No integrity in penalties for 'excessive' use of a whip
When the 'prize' for first is $50,000+ a fine of $1,000, paid by the connections, not the offending jockey, is an incitement to disregard the rules on whip use.
The only possible penalties likely to have any proper impact are, first, suspension of the jockey and, second, disqualification of the horse from the race.
In short, first, no connections will cover 'the losses' of a leading jockey suspended and losing winning rides .......... second, connections likely to be 'disqualified' and denied any prizemoney at all woud be careful to instruct the jockey to respect the rules, and inclined to sue if he did not and they lost.
That is where integrity lies.
It is not, however, where commonsense lies.
The 'number-based' rules have no objective meaning in terms of advantage gained and need to be revoked. Put differently, would you prefer to be hit 'too many times' by a hard whip-rider or a soft whip-rider?
.......... 'numbers' of strikes have no meaning without knowing the force of strikes.
Conversely can a jockey be penalized for not using the whip to the maximum permitted?
Leaving the 'whip rule' to just drift, as is, in some vague ether is hardly tenable.
The stewards need to pull-the-stick on this one ------ upholding a protest and relegating a horse would see an uproar demanding clarity........... a disqualification of a runner would see a revolution.
................ is broke ........... needs fixing.