TIPPING POINT:An experimental period where use of the whip, apart from correctional purposes, is banned in Ireland, would be the focus of worldwide attention, writes BRIAN O'CONNOR

HOW JOCKEYS use whips on racehorses is the greyest of grey areas with any amount of emotive nuance contained within. But on the back of a week in which British racing has threatened to implode amidst a torrent of recrimination and posturing, the requirement to come up with a black and white answer to “the whip question” has never been more vital.

What can definitively be said already is the British Horseracing Authority’s reputation for blustering ineptitude has been burnished and buffed into a toweringly gleaming monument to cack-handed incompetence. Faced with a dilemma demanding decisiveness, British racing’s ruling body spent 10 months formulating a set of new whip rules that are an even deeper shade of grey than before.

In the process they have appeased nobody, not any pinko-liberal, horsey-huggers, nor the true-blue “in my day” merchants who remain oblivious to any idea that racing’s ethics might have to justify itself outside of its own little bubble. But not only has the BHA managed to pee everybody off, it has also laid the sort of landmine pattern through its own patch that makes Angola look like a nice place to stroll.

Imposing a precise and inflexible number of times a whip can be used at a certain stage of a race is a blunt instrument compounded by a series of financial penalties and suspensions that infuriate everybody and which don’t possess the redeeming feature of actual effectiveness.

As things stand, if two jockeys are fighting out the finish of the Derby, and one breaks the whip rules but passes the post first, his horse keeps the race. Said jockey will, however, have to cough up his riding percentage and riding fee, a financial penalty that has the potential to be considerably soothed on the sly by the grateful owner of said horse whose victory can boost its value by millions.

Such a scenario is far from fanciful and examples of the new rules’ inflexibility are already so plentiful it is hard to argue when jockeys argue that they are unworkable.

The riders appear set to win this immediate battle and there will be general satisfaction at that in Ireland, from where many of Britain’s top jockeys come, just one of the many inextricable ties between the two countries when it comes to racing.

When it comes to the whip, things are a lot more fluid in Ireland. Stewards don’t have to rigidly count strikes and a general rule of thumb is that use of the whip has to be unsightly in order for penalties to be handed out. As such, it is regarded as more of a cosmetic issue, a sign perhaps of different social attitudes to animals here generally.

But any Irish amusement at the self- inflicted woe British racing finds itself in should be diluted by the reality that cosmetics have a fundamental importance in racing, and what will always remain an international reality is that using whips to make horses run faster is intrinsically ugly.

Any amount of justifications, and there are many, such as how modern whips are heavily padded, and that eight and a half stone of skinny humanity is entitled to some assistance in controlling half a tonne of wayward thoroughbred, ultimately cannot disguise how repeatedly striking animals for the purposes of entertainment simply doesn’t look good.

Behind the BHA’s practical ineptitude lies an instinct that is ultimately likely to prove correct. The general public might not know the intricacies of the issue, nor indeed care very much, but they do recognise something that doesn’t look attractive. Ignoring the importance of that might be convenient in the short-term but ultimately it will prove counter-productive.

Hardy horse types might dismiss that as mere optics and argue that the perception doesn’t match the reality. But more than most sports, perception matters in racing. Normally it is in terms of jockeys trying their best, something that has to be matched by the authorities in at least being seen to try to catch out those that aren’t. The whip debate contains the apparent contradiction of jockeys being penalised for trying too hard but that doesn’t negate the reality that use of the whip is going to become even more of an issue in how racing sells itself in the future.

There were instances of whip abuse in this country and in Britain just a couple of decades ago that make one queasy to look back on. Those that objected then were summarily dismissed as cranks, just as some of the anti-whip lobby is now. But racing adjusted – and it is that ability to adjust that should be fully tested now, not just in Britain but here in Ireland.

If modern whips are indeed barely noticeable to a thoroughbred galloping at full tilt, then why use them at all?

Jockeys insist they need whips for correctional purposes but why not, for a certain period of say a couple of months, ban riders from using whips for anything other than those same correctional purposes.

Many well-respected racing professionals believe such a move would encourage better horsemanship and crucially would fundamentally alter the appearance of the sport. It also has the crucial merit of being relatively easy to enforce, a black and white, easy-to-understand alternative to the jumbled mess that is currently in place in Britain.

The Turf Club at the Curragh has set up a subcommittee to examine the implications of Britain’s controversial whip rule changes. It’s safe to presume they are likely to conclude with a long list of “what not to do”. Any smugness should stop there however.

The whip is a contentious issue now and will remain so. International momentum against its use has already begun. It is banned in Scandinavia, admittedly hardly an area renowned for its racing, and often scoffed at for its ultra-liberal politics.

No doubt there was plenty scoffing too when Finland and Sweden first gave women the vote – or when Denmark first accorded same-sex couples the same legal status as male-female partnerships. They seem to be able to ride the future rails a lot better in the cold north, leaving the rest of us to catch up.

So is it beyond our abilities here to grab the racing initiative and act before we have to react?

An experimental period in a major racing country like Ireland, where use of the whip apart from correctional purposes is banned, would be the focus of worldwide attention and, crucially, see racing Ireland take the initiative in a sensitive area that will increasingly come to dominate the sport’s agenda in the years ahead. What’s there to lose in seeing what might happen?

However the likelihood of such decisive leadership here is about as likely as the British Horseracing Authority emerging from this current furore smelling of roses. The BHA are probably going to have raise the white flag this time. When those you are supposed to regulate are in open revolt, it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of your authority.

But racing everywhere has to take care that in winning this particular battle, the overall war to survive and prosper isn’t lost.