animals

Article
Whip Rule Breaches in a Major Australian Racing
Jurisdiction: Welfare and Regulatory Implications
Jennifer Hood 1, *, Carolyn McDonald 1 , Bethany Wilson 1 , Phil McManus 2 and Paul McGreevy 1
1 Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Room 206, R.M.C. Gunn Building,
Sydney 2006, New South Wales, Australia; [email protected] (C.M.);
[email protected] (B.W.); [email protected] (P.M.)
2 School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Room 435, F09, Madsen Building,
Sydney 2006, New South Wales, Australia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-0410-892-223

Academic Editor: Clive J. C. Phillips

Received: 26 September 2016; Accepted: 4 January 2017; Published: 16 January 2017

Simple Summary: An 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.

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: animal welfare; horseracing; racing integrity; whip rule breaches; whip use

1. Introduction
The use of whips in horse racing is increasingly being challenged on ethical, welfare [1–11], social
sustainability [10], and legal grounds [8]. Industry proponents argue “acceptable use of the whip . . .
means that the whip is used for safety (of both jockey and horse) or to encourage the horse to perform
to its best when in contention” [12] (p. 5). 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]. An Australian study by McGreevy et al. [4] found
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].
Increasingly, the community is concerned with the humane treatment of animals and, indeed,
there are growing calls for the whip to be banned [15,16]. There has been strong criticism of whip use

Animals 2017, 7, 4; doi:10.3390/ani7010004 www.mdpi.com/journal/animals

Animals 2017, 7, 4 2 of 25

by some experienced industry observers [17], and RSPCA Australia “is opposed to the use of whips
on racehorses for the purpose of enhancing performance as they inflict pain and distress” [18].
Self-regulation of the Australian horseracing industry means Stewards enforce the whip rules,
including interpreting and determining penalties. Since 2009, there have been a number of controversial
reforms made to whip rules in Australia. While these have sought to restrict the number and type of
whip strikes allowed, like the whip rules, they are not evidence-based. Indeed, there is a paucity of
published data on whip use in Australia (and worldwide), including regulatory outcomes.
In “Responsible Regulation: A Review of the use of the whip in Horseracing” (UK Review) [19],
a statistical analysis of whip offences was provided. In their critique of this report, Jones et al. [8] argued
the UK Review was not “a “scientific”, peer-reviewed paper” and concluded “further independent
scientific review is needed to reach definitive conclusions about whip use on racehorse welfare”. In its
defence, the UK Review at least provided some useful statistics on whip use in the UK that, up until
the current study, have not been readily available for racing in Australia.
Our study examined data from Racing NSW Stewards Reports (Stewards Reports) [20] and Racing
NSW Race Diary (Race Diary) [21] for 2013 (and for 4 months in 2016) in New South Wales (NSW) and
the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), which is a major horseracing jurisdiction in Australia. To the
authors’ knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed study to characterise whip use from a regulatory
and welfare perspective.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources

Stewards Reports [20] 1 January 2013–31 December 2013, and 1 January 2016–30 April 2016, were
examined to identify numbers and types of breaches of the Australian Rules of Racing (AR) pertaining
to whip use and their regulatory outcomes, in each race at every Racing NSW race meeting. Other
information, including Racing NSW Breeder Owner Bonus Scheme (BOBS) [22], prize money details,
and lengths of races, was obtained from the Race Diary [21].

2.2. Other Terms Used

BOBS refers to the BOBS in NSW and includes BOBS Extra incentive scheme [22];
breach refers to a breach of the 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 (see Table 1);
first breach refers to the first breach recorded by the Stewards in a start (see below);
location refers to whether the race track was at a Country (C), Metropolitan (M), or Provincial (P)
location as defined in the NSW Local Rules of Racing (LR); C includes races in the ACT (these were
excluded from the BOBS analysis as the BOBS status of races in the ACT is not routinely provided in
the Race Diary);
prize money won refers to the total prize money won by an individual horse in a race;
riders refers to both jockeys and apprentices;
repeat offender refers to a rider who has more than one whip rule breach recorded in 2013, and
includes those with second breaches (see below);
Rules of Racing refers to Racing NSW’s Rules of Racing and includes the AR and the LR [23];
second breach refers to a breach following a first breach in a start;
start refers to a start by an individual horse in a race;
the 100-metre (m) mark refers to the start of the final 100 m before the finishing post;
total prize money on offer refers to the total prize money offered for a race (including all place getters);
whip rules refers to AR 137A. (1)–(9) current in 2013 (see Table 1 for breach codes used);
$ refers to Australian dollars.
Animals 2017, 7, 4 3 of 25

Table 1. Whip rules breached in 348 first breaches.

Breach Code Whip Rules Breached Whip Rule Description Number (out of 348) Percentage
Only padded whips of a design and specifications approved by a panel appointed by the
1 AR 137A. (1)(a) 0 0
ARB may be carried in races or official trials;
2 (1)(b) Every such whip must be in satisfactory condition and not modified in any way; 0 0
3 (1)(c) Stewards may confiscate any whip not in a satisfactory condition or modified; 0 0
Any rider found guilty of above may be penalised. Provided the master and/or other person
4 (1)(d) in charge of an apprentice jockey at the relevant time may also be penalised unless they 0 0
satisfy Stewards all proper care to ensure the apprentice complied with the rule was taken;
5 AR 137A. (2) Only whips of a design and specifications approved by ARB may be carried in track work; 0 0
6 AR 137A. (3) Excessive/unnecessary/improper whip use; 10 2.87
7 AR 137A. (4)(a) Whip use forward of horse’s shoulder/vicinity of head; 6 1.72
8 (4)(b) Whip use that raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height; 87 25.00
9 (4)(c) Whip use when horse is out of contention; 44 12.64
10 (4)(d) Whip use when horse is showing no response; 0 0
11 (4)(e) Whip use after passing winning post; 0 0
12 (4)(f) Whip use causing injury to horse; 0 0
13 (4)(g) Whip use when horse is clearly winning; 1 0.29
14 (4)(h) Whip use when horse has no reasonable prospect of improving/losing position; 1 0.29
Whip use in such manner that the seam of the flap is the point of contact with horse, unless
15 (4)(i) 0 0
rider satisfies Stewards this was neither deliberate nor reckless;
16 AR 137A. (5)(a)(i) Forehand whip use * in consecutive strides prior to 100 m mark; 33 9.48
17 (5)(a)(ii) Forehand whip use * on more than 5 occasions prior to 100 m mark; 157 45.11
Rider may at his discretion use whip with slapping motion down horse’s shoulder, with whip
18 (5)(a)(iii) 0 0
hand remaining on reins, or alternatively in a backhand manner;
19 (5)(b) In the final 100 m a rider may use whip at his discretion; 0 0
Any trainer, owner or authorised agent must not give instructions to a rider regarding the use
20 AR 137A. (7)(a) 0 0
of the whip, which, if carried out, might result in a breach of this rule;
No person may offer inducements to a rider to use the whip in such a way that, if carried out,
21 (7)(b) 0 0
might result in a breach of this rule;
22 AR 137A. (8) Any person who fails to comply with any provisions of this rule is guilty of an offence; 0 0
An owner or authorised representative, trainer, rider or Steward may lodge an objection
23 AR 137A. (9) 0 0
against the placing of a horse where the rider contravenes AR 137A. (3) or (5);
24 Unspecified whip use Whip Rule breach not specified by Stewards. 9 2.59
The wording of the whip rules has been simplified for the purposes of this article (for exact wording, see Rules of Racing [23]; * Whip rules were amended 1 December 2015 to include
backhand whip strikes as well as existing forehand restrictions; ARB—Australian Racing Board (now Racing Australia).
Animals 2017, 7, 4 4 of 25

2.3. Data Analysis

Data were analysed using R Core Team statistical and computing software (R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) [24]. Associations between categorical variables were explored
using χ2 tests for independence with a p value of less than 0.05 as the cut-off for rejecting the null
hypothesis. For some analyses, following the rejection of the null hypothesis, additional pairwise
χ2 tests were employed using a more stringent p value (0.05/m, where m is the number of post-hoc
hypotheses being tested) to ensure that the familywise type 1 error rate remained acceptable. χ2 tests
were undertaken using the “chisq.test” function of r, which includes a Yates Continuity Correction for
2 × 2 tables but not for other i × j tables. When one or more cell in the table of expected frequencies
was <5, a Fisher’s exact test was performed instead, using the function “fisher.test”. Where pertinent,
adjusted standardised residuals were calculated manually.
In addition to categorical variables, three continuous variables (race length, prize money won,
and total prize money on offer) were examined for an association with breach code of the first breach
among starts with breaches. Race length was examined by ANOVA using the r functions “anova” and
“lm”. After detecting an interaction between the breach code and whether the start was C, M, or P, the
dataset was subset into C, M and P datasets and separate ANOVAs were performed, using a p value
cut-off of p < 0.017. The null hypothesis was rejected for M tracks, leading to post-hoc Tukey testing
on this dataset using r’s “TukeyHSD” function with a 98.3333% family-wise confidence level. The
distribution of prize money won and total prize money on offer were positively skewed with outliers,
so a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was performed using the “kruskal.test” function in r.
Because the C, M, and P datasets were analysed separately, a p value cut-off of p < 0.017 was used.
Descriptive data comparing fines and suspensions imposed in the first four months of 2016 with
those in the similar 2013 period were analysed manually.

3. Results

3.1. Overall Frequency of Breaches in 2013

Between 1 January and 31 December 2013, there were 56,456 starts in 5604 races at 785 race
meetings on 122 different tracks at Country (C), Metropolitan (M) and Provincial (P) locations in NSW
and the ACT. A breach of the whip rules was reported in 348 starts (0.62%) and, of these, 37 included a
second breach (corresponding to 10.63% of starts with breaches and 0.07% of all starts). This equates to
a breach or breaches being reported in 332 of the 5604 races (5.92%).
Of the 348 starts with breaches, 317 (91.09%) represented the only horses in their races with
a breach or breaches; 28 (8.05%) occurred in races in which one other horse had a breach reported
(14 races); and three (0.86%) occurred in one race in which two other horses had a breach reported.
Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials Table S1.

