested” to its capabilities is perceived as equally illicit as equine doping or a race being manipulated through other clandestine methods.
The escalating significance of thoroughbred welfare
However, the welfare of animals is also paramount to the concept of racing integrity, according to the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities and various other equestrian governing bodies.
Racing stewards occupy a challenging position, tasked with upholding equine welfare standards during races while simultaneously ensuring that whips are applied to afford each competitor a complete opportunity to triumph.
Across all officially sanctioned races in Australia, comprehensive regulations govern the permissible quantity and stylistic execution of whip strikes at different junctures of the racecourse.
Past research endeavours have predominantly focused on the precision of jockeys, their adherence to whip regulations, the correlation between whip use and catastrophic dismounts capable of inflicting severe injury or fatality upon horses or riders, and crucially, the question of whether whipping inflicts pain.
Yet, until this juncture, few investigations have delved into the efficacy of whips. This oversight stems from a historical lack of scientific methodologies to empirically test the deeply ingrained cultural assumption of their effectiveness.
Equestrian contests without whip augmentation
Nevertheless, since 1999, a segment of racing in Great Britain has embraced a whip-free format through the “hands and heels” racing series, specifically designed for apprentice jockeys. In this racing paradigm, riders are permitted to carry whips but are restricted from employing them, except under extenuating circumstances, such as the imperative to avert a collision.
Following each race, stewards compile an official report detailing any atypical or unconventional jockey conduct (which may or may not have influenced the race outcome), any breaches of racing rules by jockeys, the movement patterns of horses on the track, instances of interference between competitors, and any veterinary concerns.
We meticulously examined reports pertaining to 126 races, encompassing a total of 1,178 participants (horses and their riders). This dataset included all 67 “hands and heels” (whipping-free) races conducted between January 2017 and December 2019. For these specific events, we were able to identify and match 59 traditional “whipping-permitted” races for comparative analysis.
Consequently, we were positioned to juxtapose the performance metrics of racehorses under both “whipping-free” and “whipping-permitted” conditions, within authentic racing scenarios, thereby discerning whether whip employment enhances equine steerability, rider safety, and/or the probability of winning.
Our findings revealed no statistically significant disparities concerning equine directional control on the course, interfence between horses, the incidence of events linked to jockey behaviour, or average race completion times.
In essence, the application of whips had no discernible impact on steering, safety, or speed. This directly challenges long-standing conventional wisdom, suggesting that the practice of whipping racehorses is, in fact, ineffective.
The Path Forward
Our conclusions underscore the imperative for augmented support for whipping-free racing events. Critically, they indicate that a potential prohibition of whip use would not carry negative repercussions for horses, riders, or the overarching integrity of the sport.
“Whipping-free” races are distinct from “whip-free” races. While some may advocate for contests entirely devoid of whips, a mutually agreeable compromise would involve permitting jockeys to carry whips, but restricting their use to situations wherein their personal safety is imperiled.
This measured approach has already been successfully implemented in Norway, where whipping-free races have been staged for over three decades without any detrimental consequences being observed.
Considering the evolution of societal values, we strongly believe that transitioning to a whipping-free methodology is indispensable for the future viability of an industry fundamentally reliant on a social license to operate.
Kirrilly Thompson, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, University of South Australia; Bethany Wilson, Honorary Affiliate, University of Sydney; Paul McGreevy, Professor of Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare Science, University of Sydney, and Phil McManus, Professor of Urban and Environmental Geography: School of Geosciences, University of Sydney
