The Job Of Regulators Is To Regulate When it comes to regulation unanimity is desirable but rare. So it is the job of regulators to regulate. Seeking a green light from those they're supposed to be policing shouldn't be part of that job. If drink-driving limits get changed, the Gardai don't ask drivers first if it's OK. So proposed changes to the whip rules in Ireland represent an important test of regulatory authority. A 26 per cent rise in whip offences last year has prompted plans for the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board to introduce restrictions on the number of times a horse can be struck with a whip. Nine strikes will trigger a stewards enquiry. It effectively means jockeys are restricted to using the whip eight times. That's largely in line with Britain's rules which see the whip use restricted to seven strokes on the flat and eight over jumps. The authorities in France have cut the maximum use of the whip to five. The response here has been predictably far from unanimous agreement with the IHRB stance. The trainers body has said it doesn't like it. The Irish Jockeys Association strongly disagrees with the move, describing it as lacking foresight and predicting that the IHRB will rue the day decided to move on this. The IJA object both to the numerical restriction on whip use itself and how the move was announced. On whip use itself it argues that a blunt number restriction is an incorrect application of the way the rules should be used. It removes some discretion from race-day stewards because nine strikes will automatically trigger an enquiry. The jockeys body also has other measures which it feels could be examined instead as ways of changing incorrect use of the whip. It also, not unreasonably, has pointed out how riding styles generally hardly changed so significantly in 2018 that they would explain such a significant statistical rise in whip offences. They argue the rise must instead be a result of change in the way the rules are being enforced. That's something the IHRB strongly denies. These are credible points. A 26 per cent spike suggests significant behavioural change by jockeys which doesn't appear to be the case. Much less credible though is indignation at the IHRB's decision to proceed with plans for changing the rules without consultation or agreement. Irish racing is a small village. In such circumstances direct confrontation is usually swerved. So over the years it's little surprise the Turf Club's instinctive policy was to mostly tip-toe its way through regulatory minefields involving those it is charged with policing. The extensively amended Rule 212 is a notable exception. But generally speaking consensus rather than challenge has been the policy. Too often the result has been inertia, which is hardly surprising if those theoretically being regulated wind up in a situation where they are practically self-regulating. That isn't good for anyone. If these proposed new whip rules suggest an IHRB readiness to take the initiative more it would be no bad thing for a body which has seen its credibility undermined in recent years. No doubt in such a small village that will provoke accusations of high-handedness. But a certain remove is no harm when it comes to regulation. And in relative terms changing the whip rules to include a numerical trigger point is pretty small beer. For one thing all it does is bring Ireland into line with most of the rest of Europe, especially Britain and France. Yes, it's possible to take an everyone's out of step except us attitude about this. But that's the sort of self-indulgent position US racing adopts when it comes to medication, one that has left it glaringly out of kilter with the rest of the world. The IHRB has pointed out that hitting a horse nine times or over won't automatically result in a penalty. If strikes are used to correct a horse from running out for instance those won't be taken into account. That seems a reasonable a position to take as concluding that eight strikes are sufficient to exploit the most a horse has to give in most everyday scenarios. The major problem of course remains those big race situations when the pressure to win is greatest. Evidence is abundant that if the prize is big enough, jockeys are quite prepared to take whatever penalties are dished out in return for getting a major race in the bag. There's going to be intense attention on whip use at Cheltenham: does anyone really believe that current penalties will prevent most jockeys from doing what they feel has to be done to win there? That's why the most meaningful change to whip regulations any jurisdiction can introduce is disqualification for any rider who breaks the rules. There is no other sporting environment where one protagonist can break the rules, beat someone playing fair, and still gets to win. It is fundamentally illogical. However that continues to remain a step much too far for all jurisdictions. In its own terms though attempts to modify use of the whip along the lines the IHRB is proposing are hardly radical. Like it or loathe it this is the way the issue is going. It's no surprise professionals at the coalface are resistant to change, just as it is no surprise that the bodies representing them argue the point for their own self-interest. But those charged with the overall administration and regulation of the sport should be expected to take a broader perspective. Trying to keep onside various sectional interests while also trying to pursue a path of what's best in the long term isn't always possible. So if everyone isn't on board leadership and judgement are required. In regulatory terms the suspicion has long been that such leadership and judgement hasn't always been exercised. A move to get Ireland's whip regulations into line with its European neighbours is hardly draconian and chimes with international efforts to keep racing in step with changing broader social attitudes. It looks like regulators regulating, which is what they're supposed to do. All such matters are put in perspective though by the sad passing of the IHRB's security official Willie Buckley who died after falling ill at Dundalk on Friday evening. He was a popular man and one of the many often unheralded figures who are fundamental to the effective running of the sport. Sincere sympathies go to this family and friends.