3.2. Locations of Breaches in 2013

The 348 starts resulting in a breach or breaches occurred at 241 of 785 race meetings (30.70%) and
at 64 of the 122 racetracks (52.46%). The 37 starts with second breaches occurred at 37 race meetings at
20 different tracks. Despite hosting 67.34% of starts, C tracks recorded only 57.47% of starts with a
breach or breaches. Conversely, M tracks hosted 14.53% of starts and yet recorded 22.13% of starts
with a breach or breaches. Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials Table S1.
Using a chi-square test, we revealed an association between the frequency of breaches and whether
a track was at a C, M or P location (χ2 = 19.9703, p < 0.01). Post hoc chi-square testing showed starts
at C locations were significantly less likely to result in a breach than starts at P and M locations
(χ2 = 15.0727, p < 0.01) and starts at M locations were significantly more likely to result in a breach
than starts at C and P locations (χ2 = 15.6525, p < 0.01).
Animals 2017, 7, 4 5 of 25

3.3. Whip Rules Breached in 2013

3.3.1. First Breaches

Table 1 shows the whip rule most commonly breached as a first breach was AR 137A. (5)(a)(ii)
(Code 17), which accounted for 45.11% of first breaches. Breaches of AR 137A. (4)(b) (Code 8) accounted
for 25.00% of first breaches, while breaches of AR 137A. (4)(c) (Code 9) and AR 137A. (5)(a)(i) (Code 16)
accounted for 12.64% and 9.48% of first breaches, respectively. This means 54.59% of first breaches
were attributable to whip use prior to the 100 m mark (Codes 16 and 17). No breaches were recorded
for several whip rules (see Codes 1–5, 10–12, 15, 18–23).

(i) Location of First Breaches

Table 2 shows breach codes for the first breach of a start classified by C, M, P location of the track
at which the start occurred.

Table 2. Whip rules breached in 348 first breaches classified by Country, Metropolitan, and
Provincial location.

Breach Country Number Metropolitan Number Provincial Number

Code out of 200 (%) out of 77 (%) out of 71 (%)
6 7 (3.50%) 1 (1.30%) 2 (2.82%)
7 3 (1.50%) 2 (2.60%) 1 (1.41%)
8 32 (16.00%) 40 (51.95%) 15 (21.13%)
9 30 (15.00%) 4 (5.19%) 10 (14.08%)
13 1 (0.50%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
14 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (1.41%)
16 11 (5.50%) 10 (12.99%) 12 (16.90%)
17 107 (53.50%) 20 (25.97%) 30 (42.25%)
24 9 (4.50%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
See Table 1 for breach code key.

(a) Location of Code 8 First Breaches (Whip Use That Raises Arm above Jockey’s Shoulder Height)

The probability of a Code 8 first breach was associated with whether a start occurred at an
M, C or P location (χ2 = 39.0306, p ≤ 0.01). Post-hoc testing revealed starts at M locations were
significantly more likely to result in the recording of a Code 8 first breach than starts at a C track
location (χ2 = 38.5024, p ≤ 0.01).

(b) Location of Code 9 First Breaches (Whip Use When Horse Is Out of Contention)

This less common rule breach accounted for approximately 1 in 8 first breaches overall. There was
no association between Code 9 breaches and C, M, P locations (χ2 = 5.007, p = 0.0818).

(c) Location of Code 16 First Breaches (Forehand Whip Use in Consecutive Strides prior to
100 m Mark)

The probability of a Code 16 breach was associated with whether a start occurred at a C, M, or
P location (χ2 = 9.35, p ≤ 0.01). Post-hoc testing revealed starts at C locations were significantly less
likely to result in a Code 16 breach than starts at other locations (χ2 = 7.6338, p ≤ 0.01).

(d) Location of Code 17 First Breaches (Forehand Whip Use on More Than Five Occasions prior to
100 m Mark)

The probability of a Code 17 breach was associated with whether a start occurred at a C, M, or P
location (χ2 = 17.3068, p ≤ 0.01). Post hoc testing revealed starts at C locations were significantly more
likely to result in a Code 17 first breach than starts at an M location (χ2 = 15.8759, p ≤ 0.01).
Animals 2017, 7, 4 6 of 25

(ii) First Breaches by Rider Gender

Of 348 starts where a code was recorded as breached, 296 (85.06%) had male riders and 52 (14.94%)
had female riders. A Fisher’s exact test, examining whether the relative proportions of breach codes
(16, 17, 9, 8, or other) were independent of rider gender, was performed using r. The overall p value
was <0.0001. This suggests recorded breaches depend on whether the rider was male or female.
The observed frequencies of breaches of Code 16 (Forehand whip use in consecutive strides prior
to 100 m mark) and Code 8 (Whip use that raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height) are similar
to expected under independence. Comparing adjusted standardised residuals to the Z distribution,
female riders appeared slightly, but not significantly, overrepresented for codes with breaches other
than Code 8, Code 9 (Whip use when horse is out of contention), Code 16, and Code 17 (Forehand
whip use on more than 5 occasions prior to 100 m mark) (p = 0.095); significantly underrepresented for
Code 17 (p < 0.001); and significantly overrepresented for Code 9 (p < 0.001).

3.3.2. Second Breaches

Of 348 starts with first breaches, 37 (10.63%) had second breaches. The majority (21% or 56.76%)
were breaches of Code 16 (Forehand whip use in consecutive strides prior to 100 m mark), while
another 11 (29.73%) were breaches of Code 17 (Forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior to
100 m mark). The five remaining second breaches (13.51%) were breaches of Code 8 (Whip use that
raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height). This means 86.49% of second breaches occurred prior to
the 100 m mark.
(i) Location of Second Breaches
While second breaches occurred in fewer than 10% of first breaches at C and M locations,
at P locations this number was significantly higher at 22.54% (χ2 = 11.7733, p < 0.01). Using a
Fisher’s exact test, we found a significant association (p = 0.02294) between the C, M, P location
of the track and the breach code of a second breach. This association most likely relates to the apparent
underrepresentation of breaches of Code 17 (Forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior
to 100 m mark) and overrepresentation of breaches of Code 16 (Forehand whip use in consecutive
strides prior to 100 m mark) at C locations, especially when compared to P locations. Further details
are provided in Supplementary Materials Table S2.
(ii) Second Breaches by Rider Gender
Of 37 starts with second breaches, 34 (91.89%) were by male and three (8.11%) by female riders.
Once a first breach was recorded, we found no association between rider gender and a second breach
being recorded (χ2 = 0.9793; p = 0.3224). This suggests that once a first breach is recorded, the frequency
of a second breach is independent of gender.

3.3.3. Whip Rules Breached in First and Second Breaches

Code 17 (Forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior to 100 m mark) was the most
common whip rule breached in first breaches and Code 16 (Forehand whip use in consecutive strides
prior to 100 m mark) the most common second breach. Of 37 starts with two breaches recorded,
19 (51.35%) followed this pattern. The next most common pattern, seen in 10 horses (27.03%), was the
reverse of this. This means where two breaches were recorded in one start, over 75% (29 out of 37)
were breaches of these two whip rules and as such occurred prior to the 100 m mark. When first and
second breaches are considered together, breaches of Code 17 were the most common (44%), followed
by breaches of Code 8 (Whip use that raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height) (24%).

3.4. Breach Outcomes in 2013

Our examination of the Stewards Reports showed the format varied between racetracks. While
all contained the major findings, these were presented differently and in varying detail. For example,
Animals 2017, 7, 4 7 of 25

some Stewards Reports listed Conviction Recorded next to some whip rule breaches, even though a
recorded breach of any whip rule constitutes a Conviction Recorded [25].
The most common outcome for first and second breaches of a whip rule was a reprimand (48.28%
and 64.86%, respectively). Where a fine was the outcome, as in 104 cases (29.88%) of first breaches, the
most common value (mode) and the median value was $200. There was only one fine ($200) awarded
for a second breach (see Table 3).

Table 3. Outcomes of first and second breaches of whip rules.

Outcome First Breach (n) Second Breach (n)

$100 12 0
$200 61 1
$300 16 0
$400 8 0
$500 4 0
$600 1 0
$800 2 0
Not Known 8 0
Caution 56 2
No Outcome 1 0
Reprimand 170 25
Suspension 9 4
Conviction Recorded 0 5
Total 348 37

3.4.1. First Breach Outcomes

All Code 6 first breaches (Excessive/unnecessary/improper whip use) resulted in cautions (n = 6)
or reprimands (n = 4). Breaches of Code 17 (Forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior to
100 m mark), Code 8 (Whip use that raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height), Code 9 (Whip use
when horse is out of contention), and Code 16 (Forehand whip use in consecutive strides prior to 100 m
mark), were the most common first breaches (n = 321), and had variable outcomes. There were only
nine suspensions in total and these resulted from breaches of Codes 16 and 17. The median suspension
imposed was eight days (range 7–10). Further details are provided in Table 4.

Table 4. Outcomes of first breaches classified by whip rule breached.

First Breach Code C R 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 S NO NK
6 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 28 32 6 9 1 6 2 1 2 0 0 0
9 16 21 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 21 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
17 1 91 1 42 11 2 2 0 0 7 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8
C—Caution; R—Reprimand; 100–800—$ Fine; S—Suspension; NO—No Outcome; NK—Not Known; Code
6—Excessive/unnecessary/improper whip use; Code 7—Whip use forward of horse’s shoulder/vicinity of
head; Code 8—Whip use that raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height; Code 9—Whip use when horse is
out of contention; Code 13—Whip use when horse is clearly winning; Code 14—Whip use when horse has no
reasonable prospect of improving/losing position; Code 16—Forehand whip use * in consecutive strides prior
to 100 m mark; Code 17—Forehand whip use * on more than 5 occasions prior to 100 m mark; Code 24—Whip
Rule breach not specified by Stewards; * Whip rules were amended 1 December 2015 to include backhand whip
strikes as well as existing forehand restrictions.

For first breaches, 104 fines were imposed resulting in a total of $25,600. Further details are
provided in Supplementary Materials Table S3. When second breaches are included (see Section 3.4.2
below) the total is $25,800.
Animals 2017, 7, 4 8 of 25

3.4.2. Second Breach Outcomes

Second breaches (n = 37) were recorded for breaches of Code 16 (Forehand whip use in consecutive
strides prior to 100 m mark) (n = 21), Code 17 (Forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior to
100 m mark) (n = 11), and Code 8 (Whip use that raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height) (n = 5).
The four suspensions imposed were for Code 16 and 17 breaches. The median suspension imposed was
7.5 days (range 5–14). The only fine imposed for a second breach was $200 (1× Code 17). No cautions
were issued for Code 16 or 17 second breaches (this is similar to first breaches in which there was
only one caution issued for these breaches). Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials
Table S4.

