CHRISTOPHE Soumillon’s ride aboard Thunder Snow in the Breeders’ Cup Classic has drawn a wide-range of comment in the past week, and there is much to take out of it, although little that can be deemed positive. His was not the most egregious use of the whip at the Breeders’ Cup meeting at Churchill Downs, or indeed the worst display by a European-based rider in the Breeders’ Cup Classic.

Those dubious honours go to Joe Talamo for his hideous display aboard Dabster in the Marathon on Saturday’s undercard, and who could forget Frankie Dettori’s display which saw Swain beaten in the Classic when more circumspect use of the whip would almost certainly have won him the race.

On both occasions, the riders’ strokes saw their mounts veer markedly away from the stick, and anyone paying attention would surely feel uncomfortable watching such a display.

When the whip is used judiciously, horse and rider tend to look in harmony and it can help horses run straight and true to the line.

FULL-BLOODED BLOWS

What we have seen Stateside, both last weekend and on a regular basis for those who watch the workaday US meetings is far from that. Talamo landed no fewer than 25 full-blooded blows on his mount, with no apparent thought for maintaining Dabster’s stride pattern or balance, and if a single one of those strokes landed on the horse’s quarters, then I missed it.

Rules in US jurisdictions are very different to our own, and with Soumillon, and Dettori in days of yore, there is an element of “when in Rome” about whip use, but one thing we can take from witnessing some ugly misuse is that we have come a long way in terms of dealing with the issue domestically.

It’s exactly 40 years to the week that Sir Peter O’Sullevan wrote a controversial piece in The Daily Telegraph in which he called for modifications in the design of whips and for more stringent rules regarding excessive use. An invitation to readers to discuss the subject saw 100% agreement for what had been written, according to the author.

When the article was written, rules were more lax and some rides were brutal as illustrated by Joe Byrne and Tommy Ryan being referred to Portman Square for their riding at the Cheltenham Festival. There was a mixed response to the Jockey Club’s attitude to the issue at the time, with Timeform coming out in sympathy with the riders given the severity of the punishments eventually handed down, whereas the press were pitiless.

Brough Scott complained that “their heavy-handed methods offended anyone who hates seeing a racehorse treated like some wretched Spanish donkey late for market”, and his TV colleague Lord Oaksey described the riders as “a disgrace to an honourable profession”. The outrage came once O’Sullevan had put his head over the parapet and ensured it was safe for others to join the action, and it’s fair to say the fury unleashed on the hapless riders was not in keeping with the way Lester Piggott was treated for his rat-a-tat-tat riding of The Minstrel and Roberto at Epsom in the not-too distant past, but the point is that the response was correct, and a sea-change was effected.

GENERAL PUBLIC

Those changes were fuelled by the feelings of a general public who were deemed to be largely fans of racing, but not of the whip, at least wielded liberally. We’ve come a long way, and I believe whip rules in Ireland and Britain strike the correct balance, but this isn’t really about the whip – it’s about any issue which provokes a negative reaction among those who are casual fans of the sport.

One of the biggest issues racing has with public perception is that some practitioners of the sport view those who express concerns over such issues as enemies of horse racing, in much the same way that Donald Trump believes journalists who pose discomfiting questions are enemies of the people.

This is a very dangerous attitude, as is the patronising notion that those who only pay to support racing through betting and attendance should shut up and let professional horsemen decide what’s best.

What we saw in Kentucky last weekend shows that the “don’t question the experts” rhetoric cannot stand up on its own. Nor can racing’s practitioners shun dissenting voices as belonging to outsiders.

There are many groups which are necessary for racing to flourish, and we tend to take spectators for granted in that mechanism, as they have no vested interest to defend, so don’t shout as loud as the others, but they have a powerful weapon, and it’s called an off-switch; disenfranchise them and you will cripple the sport.