By Michael Cox
The discussion around how Hong Kong’s whip rules should change – or if they should change at all – has divided opinions.
The debate, in some ways a battle between old-school and new thinking, is a fascinating study in how Hong Kong racing has seen itself and how it wants to be seen in the future.
The Hong Kong Jockey Club is a world leader in many respects but as discussed in this space previously, has lagged behind the rest of the racing world in adopting limits on how often a jockey can hit a horse in a race.
Officials have made it clear that there will be changes from the start of next season. What those changes will be has been put up for discussion by participants and officials.
This week it was the topic at a trainers meeting at Sha Tin and opinions varied widely, but with two distinct ideas.
The first camp – let’s call them the old-school – feel that Hong Kong should not bend to the same pressures from animal welfare groups that western jurisdictions have tried to appease.
The case for keeping things the same is that trying to please groups outside of racing is a slippery slope. Give the animal rights groups an inch, and they will take a mile, they argue,
The fear that trying to placate the anti-racing crowd is a no-win situation isn’t unfounded: many of racing’s fiercest critics that call for reduction in whip use, or banning whips altogether, are open about the fact that they don’t want racing to exist at all.
But a new wave of thinking is sweeping through Hong Kong racing.
“Hong Kong racing is beamed around the world via commingling, people are watching and betting on us from all parts of the globe – we aren’t in a bubble anymore,” one trainer told the Standard.
That increased exposure on the world stage brings into focus an uncomfortable truth: that Hong Kong racing, with its fast and furious finishes, combined with lack of limits on whip strikes, looks like an absolute free-for-all compared to the rest of the world.
“Something has to change,” another trainer said.
Interestingly, both the old-school traditionalists and modern thinkers agree on one point: a numerical limit on whip strikes is not considered a viable solution.
The trouble with whip limits based on the amount of strikes is that when a jockey is under pressure – particularly in a big race – that rules are forgotten and no amount of fines or suspension are enough to stop them doing whatever it takes to win.
Then comes the dilemma for stewards. If a jockey has over-used the whip in a finish and wins by a narrow margin, and the beaten rider has ridden within the rules, should the stewards reverse the placings on protest?
This scenario is one part of the can of worms trainers fear.
Perhaps the common ground between the old and new school is that a ban on hitting on consecutive strides would be a reasonable starting point for a new approach.
The idea that Hong Kong racing is immune to the type of anti-racing sentiment prevalent in western jurisdictions is outdated.
In November last year the man widely regarded as the world’s most famous living philosopher, the Australian Peter Singer gave a lecture on ‘animals and ethics’ at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Singer has controversial ideas on a range of topics including abortion, euthanasia, infanticide and surrogacy – but it is his views on animal rights that are the central driver of many of the world’s strongest anti-racing groups. Could Singer’s lecture be the spark that starts a serious animal rights movement in Hong Kong?
Proponents of Singer’s ideas are not the crowd that the new whip regulations are aimed to please – his followers want racing banned, not just whips – but it is important to remember that Hong Kong racing is no longer the outlier it once was.