3.5. Prize Money in 2013

3.5.1. Prize Money Won by Horses with Breaches

Using the Kruskal-Wallis test, we found horses whose riders had Code 9 breaches (Whip use
when horse is out of contention) won significantly less money than horses whose riders breached other
codes in races at C, M, and P locations (p < 0.0001; p = 0.0086; p = 0.0002, respectively).
The total prize money won by horses in starts where a first breach resulted in a fine was $1,108,425,
and for the single start where a second breach had a fine imposed ($200), the total prize money won was
$17,500, making the total prize money won by horses in starts resulting in fines $1,125,925. The median
prize money won where there was one breach reported was $1000 (range $0–$105,000); for two breaches
it was $2100 (range $0–$400,000), and for all starts with breaches it was $1325 (range $0–$400,000).
Overall, fines represented about 2.29% of the total prize money won by these horses. The median
percentage of a fine compared to the prize money won in an individual case was 13.9%. The number
ranges very widely from 0.19% (for a horse that won $105,000 and the rider received a $200 fine) to
eight cases in which the fine exceeded the prize money won.

3.5.2. Total Prize Money on Offer

(i) Total Prize Money on Offer in Races with Breaches

Breaches occurred in 332 races in which the total prize money on offer was $12,636,450 ($2,860,200
was from 194 C races (mean = $14,743.30 per race); $2,014,500 was from 65 P races (mean = $30,992.31
per race), and $7,761,750 was from 73 M races (mean = $106,325.34 per race)). Overall, fines represented
about 0.20% of the total prize money on offer in races with breaches.
The median total prize money on offer in races in which there was one whip rule breach was
$15,000 (range $2500–$250,000), for two breaches it was $22,000 (range $6000–$2,250,000), and for all
starts with breaches it was $15,000 (range $2500–$2,250,000).

(ii) Total Prize Money on Offer in Races with Breaches by Location

There was no significant (Kruskal-Wallis χ2 = 10.3853) association between total prize money
on offer for races and the frequency of code breaches at M (p = 0.0344), C (p = 0.5327) or P locations
(p = 0.1771). Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials Table S5.

3.6. Race Length and Breaches in 2013

Breaches occurred in races ranging from 900 to 2400 m (median 1400 m). Using ANOVA with
post-hoc Tukey tests, we found the length of races where there were breaches of Code 8 (Whip use that
raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height) or Code 9 (Whip use when horse is out of contention) was
significantly lower (p < 0.01; p = 0.01, respectively) than the length of races where there were Code 17
breaches (Forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior to 100 m mark) at M tracks (but not at
C or P tracks). Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials Table S6.
Animals 2017, 7, 4 9 of 25

Length of Races with Breaches by Type of Race and Whip Rule Breached
Table 5 treats first (n = 348) and second breaches (n = 37) equally (Total 385), and shows 56.88% of
all breaches occurred in sprint races. It also shows that overall Code 17 breaches were the most common.

Table 5. Length of races with breaches by type of race and whip rule breached.

Breach Code Sprint ≤1400 m (n) Mile 1406–1750 m (n) Middle 1800–2400 m (n) Total (n)
8 55 24 13 92 (23. 90%)
9 29 11 4 44 (11.43%)
16 33 10 11 54 (14.03%)
17 84 42 42 168 (43.64%)
Other 18 6 3 27 (7.01%)
Total 219 (56.88%) 93 (24.16%) 73 (18.96%) 385
First and second breaches are included for a total number of 385 (348 first breaches + 37 second breaches); Code
8—Whip use that raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height; Code 9—Whip use when horse is out of contention;
Code 16—Forehand whip use * in consecutive strides prior to 100 m mark; Code 17—Forehand whip use *
on more than 5 occasions prior to 100 m mark; Other—see Table 1 for other breach codes; * Whip rules were
amended 1 December 2015 to include backhand whip strikes as well as existing forehand restrictions.

3.7. Riders with Breaches in 2013

3.7.1. Frequency of Riders with Breaches

One hundred and thirty nine riders were responsible for the 348 starts with breaches, and of
these, 51.08% were repeat offenders (riders who had more than one whip rule breach recorded in
2013, including those with second breaches in a start). Further details are provided in Supplementary
Materials Table S7.

(i) Riders with the Highest Number of Breaches

Of the 15 riders with the highest numbers of breaches, only one was an apprentice and one was
female. Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials Table S8.

(ii) Riders Breaching Whip Rules in Two Races at the Same Race Meeting

There were 13 race meetings (3 M, 4 P, 6 C) where the same riders had breaches in two races, with
one rider having breaches in two races at two different race meetings. There were no instances of a
rider breaching in more than two races at the same race meeting. Four of the riders were apprentices
(two males, two females). Seven of these 13 riders were jockeys with the highest numbers of breaches
overall and were male. Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials Table S9.

3.7.2. Fines and Prize Money of Riders with Breaches

The $ value of fines imposed on riders for whip rule breaches as a percentage of the prize money
won by the horse and as a percentage of the rider’s 4.95% share of the prize money, varied widely
(see Table 6).

Table 6. Fines imposed and prize money won by riders (n = 5) with the most breaches in 2013.

Number Number of Starts Prize Fine as %

Whip 4.95% Rider’s Fine as % Rider’s
Rider of Starts with Breaches Money Prize
Rule Share of Prize 4.95% Share of
Code with When Fine Was Won by Money
Fines $ Money Won $ Prize Money Won
Breaches Imposed Horse $ Won
A 13 13 4300 238,335 11,797.58 1.80 36.45
B 12 8 2100 66,230 3278.39 3.17 64.06
C 12 4 1000 178,425 8832.00 0.56 11.3
D 10 2 600 2975 147.26 20.17 407.44
E 9 7 1700 9580 474.21 17.7 358.49
Rider code—each letter represents the name of a different rider and is the same as designated in Supplementary
Materials Tables S8 and S9.
 Animals 2017, 7, 4 10 of 25

3.7.3. Whip Rule Breaches by Apprentices and Jockeys

We were unable to consider the overall percentage of riders in 2013 that were apprentices as
opposed to jockeys. However, we did investigate whether, among riders with breaches, apprentices
were associated with different breach codes than jockeys. A χ2 analysis of rider status and breaches
of Code 16 (Forehand whip use in consecutive strides prior to 100 m mark); Code 17 (Forehand
whip use on more than five occasions prior to 100 m mark); Code 8 (Whip use that raises arm above
jockey’s shoulder height); and Code 9 (Whip use when horse is out of contention), plus a pool of
the remaining breach codes, suggested that, among riders with breaches, the whip rule breached
depends on jockey status (χ2 = 29.4424, p < 0.0001). Comparing adjusted standardised residuals
to the Z distribution, apprentices appear slightly, but not significantly, underrepresented among
breaches of Code 8 (p = 0.09653) and Code 17 (p = 0.0452, which is insufficient after correction for
family error rate), and significantly overrepresented among breaches of Code 9 (<0.0001). As there
were different breach code patterns depending on C, M, or P location, and because there might be
differences in the percentage of jockeys versus apprentices at these locations, we treated this as a
potential confounding factor and conducted separate post-hoc Fisher’s exact tests for independence of
breach code and rider status on breaches at C (p = 0.0003), P (p = 0.0008), and M (p = 0.4705) locations
separately. The apparent overrepresentation of apprentices among Code 9 breaches remained evident
at C and P locations in the post-hoc testing.

3.8. Race Finishing Positions and Percentage of Whip Rule Breaches in 2013
Figure 1 shows the highest percentage of whip rule breaches occurred in horses that ran second,
closely followed by horses that ran first. Horses in first place had riders with the highest number of
first breaches, but when second breaches were included, second place finishing horses had the highest
number of breaches, although the difference between first and second horses was not significant in this
sample.
Animals The
2017, 7, 4next highest percentage was in horses that ran third. Overall, horses finishing first, 11
second,
of 25
or third had significantly more breaches than horses finishing in other positions (Chi-squared = 69.4457,
p-value < 0.0001, if we assume a single first, second, and third finisher in each race of the sample).
The next highest percentage was seen in horses that ran last.

25
% of breaches

20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Last

Race finishing position

Figure 1. Race finishing positions and percentage of whip rule breaches.
Figure 1. Race finishing positions and percentage of whip rule breaches.

When we examined breach types in horses that ran last, we found 26 (65.00%) of the total 40
3.9. Breeder Owner Bonus Scheme (BOBS) in 2013
(39 first breaches and one second breach) were Code 9 breaches.
As explained in Materials and Methods, these analyses exclude ACT data.

3.9.1. Frequency of BOBS and Non-BOBS Races by Location

Non-BOBS races were more likely to be held at M locations (over 7 out of 10 Non-BOBS races
occurred at M tracks, despite about 15.5% of races being held at these tracks). Further details are
provided in Supplementary Materials Table S10. A chi‐square test for independence of BOBS/Non-
BOBS races and location gives a chi-square statistic of 527.1027 and a p value well <0.01.
Animals 2017, 7, 4 11 of 25

3.9. Breeder Owner Bonus Scheme (BOBS) in 2013

As explained in Materials and Methods, these analyses exclude ACT data.

3.9.1. Frequency of BOBS and Non-BOBS Races by Location

Non-BOBS races were more likely to be held at M locations (over 7 out of 10 Non-BOBS
races occurred at M tracks, despite about 15.5% of races being held at these tracks). Further
details are provided in Supplementary Materials Table S10. A chi-square test for independence
of BOBS/Non-BOBS races and location gives a chi-square statistic of 527.1027 and a p value well <0.01.

3.9.2. Frequency of Whip Rule Breaches in BOBS Races

At C locations, 187 (97.91%) of the 191 starts resulting in a breach or breaches were in BOBS races,
which comprised over 99% of races. At M tracks, 62 (80.52%) of 77 starts resulting in a breach or
breaches occurred in BOBS races, which comprised 82% of races. At P tracks, 67 (94.37%) of 71 starts
resulting in a breach or breaches occurred in BOBS races, which comprised 97.39% of races. These
data do not suggest BOBS races are more likely to result in breaches. Further details are provided in
Supplementary Materials (see Tables S10 and S11, and Section S3.9.2.).

3.9.3. Percentage of Breaches in BOBS Horses

Of 54,380 starts in NSW, approximately two of every nine horses with a breach or breaches were
BOBS horses. Our data do not suggest breaches are more likely in BOBS horses in BOBS races than in
other horses. For further details see Supplementary Materials Table S12.

