Elsevier

Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Volume 8, Issue 5, September–October 2013, Pages 395-399
Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Short Communication
A note on the force of whip impacts delivered by jockeys using forehand and backhand strikes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2013.03.003Get rights and content

Abstract

The Australian Racing Board makes a distinction under its Rules of Racing concerning whip use between forehand and backhand whip action that is critically important: before the final 100 m of a race, the whip shall be used in a forehand manner neither in consecutive strides nor on more than 5 occasions. This seems to imply that backhand whip use is less closely scrutinized, which may have profound implications for horse welfare. We used pressure-detection pads to examine the force on the impact of 288 whip strikes (left forehand, left backhand, right forehand, and right backhand; n = 72 each) in batches of 12 consecutive strikes by 6 right-handed jockeys based in Victoria, a state in which thoroughbred racing is always conducted in a counterclockwise direction. The mean latency (±standard error of the mean) to complete each series of 12 strikes was 6.89 ± 0.44 seconds. The mean for force was 46.90 ± 5.39 N. Significant differences in force emerged between individual jockeys and in most interactions between jockey, hand and action. This highlights the problems the industry has in trying to enforce equity in whip use to satisfy punters while at the same time giving reassurances about horse welfare. The current results show that action (forehand vs. backhand) does not influence force on impact when using the nondominant hand. However, when using the dominant hand, these jockeys struck with more force in the backhand (P = 0.02). This result challenges the current focus on welfare concerns around forehand whip strikes. It should inform any review of the rules around whip use because it may help to avoid any unjustified focus on either forehand whip use or backhand whip use. This would help to inform the debate around levels of impact on fatigued horses when they are being struck for a perceived sporting gain.

Introduction

It has been proposed that whipping tired horses in the name of sport is becoming increasingly difficult to justify (Jones and McGreevy, 2010), not least because whip use is associated with horse falls in hurdle and steeplechase racing (Pinchbeck et al., 2004). Recent evidence from races of 1200 and 1250 m has shown that horses, on average, achieved highest speeds in the 600-400 m section (from the finish) when there was no whip use, and increased whip use was most frequent in the final two 200-m sections when horses were fatigued (Evans and McGreevy, 2011). The same data set showed that horses were more likely to be struck in the penultimate 200 m of races if they were being ridden by apprentice jockeys and if they were drawn closer to the rail (McGreevy and Ralston, 2012). Also, there is evidence that those further from the rail have slower race times (Martin et al., 1996), so one would expect those horses to need more whipping if indeed it was effective in remediating deviations in path caused by having to run on the outside of a bend (McGreevy and Ralston, 2012). In a similar vein, the effectiveness of the whip in steering the racing horse has been brought into doubt by data showing that handedness of riders, not direction of racing, is the primary driver, of whip–hand preference (McGreevy and Oddie, 2011). More recently, a detailed analysis of 109 whip strikes has shown that the whip caused a visible indentation on 83% of impacts, and the unpadded section of the whip made contact on 64% of impacts (McGreevy et al., 2012a). This is an important finding given the British Horseracing Authority's (BHA) description of the padded whip as the pain-free whip (BHA, 2011a). In summary, recent empirical studies have called into question the ability of stewards to effectively police the rules concerning whip use and, more importantly, have challenged the notion that padding the distal section of whips completely safeguards horses from any possible whip-related pain.

Whip use is monitored by stewards who, not least, must ensure that a horse is “ridden out” (also known as “ridden on its merits”). Intuitively, this seems to represent a bid to comfort punters that the horse is in no way being hampered by its rider from showing its optimal form on the day. In Australia, under the current whip rules (which have been in place since 2009), the Australian Racing Board (ARB) stewards may penalize any rider who in a race, official trial, jumpout or trackwork, or elsewhere uses his whip in an excessive, unnecessary, or improper manner. Beyond this subrule, the detailed rules concerning whip use are that the stewards may penalize any rider who in a race, official trial, or jumpout uses his whip:

  • 1.

    forward of his horse's shoulder or in the vicinity of its head; or

  • 2.

    using an action that raises his arm above shoulder height; or

  • 3.

    when his horse is out of contention; or

  • 4.

    when his horse is showing no response; or

  • 5.

    after passing the winning post; or

  • 6.

    causing injury to his horse; or

  • 7.

    when his horse is clearly winning; or

  • 8.

    has no reasonable prospect of improving or losing its position; or

  • 9.

    in such a manner that the seam of the flap is the point of contact with the horse, unless the rider satisfies the stewards that this was neither deliberate nor reckless.

In the final 100 m of a race, a rider may use his whip at his discretion. The stewards may penalize any rider who in a race, official trial, jumpout or trackwork, or elsewhere uses his whip in an excessive, unnecessary, or improper manner.

