Racehorse TALK

NEW WHIP RULES: THE ECONOMICS OF CRIME

As reported in The Australian this morning,

Using Blake Shinn's ride in last year's Melbourne Cup on Viewed as an example, Bailey said a repeat of that level of whip use in the $5million race would certainly see the winning rider forfeit the riding fee, plus the maximum fine of $75,000 -- equating to half the 5 per cent commission of prizemoney.

Quite apart from the contradiction of last-year-good this-year-bad, it is a bit ambitious to think that the prospect of penalties (short of disqualification) will overwhelm a jockeys determination to win the Cup -- apart from anything else, the winning connections would be honor bound to cover the jockey's exes from the $3.5 million just trousered.

In short when $3.5 million overwhelms $225,000 by a factor of 15 -- the prospective penalties are an invitation to go for broke.

Loking back at some of the most memorable 'win at all costs' rides over the past 25 years, and attendant exemplary fines and suspensions, does anyone believe that the connections did not make good the situation for the jockey on a promise? In this vein, one of the most sensible and effective stewards decisions ever made was the relegation of Choisir in a Melbourne carnival race.

There is little point penalizing jockeys alone -- and no chance of a horse winning unfairly being disqualified.

Whatever else is done, it is past time for jockeys to subscribe to a code of practice -- including an annually signed undertaking to not use a whip excessively.

Any intention to apply the rule on a numbers basis will stand in ignorance of the difference betwen Des Lake and Peter Cook (but even PC went for broke in a Cup)