3.9.4. Whip Rule First Breaches in BOBS and Non-BOBS Races

Prima facie, there is not a large difference between the frequency of whip rule breaches for BOBS
and Non-BOBS horses in BOBS races, compared with horses in Non-BOBS Races. Further details are
provided in Supplementary Materials (see Table S13, and Section S3.9.4. (i) and (ii)).

3.10. Fines and Suspensions—2013 Compared to 2016

We compared the number and $ value of fines and the number and length (days) of suspensions
imposed in the first four months of 2016 with those in the similar period of 2013 in NSW/ACT.
We found there were 15 suspensions (range 4–21 days) and 115 fines (Total $42,650) in the designated
2016 period compared to five suspensions (range 7–10 days) and 36 fines (Total $9400) in the equivalent
2013 period [20].

4. Discussion
We identified a need for a peer-reviewed study that characterised whip rule breaches in horse
racing from a welfare and regulatory perspective. To achieve this, we used Stewards Reports [20]
and Race Diaries [21] from 2013 (and 2016) in a major Australian racing jurisdiction (NSW/ACT).
Given the extensive data generated and the number of significant findings, we discuss these under the
headings below.
Firstly, however, we provide evidence regarding the nociceptive potential of whip use. Whipping
racehorses and its regulation would be irrelevant as animal welfare concerns, if whipping was not
potentially painful. McGreevy et al. (2012) reported that 83% of whips strikes viewed in slow motion
made a visible indentation [4]. After investigating the mechanical nociceptive thresholds on the
dorsal metatarsus in horses, Taylor et al. (2016) stated that “When a noxious mechanical stimulus is
applied, pressure distorts the nociceptive nerve endings, activating the nociceptive pathway to the
spinal cord” [14]. It was clear these authors were referring to nociception in the horse in general when
they explained that the mechanical threshold (MT) is affected by “Numerous additional factors . . .
including the operator, the environment, the anatomical site, the rate of stimulus application and the
Animals 2017, 7, 4 12 of 25

characteristics of the tissue”. The dorsal aspect of the cannon bone is favoured when measuring MTs
as there are minimal anatomical variations between horses, not least because there is very little soft
tissue between the skin and periosteum [26].
We argue, therefore, that while the MT for nociception would be expected to vary according to
anatomic location, no external part of a normal horse would be insensate. Indeed, the whip is used
exactly because the horse feels it. Nociceptive threshold testing in animals is still most commonly
used to assess the effects of analgesic drugs in a research setting [14] and studies of potential tissue
injury and pain from whipping are scant. Besides the study by McGreevy et al. [4], there appears to be
only one article, a conference proceeding from Australia in 1996, which investigated “the potential
of whips to injure horses”. This found that “Two factors determine the biophysics of impacts to
the body: (1) displacement—when skin and internal structures are stretched/crushed; (2) rate of
displacement—reflecting the mechanical “strain-rate sensitive” properties of tissues as pressure waves
form during fast impacts” [27].
While the report said “An unequivocal statement on the biomechanics of injury by whips in
general is not possible because of the many physiological and physical factors determining tissue
damage”, it followed this with “It is, however, possible to develop general principles about a whip’s
potential to injure which can be used in a more objective assessment of abuse, thereby allowing the
Rules of Racing to be modified to exclude whips with a greater potential to injure” (our emphasis). It is
disappointing that the authors’ suggestion that “Non-invasive techniques, including thermography
and ultrasound . . . could be useful . . . to assess whip damage potential and to quantify whip injury
after suspected whip abuse” has not, to our knowledge, yet been undertaken.
Notwithstanding this knowledge gap, Taylor et al. (2016) said that while “In animals . . . the
precise sensation experienced is unknown . . . it is assumed that if a stimulus that produces pain when
applied to humans elicits an appropriate response in an animal, this stimulus represents the threshold
for pain (Le Bars et al. 2001)” [14]. A 2004 review of the known physiological properties of specialised
mechanoreceptors in humans and experimental animals stated “Pain is very often but not always
associated with a mechanical stimulus. The mechanical stimulus that causes pain might be an intense
one such as pinching of the skin, traumatic injury, or under neuropathic conditions brush or light
pressure” [13].
Further, in Australia there is a legal obligation under jurisdictional animal welfare acts to comply
with the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes 8th edition 2013
(the Code) [28] when research using animals, including horses, is conducted. Section 1.10 states
“Animals have a capacity to experience pain and distress, even though they may perceive and respond
to circumstances differently from humans. Pain and distress may be difficult to evaluate in animals.
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that procedures and conditions that would
cause pain and distress in humans cause pain and distress in animals. Decisions regarding the possible
impact of procedures or conditions on an animal’s wellbeing must be made in consideration of an
animal’s capacity to experience pain and distress”. Accordingly, we argue that whip use that indents a
horse’s skin [4] must be assumed to be painful, unless there is evidence to the contrary, which there
is not, and that restrictions on whipping can generally be seen as a step toward the more humane
treatment of horses in racing.

4.1. Frequency and Location of Whip Rule Breaches

We found whip rule breaches were recorded by Stewards in NSW/ACT in 2013 in 1% of starts; 6%
of races; 31% of race meetings, and at 53% of racetracks. Only a small number of starts with breaches
had second breaches in the same race (11%), and over 90% of horses were the only horses in their races
with a breach or breaches.
In a study by McGreevy et al. [4] using side-on high speed footage (2000 frames per sec) of 15 race
finishes at 2 P NSW race meetings in 2011, 28 whip rule breaches in 9 horses were identified that were
not recorded by Stewards. Using the Race Diary [21] to obtain the number of starts in these races, we
Animals 2017, 7, 4 13 of 25

calculated 6% of these starts had at least one whip rule breach. For the same starts, Stewards recorded
a breach frequency of 1% that corresponded to one whip rule breach in a horse that ran tenth and
hence was not included in the McGreevy study. Given this study used footage obtained from only one
side of the track, and at race finishes, it provides strong evidence that the Stewards under-reported
whip rule breaches in the 15 races studied in 2011. As the same surveillance techniques were also used
by Stewards in 2013, it is possible that the 1% frequency of whip rule breaches recorded by Stewards
for that year, may also underestimate the actual number of whip rule breaches. Of course, it is possible
that the breach frequency observed in the small number of races looked at by McGreevy et al. was an
anomaly, but it may also indicate the need for faster footage than that currently examined by Stewards
(25 frames per sec) [4], which views races head-on. It may also be possible that Stewards focus on the
worst offending rider in a race, perhaps because of time pressures, and as such may overlook other
riders who are also breaching whip rules. Current surveillance methods should be investigated to
ensure these are not failing to detect breaches.
The UK Review found a breach percentage of 0.74 for flat turf racing between 2004 and 2011,
which appears slightly higher than the raw 2013 NSW/ACT percentage. However, it needs to be
considered that the UK whip rules set a maximum of 15 whip strokes per race [12] (p. 14), whereas
that was not the case in 2013 in Australia, nor is it the case now where “In the final 100 m of a race . . .
a rider may use his whip at his discretion” (AR. 137A. (5)(b)).
Following this Review, whip use was further restricted in the UK and is currently capped at
7 strikes per flat race, but penalties are imposed at the discretion of the Stewards [29], as also occurs in
Australia. In 2015, the number of UK whip offences, expressed as a percentage of total rides, was 0.61%
compared with 1.12% in 2010 [29]. As Racing Australia (RA) does not publish these data, it is not
currently possible to say whether the number of whip breaches in NSW/ACT is increasing, decreasing,
or static. This shortcoming should be addressed by an industry commitment to reporting, or by
mandatory reporting, as part of incremental improvement in racehorse welfare and racing integrity.
Our study found starts at C locations were significantly less likely to result in a breach being
recorded than starts at P and M locations, and starts at M locations were significantly more likely
to result in a breach being recorded than starts at C and P locations. We were advised there was
no difference between the level of surveillance used by Stewards to detect whip breaches at these
locations [30] and that Stewards are not attached to individual tracks. Instead, a Stewards panel based
in the metropolitan area services M and P race meetings and, in regional centres, Stewards are based
in five locations [31]. It is possible, therefore, that reported differences in breach frequencies at C, M
and P locations may reflect true differences in the numbers of breaches occurring, or they may reflect
behavioural differences in reporting among individual Stewards or between the two pools of Stewards.
Further studies are needed to confirm this.
We thought total prize money on offer might incentivise whipping, but our results did not
demonstrate this. As Racing NSW describes the BOBS as “the most popular racing incentive scheme
in Australia” [32] (p. 30), we also investigated whether it might incentivise whip breaches, but again
this was not the case. However, it is possible that the desire to win might have been an incentive, as
we demonstrated riders of horses finishing first, second, or third had significantly more whip rule
breaches recorded against them than riders of horses finishing in other positions. While our findings
support those of Evans and McGreevy that “whippings were associated with superior performance
and that there was an association between final placing and the number of whip strikes in the final
200 m section” [3], it should be remembered that in that study, only whip-rule-compliant whip use
was included and race footage was not examined by the authors. In this instance, we would want to
exclude the possibility that Stewards may tend to focus on the horses running first, second or third,
and, as such, possibly miss whip rule breaches by riders of other horses.
Animals 2017, 7, 4 14 of 25

4.2. Types and Location of Whip Rule Breaches

Our findings also characterise the types and locations of whip rule breaches recorded by Stewards
in NSW/ACT in 2013. We now know that the whip rules most commonly recorded as first breaches
were forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior to the 100 m mark (Code 17), and using an
action that raises the jockey’s arm above shoulder height (Code 8), which accounted for over 45% and
25% of first breaches, respectively. The finding that 70% of first breaches consisted of breaches of only
two whip rules deserves further attention, as does the finding that 55% of first breaches consisted of
breaches of Code 16 (Forehand whip use in consecutive strides prior to the 100 m mark) and Code 17,
which also applies before the 100 m mark.
Possible reasons for these findings include that these breaches may be more easily detected
than some others, as Stewards view the race footage head-on [4]; Stewards prioritise these breaches
(this does not appear to be the case from the Racing NSW Rider Penalty Guidelines for Whip Rule
Breaches (see Appendix A) [33] that were used in 2013, but discretionary biases might occur in practice),
or simply these breaches are what might be expected if whip strike frequency and force are perceived
to be needed for a horse to win: that is, there is an increased number of whip strikes, and an increased
number of more potentially powerful whip strikes with the whip wielded above the jockey’s shoulder.
However, McGreevy et al. [4] stated “It is not clear how much, if any, amplification in force that
whipping from this height creates. From the perspective of force and therefore pain, the recoil of the
whip may be more important than the height from which it descends during its trajectory”. Given we
found over a quarter of all first breaches involved whip use when the jockey’s arm is raised above his
shoulder height, this question regarding the force of these whip strikes requires clarification.
Importantly, an increase in the number of whip strikes prior to the 100 m mark does not tell
us about the actual number of whip strikes used in the final 100 m (except it seems unlikely riders
would decrease whip use in this crucial race segment). This contention is supported by Evans and
McGreevy [3] who found 98% of horses were whipped in the final 200 m of five sprint races at an
M location in NSW, when they were slowing. Evans and McGreevy concluded their data “make
whipping tired horses in the name of sport very difficult to justify”. Our data also show whip breaches
occurring when horses are likely to be fatigued.
While Whip Rule AR 137A. (3) (Code 6) prohibits excessive, unnecessary, or improper whip use
throughout the race, only 3% of first breaches fell into this category. This might suggest such whip
breaches do not occur frequently in the critical last 100 m of the race, but this is unlikely given even a
cursory examination of race finish footage in the media. One of Australia’s leading sports journalists,
Patrick Smith, wrote: “as the rules are now, jockeys will whack their horses non-stop down the straight
from the 100 m post . . . ” [17]. The low number of breaches recorded for this whip rule might also
reflect problems in detection (as suggested by McGreevy et al. [4]), or simply the Stewards’ discretion.
It is also unclear what constitutes excessive, unnecessary, or improper whip use (AR 137A. (3))
(Code 6), given AR 137A. (4) prohibits whip use (a) forward of horse’s shoulder/vicinity of head
(Code 7); (b) that raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height (Code 8); (c) when horse is out of contention
(Code 9); (d) when horse is showing no response (Code 10); (e) after passing winning post (Code 11);
(f) causing injury to the horse (Code 12); (g) when horse is clearly winning (Code 13); (h) when horse
has no reasonable prospect of improving/losing position (Code 14); and (i) in such manner that the
seam of the flap is the point of contact with horse, unless rider satisfies Stewards this was neither
deliberate nor reckless (Code 15).
Considering that, in 2013, AR 137A. (5)(a) prohibited (i) forehand whip use in consecutive strides
prior to the 100 m mark (Code 16) and (ii) forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior to the
100 m mark (Code 17), it appears by default that Code 6 breaches involving whip use in consecutive
strides and excessive numbers of whip strikes applied only to the final 100 m of the race. The very low
frequency of Code 6 breaches (excessive, unnecessary, or improper whip use) recorded in 2013 provides
an impetus to investigate at what stages of races these breaches are reported in, what constitutes these
breaches, and in general what percentage of all breaches occur and are recorded in the final 100 m.
Animals 2017, 7, 4 15 of 25

Additionally, Code 6 breaches raise the important issue of what Stewards consider to constitute
“unnecessary” whipping. This notion logically relies on the concept of “necessary” whipping and
there remains a paucity of peer-reviewed evidence to support this, either for safety, or to improve
performance [8]. Further, there is a legal argument to consider in relation to what constitutes
“unnecessary” under the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTA) [34]. Section 5
prohibits cruelty to animals, including racehorses, and Section 4(2) explains “ . . . a reference to an act
of cruelty committed upon an animal includes a reference to any act or omission as a consequence of
which the animal is unreasonably, unnecessarily or unjustifiably:

(a) beaten, kicked, killed, wounded, pinioned, mutilated, maimed, abused, tormented, tortured,
terrified or infuriated,
(b) over-loaded, over-worked, over-driven, over-ridden or over-used . . .
or
(d) inflicted with pain”, where “pain” includes suffering and distress (Section 4(1)).

It appears critical this question of whether whipping racehorses could constitute cruelty under the
POCTA is considered. Jones et al. [8] discuss “necessary” in relation to animal welfare legislation by
using the leading case on this question—Ford v. Wiley, an English High Court decision from 1889 that
developed a test to determine when suffering caused to an animal could be deemed to be unnecessary
in a particular set of circumstances. It would appear overdue that this be applied to whip use in
horse racing in Australia, and particularly in relation to the regulatory outcomes for Code 6 breaches
(excessive, unnecessary, or improper whip use).
We also found significant differences between the likelihood of certain whip rule breaches being
recorded at the three race locations. Starts at M locations were significantly more likely to result in
Code 8 first breaches (Using an action that raises the jockey’s arm above shoulder height) than starts
at C locations, and starts at C locations were significantly less likely to result in Code 16 breaches
(Forehand whip use in consecutive strides prior to the 100 m mark) than starts at other locations,
and significantly more likely to result in Code 17 first breaches (Forehand whip use on more than
five occasions prior to the 100 m mark) than starts at M locations.
As discussed in relation to the significant differences we found in the frequency of whip breaches
recorded between locations, the significant differences in the types of breaches being recorded at the
different locations may reflect true differences in the types of breaches occurring, or perhaps differences
in detection and recording amongst individual Stewards or between the two pools of Stewards. Further
studies should investigate this.
We found no differences between locations for the recording of Code 9 breaches (Horse whipped
when out of contention), which comprised 13% of first breaches. This may reflect our earlier discussion
that the desire to win, or possibly not to come last, may lead riders into this whip use, and that these
incentives apply at all locations. It is also possible Stewards may be more likely to record a Code 9
breach for a horse that runs last at any location, as it may be more obvious the horse was out of
contention than for other non-winning/non-place getter horses. It is worth noting that being out of
contention is an holistic evaluation that many observers could arrive at, despite the difficulties in
providing a quantitative approach to this rule.
When we examined the types of breaches recorded in horses that ran last, we found most were
Code 9, and conversely most Code 9 breaches were recorded in horses that came last. Not surprisingly,
horses with these breaches recorded won significantly less money than horses with other breaches in
races at all locations.
McGreevy et al. [9] provided insights into Code 9 breaches when they noted in relation to UK and
Australian horseracing “ . . . no definition of being “out of contention” is offered by either set of rules
and therefore is open to considerable interpretation”. Evans and McGreevy [3] further highlighted
the conundrum facing a jockey to both “ride his horse out (i.e., ensures the horse gave of its best) to
Animals 2017, 7, 4 16 of 25

the end . . . ” in accordance with AR 137. (b). It appears that in 2013 these issues had not yet been
sufficiently clarified, and this remains the case currently.
In interpreting our data on second breaches, it must be remembered that while the level of
surveillance may be the same at all locations, Stewards may use their discretion to order first and
second breaches differently at the three locations, or there may be no difference in the importance
of what breach is recorded first. Notwithstanding this, we are able to say that where two breaches
were recorded in one start, over 75% involved the same two whip rules (Codes 16 and 17) and
hence occurred prior to the 100 m mark. Attempts to clarify what determined the order of two
breaches recorded in a start and whether this affected what penalties were imposed, were answered
simply as “both penalised” [30]. This highlights the need for a transparent prosecution policy or
penalty guidelines in Australia, as now provided in the UK by the British Horseracing Authority
(BHA) [35]. Likewise, our examination of Stewards Reports showed a need for greater consistency in
how information is recorded between racetracks.
Several whip rules had no breaches recorded. In some cases this may reflect a lack of clarity of
the rules, or difficulties in detection, rather than indicating a 100% compliance rate (though that is
probably the case with AR 137A. (1) and (2), which pertain to the correct, padded whip being used).
For example, in the same study that revealed indentations in the skin of horses in over 80% of
whip strikes in 15 race finishes at two P NSW race meetings in 2011, McGreevy et al. [4] raised concerns
“the seam rule” (Code 15) “is virtually impossible to police, even using significantly more detailed
footage than is usually reviewed by racing Stewards, and its inclusion is therefore futile”. The authors
noted “the number of times breaches of the seam contact rule have ever been prosecuted since the
current rules were established is negligible”. Our finding that there were no breaches of this whip
rule recorded by Stewards in 2013 supports McGreevy et al.’s contention, and further questions the
adequacy of monitoring of this rule by Stewards, and the validity of the rule itself.
Similarly, it appears likely that current methodology employed by Stewards is not sufficiently
sensitive to detect tissue injury caused to horses from whipping, except in extreme cases where a weal
(or welt) is visible to the naked eye. This may explain why there were no recorded breaches of the
“injury” whip rule (Code 12) in 2013, despite evidence that whip use in racing frequently indents the
skin of horses and as such may injure it [4,13,14,26,27].
Currently, horses that have raced are examined by industry veterinarians before they are removed
from the racecourse. We argue this may fail to expose inflammatory processes and, hence, ensure whip
rules prohibiting injury to the horse are complied with. Where feasible, the examination of horses
the day after racing with advanced tools, such as thermography, would help clarify the extent of
whip-related injuries.
In their 2012 study, McGreevy et al. also showed that the unpadded section of the whip made
contact with the skin of the horse in 64% of impacts, and challenged the notion padded whips
(as prescribed in AR 137A. (1) and (2)) prevent injury to the horse. The reason proponed was the
padding is held onto the shaft of the whip with unpadded binding that strikes the horse whenever the
padded section does [4].
Our study considered whip use that was recorded by Stewards as breaching the whip rules and,
hence, in all likelihood analysed only a small proportion of whip strikes overall. This can be easily
appreciated when you consider AR 137A. (5)(b) allows the rider to use “his whip at his discretion”
in the final 100 m of every race, where the rules restricting the number of strikes and whip use in
consecutive strides do not apply. The Stewards reports show therefore that the minimum number of
horses whipped in NSW/ACT in 2013 was 384 (including 37 horses in which second breaches were
recorded). In light of McGreevy’s findings [4], our contention is that these horses would also have
been struck with the unpadded part of the whip in many of these impacts. Indeed, we argue that this
would also have been the case in many of the whip strikes that did not breach the whip rules and
hence were not the focus of our study.
Animals 2017, 7, 4 17 of 25

Likewise, another of McGreevy et al.’s findings [4] was that the horse’s flank (abdomen) is
“twice as likely to be struck with the entirety of the whip than is the hindleg”. There is no evidence to
suggest this unintended whip action was not still occurring in 2013. As McGreevy et al. highlighted,
although this area of the horse is regarded as being “particularly sensitive to tactile stimulation”,
and UK whip rules restrict whip use to the quarters of the horse, no similar safeguard is provided
in Australia. This is surprising given Australia is one of 49 countries that signed the International
Agreement on Breeding, Racing and Wagering [36], which prohibits the use of the whip on the flank.
It is unclear why flank strikes are not reported under Whip Rule AR 137A. (3) (Code 6), which prohibits
improper whip use. It may be bilateral race footage is needed before any assurance about proper whip
use can be provided.
Similarly, the International Agreement’s prohibition on the use of the whip with excessive force
cannot be effectively policed in the absence of whips that detect force. One such electronic whip, which
counts whip strikes and their force, is currently being advertised [37]. While this type of device might
work to limit the force of whip impacts, it would be unlikely to prevent possible injury resulting from
repeated strikes to the same area, or take into account differences in pain thresholds and susceptibilities
to injury in individual horses.
Further, as the Stewards did not record any breaches in 2013 involving whip use when the horse
was showing no response (Code 10), this implies firstly that the Stewards are able to detect such
responses, even when horses are slowing; and secondly, that all whipped horses responded to the
Stewards’ satisfaction. The training and evidence-base required to produce and assess this skill should
be critically examined.
These problems in the detection and enforcement of whip rule breaches raise important issues
about Australian whip rules. The need for laws (or rules) to be clear is the first Rule of Law Principle
identified by the Law Council of Australia [38] (p. 1). This is not only so those who are regulated
understand what they cannot do, but also to prevent arbitrary enforcement and erosion of respect for
the law. Sophocles warned “What you cannot enforce, do not command”, and this is relevant to the
integrity issues facing racing today. Given the industry is currently permitted to self-regulate, it is even
more important that the AR are clear, enforceable, and enforced fairly and consistently. If breaches of
rules are hard to quantify, then the rules need to be reworded to allow detection without quantification
so that a binary (yes/no) outcome can be recorded.

4.3. Race Length, Location and Whip Rule Breached

We found the length of races at M locations varied significantly with some whip rule breaches.
It may be at these tracks, riders wield the whip above the shoulder more (Code 8) and also whip when
out of contention (Code 9) more in shorter races, while in longer races there is more opportunity to
use additional whip strokes (hence, more Code 17 breaches). So, in shorter races we might be seeing
“Fast and Furious” whip use, in which the rider uses whip strokes that arguably have greater force,
while also having less time to decide if the horse is out of contention or, indeed, responding.
When we examined race length according to race type, and considered first and second breaches
equally, we found most breaches were recorded in sprint races (which may support the “Fast and
Furious” hypothesis), with less than half as many breaches recorded in mile and middle distance
races. Not surprisingly, Code 16 and 17 breaches accounted for the majority of breaches recorded in
all race types, and again reflects the strong recording of these whip breaches that occur prior to the
100 m mark.

4.4. Rider Gender, Type and Whip Breaches

It was outside the scope of this study to collate the raw data for the total number of jockeys and
apprentices, and total number of male versus female riders, in all starts in 2013. Hence, we are unable
to say which gender/type of rider is more likely to have whip rule breaches recorded. However, we
noticed a different pattern of breaches between these groups.
Animals 2017, 7, 4 18 of 25

Nearly six times as many male riders had starts with breaches recorded compared to female
riders. However, as only the gender of riders with breaches recorded was known, the pertinence of
this difference is unclear. Certainly, once one breach was recorded, there was no association between
gender and the recording of a second breach. However, we did find that of riders with breaches
recorded, female riders were significantly underrepresented for Code 17 breaches (Forehand whip use
on more than five occasions prior to 100 m mark), and overrepresented for Code 9 breaches (Whip use
when the horse is out of contention). These are interesting findings regarding possible gender effects,
but again require further investigation.
Aligning with a previous study of Australian jockeys and apprentices [39], our results also
showed that the type of whip rule recorded as breached depended on jockey status. Among riders with
breaches, apprentices were significantly more likely than jockeys to have breaches of Code 9 (Whip use
when the horse is out of contention) recorded at C and P locations. Given we also found no differences
between locations for Code 9 breaches recorded overall, it is possible that, at M locations, jockeys may
also be breaching this whip rule at the same frequency as apprentices. This may reflect a greater desire
by all riders at the high profile M races to win, or not to run last, or again reflect differences relating to
individual Stewards or between the two pools of Stewards.
While we acknowledge that only 1% of starts had whip rule breaches recorded in NSW/ACT in
2013, it is still concerning that just over 50% of riders responsible for breaches were repeat offenders
(that is, they had more than one whip rule breach recorded in 2013, including second breaches in
a start). Nearly twice as many male riders than female riders were in this category. Of these, there
were nearly twice as many jockeys (of which just over half were repeat offenders) than apprentices
(of which just under half were repeat offenders). The number of repeat offenders in all categories is
troubling, especially apprentices as they are still in training and should be “on probation”. It would
appear, in 2013 at least, there were insufficient deterrents to repeat offending, and possibly a lack of
effective education regarding whip rules for apprentices. In a pilot study, McGreevy et al. found 15
of 24 jockeys said trainers and owners were sources of pressure to use the whip [40]. This and other
possible reasons should be further investigated in relation to gender, type of rider, type of whip rule
breach, and location.

4.5. Breach Outcomes

Overall, breach outcomes or penalties were low in our view. Reprimands were the most common
outcome for first and second breaches, with less than a third of first breaches resulting in fines, and
even then the total was a modest $25,600 (median value $200). Further, all Code 6 first breaches
(Excessive, unnecessary, or improper whip use) resulted in cautions or reprimands only.
The four most commonly recorded first breaches had variable outcomes. For example, Code 8
first breaches (Whip use that raises arm above jockey’s shoulder height) had the highest fines imposed
overall (2 × $800), while fines were rare for Code 9 breaches (Whip use when the horse is out of
contention), with the highest fine imposed being $300.
In 2013, Stewards imposed only 13 suspensions for whip rule breaches, which ranged from 5
to 14 days, and all resulted from breaches of Codes 16 and 17. No cautions were issued for Code 16
breaches, and only one was issued for a Code 17 breach, which might imply Stewards regard these
more seriously than other whip breaches.
We sought the Stewards’ “prosecution policy or similar” that helped determine the penalties
imposed for whip rule breaches in 2013, as this was not available on Racing NSW’s website.
The resultant advice was there “is only a guideline” (see Appendix A) [33], and this related to Code 16
and 17 whip breaches only. Although not stated in the Guidelines, suspensions appear to be a serious
outcome and are not suggested as outcomes for breaches of Code 16 (Forehand whip use in consecutive
strides prior to 100 m mark) or Code 17 (Forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior to the
100 m mark), until the sixth offence for both 4–5 whip strikes in consecutive strides (Code 16) and
4–5 whip strikes in excess of the five allowed under Code 17; for the second offence for six or more
Animals 2017, 7, 4 19 of 25

whip strikes in consecutive strides (Code 16), and for six or more whip strikes in excess of the five
allowed under Code 17.
While Guidelines were provided to us for only these two whip rules, it may be possible Stewards
use additional guidelines. Penalties are also always at the Stewards’ discretion. Nonetheless, it is
telling that in 2013 suspensions were imposed only for Code 16 and 17 breaches, and thus were for
whip breaches that took place prior to the 100 m mark.
Although Stewards can impose loss of winnings and earnings on riders breaching whip rules
(AR 196. (2)), this did not occur [41]. Overall, the penalties imposed for whip rule breaches in 2013
appear low, with the majority not involving fines or suspensions, and when these were imposed they
appeared insufficient to act as serious deterrents (as seen in, what the current authors consider to be,
the high number of repeat offenders).

4.6. Riders with the Highest Number of Whip Breaches

Our aim here was to provide a preliminary insight into the type of rider whose whip use attracted
the Stewards’ attention in 2013. Of 15 riders with the highest numbers of breaches, most were jockeys
and male, the number of starts with one or more breaches ranged from six to 13, and nearly 75% of
these riders had starts with second breaches.
There were also 13 race meetings where the same riders had breaches in two races, with one
rider having breaches in two races at two different race meetings. Four of the riders were apprentices
(two males, two females) and seven were jockeys among the 15 riders with the highest number of
breaches overall and were male.
When we considered the five riders with the four highest numbers of starts with breaches, their
fines as a percentage of their 4.95% share of the total prize money won ranged from 11% to 407%.
So, for some riders, the fines for whip breaches appear to have considerable impact on their share of
the prize money, but we do not know whether this is compensated for in other races in which they do
not breach the whip rules, or are not recorded as doing so. It is interesting that the jockey with the
highest number of starts with breaches and the highest fines overall ($4300), rode horses with winnings
of $238,335, of which his share was $11,797. For this jockey, 36% of his winnings were lost as fines.
It may be that what riders lose in individual races in $ terms from whip rule breaches, is out-weighed
by improvements to the riders’ winning statistics and, hence, translate to more and higher quality
race work.

4.7. Possible Whip Breach Deterrents

While over a million dollars in total prize money was won by horses in starts with breaches, the
median percentage of a fine compared to the prize money won in an individual case was only 14%,
though this ranged widely from almost zero % (for a horse that won $105,000 but the rider was fined
$200) to eight cases in which the fine exceeded the prize money won.
Overall, fines for whip rule breaches represented only 2% of the total prize money won by these
horses in 2013. Similarly, we found fines represented almost zero % of total prize money on offer in
races with breaches, and like prize money won, was unlikely to act as a meaningful deterrent.

4.8. The 2015 Whip Reforms and the Current Situation

In 2013, backhand whip use, where the whip is held like a ski pole, as opposed to forehand whip
use, where the whip is gripped like a tennis racquet [9], was exempted from AR 137A. (5)(i) and
(ii) (Codes 16 and 17). McGreevy et al. opined in 2012 [4] that it was possible “that the rules have
inadvertently encouraged jockeys to use the backhand rather than the forehand actions to avoid being
penalised”. The veracity of this concern was reinforced by whip rule reforms enacted on 1 December
2015 by RA. In a letter to jockeys, John Messara AM (Chairman, RA) said:
Animals 2017, 7, 4 20 of 25

“Since the introduction of the 2009 reforms, riders have become increasingly proficient at
whipping in the backhand manner. Many backhand strikes can be equated in force with
forehand strikes.
Australia’s current whip rules are not best international practice when benchmarked against
other major racing jurisdictions. Racing is accountable for the highest standards of animal
welfare, in line with community standards. Community standards require a new regime of
whip usage which is tailored towards principles of horsemanship rather than punishment.
Australia has an international reputation for leading the world on animal welfare issues
and we want to maintain it”. [42]

An RA Media Release on 23 October 2015 further explained:

“In respect of Australian Rule of Racing AR. 137A., the Board has decided:

1. To remove the distinction between forehand and backhand whip strikes so that there
is a limit of five forehand or backhand whip strikes prior to the 100 m.
2. To introduce stronger penalties for whip offences including greater emphasis on
suspensions for serious breaches and for breaches in Group and Listed races.

The rule changes are largely an extension of the whip reforms of 2009. The changes to the
whip rules in 2009 introduced limits on the number and manner of whip strikes which in
conjunction with a padded whip has ensured the welfare of the horse.
However, too great a reliance on the backhand application of the whip has developed in
response to the limits imposed on the forehand application. After careful consideration,
the Board decided that backhand strikes should be treated in the same way as forehand
strikes so as to leave no room for misinterpretation of the rules against excessive use”. [43]

Unfortunately, the 2015 reforms do little to assist interpretation of what constitutes excessive/
unnecessary/improper whip use (Code 6-AR 137A. (3)), including in the final 100 m. While whip rule
reforms were much needed, it is also unfortunate the reform process was not evidence-based, more
transparent, and inclusive to stakeholders including scientists, welfare groups, and the community.
What the reforms tell us, though, is that our 2013 data very much underestimated the true extent
of whip use prior to the 100 m mark, because backhand strikes were excluded. This is concerning,
especially as McGreevy et al. [9] found that while the forehand versus backhand action does not
influence the force on impact when using the non-dominant hand, when using the dominant hand, the
jockeys in the study (using a model horse), struck with more force in the backhand.
We briefly reviewed the fines and suspensions imposed in the first four months of 2016 with those
in the similar 2013 period in NSW/ACT, given RA’s 2015 pledge to introduce stronger penalties for
whip offences. We found there were four suspensions (range 7–10 days) and 35 fines totalling $9400
in 2013, and in the same period in 2016, there were 15 suspensions (range 4–21 days) and 115 fines
totalling $42,650 [20]. It is beyond the scope of the current study to consider this in detail, but given
the increase in the number and $ value of fines, and the number and length of suspensions, these
data should be examined further. While RA has been very vocal in justifying the higher penalties it
imposed at this year’s Autumn Racing Carnival [44], industry reporter Adrian Dunn wrote that for
this period “NSW—which has held more meetings than any other state—is not facing the same issue
as Victoria and Queensland. While NSW has issued more whip-infringement suspensions (12) than
Victoria, it has delivered only 99 fines—less than half that of Victoria” [45].
On 24 June 2016, RA announced a review of the new whip rules since their introduction last
December [46]. Hopefully, this will examine the reasons for the cited jurisdictional differences above,
as well as evaluate whether the reforms have achieved the intended outcomes, which presumably
include rectifying the assessment that Australia’s whip rules, prior to the reforms, were “not best
international practice” [42].
Animals 2017, 7, 4 21 of 25

Based on our findings from 2013, when the whip rules were the same as they were immediately
prior to the December 2015 reforms, there is a case to argue that a review of all the whip rules is
warranted, and not just those pertaining to whip use prior to the 100 m mark. Any review should be
science-based and include independent comparison with the UK where, unlike Australia, the total
number of whip strikes is restricted. Nonetheless, the increased number of fines and suspensions in
the 2016 period may indicate a step toward better regulation of whip use and welfare, even if it is just
that backhand strikes are now being penalised.
Knight and Hamilton [47] stated in relation to the UK Review that “The conclusion that the
whip contributes to rider safety has important implications under Australian Work Health and Safety
legislation and therefore affects the ability of racing authorities to change the rules relating to whip
use”. We argue this makes it all the more important that studies that direct policy and regulatory
change are based on peer-reviewed studies using race data, much of which are already being collected
by industry. Some whip use information is not currently available, but must be if properly informed
decisions are to be made about the use of whips in racing. In 2012, McGreevy and Ralston raised the
case “for publication of the numbers of official whip strikes per horse per race, a move that is likely to
increase transparency in the activity of stewards” [39].
Further, in her paper “Sustainability, thoroughbred racing and the need for change”, Bergmann
wrote: “Improving transparency and regulation is important and can improve welfare outcomes,
if transparency and regulation go beyond the aim of protecting the integrity of the race and shift the
focus on protecting the horse” [10]. Similarly, 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].

5. Conclusions
This multi-disciplinary study provides the first peer-reviewed characterisation of whip rule
breaches recorded by Stewards and their regulatory outcomes in horseracing. This was achieved using
Stewards Reports and Race Diaries, and improves understanding of whip use and compliance in a
major Australian racing jurisdiction. Importantly, it is a step toward rectifying the current knowledge
gap in this increasingly contentious area.
Whip use in horse racing is an important animal welfare issue. While there is a lack of
peer-reviewed evidence that specifically demonstrates that whipping horses causes pain, we argue
there is sufficient evidence now and a moral and legal imperative to assume that, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, whipping is potentially painful. As such, restrictions on whip use have the
real potential to improve the welfare of horses in racing.
Not only is there growing community concern about the welfare of horses being whipped in races,
whipping, and its regulation, is also a racing integrity issue. Our finding that there was a significantly
higher frequency of recorded breaches by riders of horses that finished first, second, or third than
by riders of horses that finished in other positions, suggests a desire to win may incentivise whip
rule breaches and potentially affect race and betting outcomes. Likewise our finding that there was a
significantly higher frequency of recorded breaches at M than at C or P locations may reflect the desire
to win may be particularly high at the more prestigious ‘city’ race tracks. This preliminary study raises
a number of questions that need to be answered including whether the number of breaches recorded
by Stewards aligns with the actual number of whip rule breaches at all locations, and what Steward
and surveillance-related factors might affect whether a breach is recorded or not.
It is also concerning from a regulatory point of view that a small number of types of whip breach
predominated in 2013, with no breaches recorded for several whip rules, despite evidence to suggest
some of these may be breached regularly. Our study showed that over half of all first breaches recorded
occurred prior to the 100 m mark and involved two whip rules. Unfortunately, with the exception of
these, the Stewards reports do not specify at which race stage whip breaches occur. Hence it is not clear
how many breaches are recorded in the crucial final 100 m of races. Regulatory outcomes or penalties
Animals 2017, 7, 4 22 of 25

were generally low and, in our view, insufficient to act as deterrents. Our findings strongly suggest
that the whip rules, their surveillance and recording, and the penalties imposed warrant urgent and
independent review.
Likewise, the associations our study reveals between recorded whip rule breaches, racing data
variables, and outcomes provide a strong case for such analyses to be undertaken annually to inform
the evidence-base for policy, education, and regulatory change, including breaches and penalties.
Indeed, this study raises several issues pertinent to horse welfare and racing integrity that warrant
further investigation. We hope it will also lead to more evidence-based whip rules that meet growing
community expectations that horses in racing will be treated humanely.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/1/4/s1. Table S1:
Details of tracks, race meetings, races, races with breaches, starts, and starts with breaches for Country,
Metropolitan, and Provincial locations, Table S2: Whip rules breached in second breaches classified by Country,
Metropolitan, and Provincial location, Table S3: Fines resulting from first breaches, Table S4: Outcomes of second
breaches classified by whip rule breached, Table S5: Total prize money on offer in races with breaches by location,
Table S6: Length of races with breaches, Table S7: Riders with breaches (including repeat offenders), Table S8:
Riders with the highest numbers of breaches, Table S9: Riders breaching whip rules in two races at the same
race meeting, Table S10: BOBS and Non-BOBS races classified by Country, Metropolitan, or Provincial location,
Table S11: Percentage of BOBS horses in starts classified by Country, Metropolitan or Provincial location, Table S12:
BOBS status of 339 horses with breaches classified by Country, Metropolitan or Provincial location, Table S13:
Whip rules breached in first breaches in BOBS and Non-BOBS races.
Acknowledgments: This work was a collaboration between the University of Sydney (Phil McManus and
Paul McGreevy) and independent researchers (Jennifer Hood, Carolyn McDonald and Bethany Wilson). This study
and the costs of publishing in open access were funded by an Australian Research Council grant (Caring for
Thoroughbreds) held by Phil McManus and Paul McGreevy. The authors thank the stewards at Racing NSW for
their advice on a number of regulatory matters. The authors also thank the independent reviewers of this paper
for their invaluable assistance.
Author Contributions: Paul McGreevy and Jennifer Hood conceived and designed the experiments;
Jennifer Hood and Carolyn McDonald collected the data; Jennifer Hood and Bethany Wilson analysed the
data; Jennifer Hood, Bethany Wilson, Carolyn McDonald, Paul McGreevy and Phil McManus wrote the paper
and approved the article’s content.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

ACT Australian Capital Territory

AR Australian Rules of Racing
ARB Australian Racing Board
BHA British Horseracing Authority
BOBS Breeder Owner Bonus Scheme
C Country
LR Local Rules of Racing
M Metropolitan
NSW New South Wales
P Provincial
RA Racing Australia
$ AUS dollar

Appendix
Racing NSW
Rider Penalty Guidelines for Whip Rule breaches
(To be used as a guide only with all circumstances of the breach to be considered, penalties to remain at the
discretion of the Stewards)
Animals 2017, 7, 4 23 of 25

Table A1. 400–100 metres Successive strokes within the 5 permitted strokes AR 137A (5)(a)(i)

Offence Successive (2) Successive (3) Successive (4–5) Successive (6+)

1st Reprimand Reprimand $200 $500
2nd Reprimand Reprimand $300 Suspension up to 1 week
3rd Reprimand $200 $400 Suspension up to 1 week
4th $200 $200 $500 Suspension up to 2 weeks
5th $200 $200 $600 Suspension up to 2 weeks
6th $200 $300 Suspension up to 1 week Suspensions up to 3 weeks
7th $300 $300 Suspension up to 1 week Suspensions up to 3 weeks
8th $300 $300 Suspension up to 2 weeks Suspension up to 4 weeks
9th $300 $400 Suspension up to 2 weeks Suspension up to 4 weeks
10th $400 $400 Fine & Suspension 2 weeks + Suspension 4 weeks +
Please note number of successive strokes includes total strokes ie 3 = 3 in successive.

Table A2. 400–100 Metres Additional Strokes in excess of 5 strokes AR 137(A) (5)(a)(ii)

Offence 1 Additional 2 Additional 3 Additional 4–5 Additional 6 + Additional

1 Reprimand Reprimand Reprimand $200 Suspension up to 1 week
2 Reprimand Reprimand Reprimand $300 Suspension 1 week +
3 Reprimand Reprimand $200 $400 Suspension up to 2 weeks
4 Reprimand $200 $200 $500 Suspension 2 weeks +
5 $200 $200 $200 $600 Suspension up to 3 weeks
6 $200 $200 $300 Suspension up to 1 week Suspension 3 weeks +
7 $200 $300 $300 Suspension up to 1 week Suspension up to 4 weeks
8 $200 $300 $300 Suspension up to 2 weeks Suspension 4 weeks +
9 $300 $300 $400 Suspension up to 2 weeks Suspension 4 weeks +
10 $300 $400 $400 Fine & Suspension 2 weeks + Suspension 4 weeks +
For repeated offences involving 6 or more additional or successive strides the penalty may include a fine or the
equivalent to the riders percentage of prize money; As a deterrent breaches in Group and Feature races may
attract a heavier penalty; If a rider commits a minor breach of both rules, only one, penalty shall apply, that
being the greater penalty provided for in the two respective tables i.e., a 7th time offender using one additional
stroke of the whip, including one successive application will be eligible to be fined $300 in total; A riders record
refreshes after 400 rides or 12 calendar months; Percentage of Prize money means the riders percentage is
expressed as a maximum figure for penalty; A Riders breach of the whip rules prior to the 26th of September
2009 are not to be taken into account when assessing penalty.

References
1. Jones, B.; McGreevy, P.D. Ethical equitation: Applying a cost-benefit approach. J. Vet. Behav. 2010, 5, 196–202.
[CrossRef]
2. McGreevy, P.D.; Oddie, C. Holding the whip hand—A note on the distribution of jockeys’ whip hand
preferences in Australian thoroughbred racing. J. Vet. Behav. 2011, 6, 287–289. [CrossRef]
3. Evans, D.; McGreevy, P. An investigation of racing performance and whip use by jockeys in thoroughbred
races. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e15622. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. McGreevy, P.D.; Corken, R.A.; Salvin, H.; Black, C.M. Whip use by jockeys in a sample of Australian
thoroughbred races—An observational study. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e33398. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Graham, R.; McManus, P. Changing human-animal relationships in sport: An analysis of the UK and
Australian horse racing whips debates. Animals 2016, 6, 32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Horsetalk.co.nz. Ban on Whip Use Would Be Positive for Racing, Suggests John Francome. Available online:
http://horsetalk.co.nz/2015/11/12/ban-whip-use-positive-racing-francome/#axzz40UAtJE5b (accessed
on 23 June 2016).
7. McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D. Ethical equitation: Capping the price horses pay for human glory. J. Vet. Behav.
2010, 5, 203–209. [CrossRef]
8. Jones, B.; Goodfellow, J.; Yeates, J.; McGreevy, P. A critical analysis of the British Horseracing Authority’s
review of the use of the whip in horseracing. Animals 2015, 5, 138–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. McGreevy, P.D.; Hawson, L.A.; Salvin, H.; McLean, A.N. A note on the force of whip impacts delivered by
jockeys using forehand and backhand strikes. J. Vet. Behav. 2013, 8, 395–399. [CrossRef]
10. Bergmann, I. Sustainability, thoroughbred racing and the need for change. Pferdeheilkunde 2015, 31, 490–498.
Animals 2017, 7, 4 24 of 25

11. Heleski, C.R.; Anthony, R. Science alone is not always enough: The importance of ethical assessment for a
more comprehensive view of equine welfare. J. Vet. Behav. 2012, 7, 169–178. [CrossRef]
12. British Horseracing Authority. Responsible Regulation: A Review of the Use of the Whip in Horseracing.
2011. Available online: http://www.britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/WhipReview.
pdf (accessed on 23 June 2016).
13. Lewin, G.R.; Moshourab, R. Mechanosensation and pain. J. Neurobiol. 2004, 61, 30–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Taylor, P.M.; Crosignani, N.; Lopes, C.; Rosa, A.C.; Luna, S.P.L.; Puoli Filho, J.N.P. Mechanical nociceptive
thresholds using four probe configurations in horses. Vet. Anaesth. Analg. 2016, 43, 99–108. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
15. SBS News. Greens back RSPCA Call to Ban Horse Whips. 26 February 2015. Available online: http://www.
sbs.com.au/news/article/2012/03/21/greens-back-rspca-call-ban-horse-whips (accessed on 8 July 2016).
16. The Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses. Proposal for the Phasing out of the Whip in Australian
Thoroughbred Racing March 2015. Available online: https://www.horseracingkills.com/campaigns/the-
whip/proposal-for-phasing-out-the-whip/ (accessed on 30 November 2016).
17. The Australian. As Public Turns against Racing Codes, Whip Goes Under Review. Available
online: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/patrick-smith/as-public-turns-against-racing-
codes-whip-goes-under-review/news-story/f3cc57b7ae1402a3a8874623a20d233c (accessed on 23 June 2016).
18. RSPCA Policy C05 Horse Racing. Available online: http://kb.rspca.org.au/RSPCA-Policy-C05-Horse-
Racing_642.html (accessed on 23 June 2016).
19. British Horseracing Authority. Responsible Regulation: A Review of the Use of the Whip in Horseracing.
Annex A. 2011. Available online: http://www.britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/
WhipReview.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2016).
20. Racing NSW Stewards Reports. Available online: http://new.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=race-diary-
stewards&filter=Stewards (accessed on 23 June 2016).
21. Racing NSW Race Diary. Available online: http://racing.racingnsw.com.au/FreeFields/Calendar_Meetings.
aspx?State=NSW (accessed on 23 June 2016).
22. Racing NSW BOBS General Information. Available online: http://www.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=
general-information-bobs (accessed on 23 June 2016).
23. Racing NSW. Rules of Racing of Racing NSW. Available online: http://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/
_content/document/00000401-source.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2016).
24. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing:
Vienna, Austria, 2016; Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 23 June 2016).
25. Murrihy, R. Chief Steward NSW Racing, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 12 May 2016.
26. Love, E.J.; Murrell, J.; Whay, H.R. Thermal and mechanical nociceptive threshold testing in horses: A review.
Vet. Anaesth. Analg. 2011, 38, 3–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Mills, P.C.; Higgins, A.J. Investigation of the potential of whips to injure horses. In Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference of Racing Analysts and Veterinarians, Queensland, Australia, 18–24 May 1996.
28. National Health and Medical Research Committee. Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals
for Scientific Purposes, 8th ed.the Code; National Health and Medical Research Committee: Canberra,
Australia, 2013. Available online: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/ea28 (accessed on
25 November 2016).
29. British Horseracing Authority. BHA Briefing: New Figures Show Whip Offences Continued to Fall in 2015.
Available online: http://www.britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BHA-BRIEFING-
2015-Whip-Data-14-01-16.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2016).
30. Murrihy, R. Chief Steward NSW Racing, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 21 April 2016.
31. Van Gestel, M. Deputy Chairman of Stewards—Operations, NSW Racing, Sydney, NSW, Australia,
29 June 2016.
32. Racing NSW. Annual Report 2014. Available online: http://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/_content/
document/00001257-source.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2016).
33. Van Gestel, M. Deputy Chairman of Stewards—Operations, NSW Racing, Sydney, NSW, Australia,
13 May 2016.
34. Australasian Legal Information Institute. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. Available online:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poctaa1979360/s4.html (accessed on 11 July 2016).
Animals 2017, 7, 4 25 of 25

35. British Horseracing Authority. Guide to Procedures and Penalties 2016. Available online: http://www.
britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/guide-procpen-2016.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2016).
36. International Federation of Horseracing Authorities. International Agreement on Breeding, Racing and
Wagering 25 January 2016. Available online: http://www.horseracingintfed.com/resources/2015Agreement.
pdf (accessed on 8 July 2016).
37. International Group of Specialist Racing Veterinarians (IGSRV). WhipChip the Electronic Whip. Available
online: http://igsrv.org/whipchip:-the-electronic-whip (accessed on 15 July 2016).
38. Law Council of Australia. Policy Statement–Rule of Law Principles. Available online: http://www.
lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/LCA-PDF/a-z-docs/PolicyStatementRuleofLaw.pdf (accessed on
4 July 2016).
39. McGreevy, P.D.; Ralston, L. The distribution of whipping of Australian Thoroughbred racehorses in the
penultimate 200 m of races is influenced by jockeys’ experience. J. Vet. Behav. 2012, 7, 186–189. [CrossRef]
40. McGreevy, P.D.; Caspar, G.L.; Evans, D.L. A pilot investigation into the opinions and beliefs of Australian,
British, and Irish jockeys. J. Vet. Behav. 2013, 8, 100–105. [CrossRef]
41. Van Gestel, M. Deputy Chairman of Stewards—Operations, NSW Racing, Sydney, NSW, Australia,
17 May 2016.
42. Racing Australia Media Release. Letter from Racing Australia Chairman—Sent To All Jockeys Today 19
November 2015. Available online: http://www.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=article-display&id=19005
(accessed on 23 June 2016).
43. Racing Australia Media Release. Whips. 23 October 2015. Available online: http://www.racingaustralia.
horse/uploadimg/media-releases/Racing%20Australia%20Media%2023%20October%202015.pdf (accessed
on 23 June 2016).
44. Racenet.com.au. Berry’s Penalty the Severest of Whip Infringers. 2 April 2016. Available online: https://
www.racenet.com.au/news/121649/Berry%E2%80%99s-penalty-the-severest-of-whip-infringers (accessed
on 24 June 2016).
45. G1X. Stewards to Get Cracking on the Whip Rule. Available online: https://www.g1x.com.au/news/
racing/stewards-to-get-cracking-on-the-whip-rule (accessed on 23 June 2016).
46. Racing Australia Media Release 24 June 2016. Whip Rules. Available online: http://www.racingaustralia.
horse/uploadimg/media-releases/Racing%20Australia%20Media%2024%20June%202016.pdf (accessed
on 30 July 2016).
47. Knight, P.K.; Hamilton, N.A. Handedness of whip use by Australian jockeys. Aust. Vet. J. 2014, 92, 231–234.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Grandin, T. Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach; CAB International: Oxfordshire, UK, 2010; p. 2.

© 2017 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).