Mark Johnston has slammed racing’s governors for bringing in whip rules saying “no organisation has done more harm to the public perception of the use of the riding crop in racing than the BHA” and their predecessors.
Britain’s winning-most trainer claimed the latest changes had little to do with horse welfare and were being driven by a need to manage public perception of the sport.
“Every time we ban and/or penalise a jockey for his use of the crop, the public perceive, quite understandably, that a horse has been abused and its welfare has been compromised,” he said in his latest ‘Bletherings’ blog post.
“This has been the case since they started counting strokes of the crop and dished out bans to the first three jockeys home in the thrilling 1996 2000 Guineas and that perception will be reinforced and amplified when they increase the penalties, start banning jockeys for longer periods for the same ‘offence’, and start disqualifying winners.
“We should never have gone down the route of counting strokes as there is little or no correlation between the number of strokes and the incidence of abuse. It was far better when the rules were geared to punishing any abuse of horses rather than principally being concerned with public perception.”
A lengthy whip review resulted in the BHA approving the introduction of stricter rules which would limit jockey’s use of the whip to the backhand position only and tougher penalties for the worst breaches including disqualification.
But days before the start of a four week-long bedding-in period on Monday, the BHA this week bowed to pressure from leading jockeys and performed a u-turn by removing the backhand restriction.
Johnston said: “It beggars belief. Was the review worth the 95 sheets of paper it was written on? Clearly not and that is hardly a surprise as the regulator’s approach to this issue has been flawed for decades.”
Johnston, who stepped aside at the start of the year to allow son Charlie become sole licence holder for Johnston Racing, was equally scathing about the PJA.
“But what of the Professional Jockeys Association’s involvement in the review itself, their agreement with the back-hand proposal, and now their own U-turn when it turns out, yet again, that they are totally unrepresentative of the views of working jockeys?”
“Why do the BHA rely so heavily on input from the PJA when they repeatedly demonstrate their lack of understanding of so many issues and, worst of all, their apparent inability to canvas the views of their members and, in particular, their more influential members?
“Is it simply that the BHA lack the expertise and confidence whenever it comes to anything relating specifically to the participants?”