Many of these elements are echoed in the BHA Rules of Racing (BHA, 2011b), but it is worth noting that several are controversial. For example, no definition of being “out of contention” is offered by either set of rules and therefore is open to considerable interpretation. This may be why a study of horses racing over 1200 and 1250 m has shown that 98% horses were whipped within the rules and therefore were officially in contention (Evans and McGreevy, 2011). By way of a further example, the last of the elements (item “9”) in the aforementioned list is presumably difficult to police because one has to be very close to the whip to know how exactly it is aligned with the horse's skin at the time of impact. McGreevy et al., 2012a, McGreevy et al., 2012b reported that 2 observers examining high-speed video footage concurred on less than 1% of possible cases of seam contact. The use of the whip in either a forehand action or a backhand action may be less difficult to discern. It is characterized by the way the whip is gripped by the jockey's hand. Forehand whip use is defined by the thumb pointing down the shaft of the whip (like a tennis racquet), whereas backhand whip is carried like a ski pole (Figure 1).

The distinction between forehand and backhand whip action is of critical importance under the ARB's Rules of Racing (ARB, 2011). The ARB rules state that before the 100-m mark, the whip shall not be used in a forehand manner in consecutive strides; the whip shall not be used in a forehand manner more than on 5 occasions; and the rider may at his discretion use the whip with a slapping motion down the shoulder, with the whip hand remaining on the reins, or alternatively in a backhand manner.

One can see how stewards' enquiries and penalties that ensue from them may depend solely on whether the action of the whip was deemed by the stewards to have been forehand or backhand. However, it is possible that the rules have inadvertently encouraged jockeys to use backhand rather than forehand actions to avoid being penalized. Indeed, McGreevy et al. (2012a) reported that in 69% of whip strikes the preferred grip was holding the whip like a ski pole. This is diagnostic of backhand whip use and therefore confirms the predominance of a whip action that largely grants immunity from the rules that limit the number of whip strikes and the use of the whip with consecutive strides before the 100-m mark (i.e., 100 m from the winning post). These data suggest that the current focus on forehand whip use has lost some relevance.

The present study explored the differences in forehand and backhand whip action as they apply force at the level of the horses themselves. It used pressure-detection technology embedded on a static model horse to examine the force a sample of Australian jockeys apply with padded whips, using forehand and backhand strikes to the gluteal region.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Six jockeys (4 males and 2 females) licensed to ride in Victoria were recruited for the study. All the jockeys were right handed. Aged between 22 and 43 years (mean, 33.8 ± 7.8), they had been riding between 18 and 40 years (mean, 27.7 ± 8.3).

Each jockey was asked to sit in a racing saddle on a model horse and given the following instructions:

  • 1.

    The purpose of this study is to compare the pressures created by whip strikes in the “forehand” grip to those in the “backhand” grip for both dominant and

Analysis

SPSS, version 18 (IBM Statistics, Armonk, NY) was used for all analyses. Force data required log transformation to make them normally distributed. Significant main effects of jockey and hand (left or right) were investigated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for log force in either a forehand whip action or a backhand whip action. A post hoc Bonferroni test was used to isolate any significant differences between individual jockeys for each of the dependent variables. For these analyses, the

Results

The mean (±standard error of the mean) for force was 46.90 ± 5.39 N. The mean latency to complete each series was 6.89 ± 0.44 seconds. The force applied during right backhand, right forehand, left backhand, and left forehand whip strikes are shown in Table 1. Missing data reflect instances where the impact of the whip damaged the equipment.

The 6 jockeys' application of force is illustrated in Figure 3. The ANOVA showed that for force using a forehand whip action, there was a significant main

Discussion

The angle at which the whip struck the piezoresistive sensor tiles in the pressure pads may well have depended on the jockey's individual action. The tiles are designed to measure forces perpendicular to the sensor tile so must underestimate the forces being applied if the whip strike is glancing. Those jockeys who used a more glancing action would record lower force than those who were inclined to strike the horse more directly. This limitation of the technology means that all measurements

Conclusion

The current results show that action (forehand vs. backhand) does not influence force on impact when using the nondominant hand. However, when using the dominant hand, these jockeys struck with more force in the backhand. This result challenges the current focus on welfare concerns around forehand whip strikes. Rules of racing that limit only forehand whip use cannot be relied up on to safeguard horse welfare.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the 6 jockeys and Ms. Louise Nunn of the North Melbourne Institute of Technology for granting us permission to use the Institute's horse simulator. We are also grateful to Callie Rulli for her technical assistance and 2 anonymous referees for their feedback on earlier versions of this article.

References (24)

  • British Horseracing Authority

    Responsible Regulation: A Review of the Use of the Whip in Horseracing

    (2011)
  • British Horseracing Authority, 2011b. Race Manual (B) Schedule 6—causing interference and improper use of whip....
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text