Whip Rule Breaches in a Major Australian Racing Jurisdiction: Welfare and Regulatory Implications.

Jennifer Hood,Bethany Wilson,Phil Mcmanus,Paul Mcgreevy,Carolyn Mcdonald

doi:10.3390/ani7010004

Jennifer Hood, Bethany Wilson + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7010004

Copy DOI

Abstract

Simple SummaryAn evidence-based analysis of whip rule breaches in horse racing is needed to address community expectations that racehorses are treated humanely. The study provides the first peer-reviewed characterisation of whip rule breaches and their regulatory outcomes in horseracing, and considers the relationship between rules affecting racing integrity and the welfare of racehorses in a major Australian racing jurisdiction.Whip use in horseracing is increasingly being questioned on ethical, animal welfare, social sustainability, and legal grounds. Despite this, there is weak evidence for whip use and its regulation by Stewards in Australia. To help address this, we characterised whip rule breaches recorded by Stewards using Stewards Reports and Race Diaries from 2013 and 2016 in New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). There were more recorded breaches at Metropolitan (M) than Country (C) or Provincial (P) locations, and by riders of horses that finished first, second, or third than by riders of horses that finished in other positions. The most commonly recorded breaches were forehand whip use on more than five occasions before the 100-metre (m) mark (44%), and whip use that raises the jockey’s arm above shoulder height (24%). It is recommended that racing compliance data be analysed annually to inform the evidence-base for policy, education, and regulatory change, and ensure the welfare of racehorses and racing integrity.

Highlights

The use of whips in horse racing is increasingly being challenged on ethical, welfare [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11], social sustainability [10], and legal grounds [8]
Breeder Owner Bonus Scheme (BOBS) refers to the BOBS in New South Wales (NSW) and includes BOBS Extra incentive scheme [22]; breach refers to a breach of the Australian Rules of Racing (AR) whip rules recorded in the Stewards Reports, as distinct from a breach that may have occurred but was not recorded; breach code refers to the code we used to denote each whip rule; first breach refers to the first breach recorded by the Stewards in a start; location refers to whether the race track was at a Country (C), Metropolitan (M), or Provincial (P)
In their paper “Science alone is not always enough; the importance of ethical assessment for a more comprehensive view of equine welfare” [11], Heleski and Anthony quote Grandin’s saying that it is easy for “bad to become normal” [48]. This multi-disciplinary study provides the first peer-reviewed characterisation of whip rule breaches recorded by Stewards and their regulatory outcomes in horseracing

Summary

Introduction

The use of whips in horse racing is increasingly being challenged on ethical, welfare [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11], social sustainability [10], and legal grounds [8]. The ability of the whip to achieve these goals remains unproven [8], while there is evidence that striking a horse with a padded racing whip would be at least aversive and at worst, possibly painful [4,13,14]. 83% of whip strikes caused indentations of the skin of the horses whipped, and comparative studies in mice and humans showed such deformation is likely to be detected by cutaneous nociceptors [13], as did a recent study in horses [14]. There has been strong criticism of whip use Animals 2017, 7, 4; doi:10.3390/ani7010004 www.mdpi.com/journal/animals

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion