Poorly written rules lead to no consistency in enforcement.

[Chief Stipe]

Notice the definition(s) missing in these rules?

AMENDMENTS TO THE WHIP RULES (RULE 638(3)(c))

After very careful consideration, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing has decided to make some changes to the Rules regarding the use of the whip.  These changes were initiated by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities to try to achieve consistency with the use of the whip by Jockeys over the world.  As you will be aware, the use of the whip during a race is seen by many people as cruel and unless we take steps to change that perception we could face increasing opposition.  The changes to the Rules are for the welfare of the horse, to demonstrate that we are serious about caring for our horses.  The new Rules are intended to make sure that whips are not used in such a way that they cause unnecessary pain during a race.

The changes to the Rules will come into effect next Wednesday (12^th February).  These changes are:

• The whip must not be used if you are not in contention of running in the first five placings. – The whip should only be used to get the best out of your horse when in contention.  It is not a good look for horses out of contention to be getting hit with the whip.
• The whip must not be used on a horse’s flank. – The horse’s flank is a very sensitive area and getting hit there is painful.  This area must be avoided.
• The whip must not be used forward of the saddle whilst it is held in the forehand position. – A horse’s shoulder, neck and head are also sensitive areas and should not be hit with any force.  Tapping the shoulder using the whip in the downward position is ok.
• The whip must not be used in a manner which causes a welt and or injury. – Whips should be used for encouragement and not to cause injury.  Injuries and welts may be seen by spectators or on television and makes racing look bad.

In essence, most Jockeys will not have to make any changes to the way they use the whip currently, as it is not common for it to be used in a way which would breach the new Rules.  The new Rules are to show that there is no intention to use the whip irresponsibly.

The new Rules are not intended to collect more money in fines, the best outcome would be if no jockey was ever found guilty of breaking them.

The rule amendments will be published shortly and will be available on the LoveRacing website.

These are added to the existing rules, please check the rule book for all whip rules.

[curious]

Those aren't rules. They are notice of a change to them. What definitions are missing?

[Chief Stipe]

19 minutes ago, curious said:

Those aren't rules. They are notice of a change to them. What definitions are missing?

The main one that you keep referring to.  BTW at least I can still find my arse and elbow.

[Special Agent]

Another option used to fine or suspend and shown in the Stipes Reports is hitting a horse when clearly winning.

As for having no listed definition of the flank, I guess it is assumed as a licence holder you know where that part of the body is.

[Special Agent]

Just now, Special Agent said:

hitting a horse when clearly winning.

I think this is worse than hitting a horse when not in contention of running in the first five.  Not being in contention is a judgment call which could be based on a number of factors i.e. how does the horse feel, have you ridden the horse before, does it run on from back in the field, what is the start number in this campaign, how has the horse trained and eaten this week, is today's race the optimum distance, is the trainer trying different tactics etc.

A well trained horse with ability is a pleasure for a jockey to ride and may need little whipping.  For the others make sure you have a savvy jockey who knows how to hit, where to hit and how to count.

Is it really that hard?  There are official eyes, cameras and vets to enforce the rules.  If jockeys want to ride and be paid, abide by those rules, or suffer the consequences.

 

[Chief Stipe]

BTW an amendment to a rule is just a mechanism by which rules are either added or subtracted from a larger set of rules or changed.  Still rules and rules that are easily enforced have no ambiguity including clear definitions.

Where is the definition of "flank"?  Surely it should be a clearly defined part of a horse anatomy.

The NZTR rules attached - note including amendments!!

RULES OF RACING Gender Revision - 17 June 2025.pdf

[curious]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Where is the definition of "flank"?  Surely it should be a clearly defined part of a horse anatomy.

As with most of the words in the rules I'd think noscitur a sociios would apply, wouldn't it? If you don't know yourself, any kid who has passed the C level pony club test should be able to help you.

[Murray Fish]

Prof AI reckons
"

See all linksSee reasoning

 

 

 

Images

Videos

Whipping in thoroughbred racing in New Zealand has been increasingly criticized for its negative impacts on horse behavior and welfare, prompting discussions about regulation changes and potential bans.

Impact on Horse Behavior

Research indicates that the use of whips during races often causes physical and psychological harm to horses. Whipping can lead to behavioral responses such as increased anxiety and stress, which may be visible through signs like tail swishing, pinned ears, or erratic movements. Horses that are subjected to whipping may experience desensitization, making them less responsive over time, which can lead to reduced performance in races and a diminished bond of trust between the horse and rider.

1. Psychological Trauma: The pain from whipping can harm the horse’s mental state. As horses are prey animals, they evolve to flee from threats; thus, the fear and discomfort associated with whipping can make them anxious and prone to stress-related behaviors. Long-term exposure to such aversive stimuli can lead to learned helplessness, a state where an animal perceives its stressors as unavoidable, leading to detrimental impacts on performance and overall welfare 

    

   2

   .
2. Performance Outcomes: Studies have shown that whipping does not significantly enhance racing performance. For instance, a study conducted at the University of Sydney found no correlation between whip use and improved race times; in fact, races conducted without whip use demonstrated comparable if not better performance outcomes. This suggests that the reliance on whipping may not only be unnecessary but can also provoke fear in horses, diminishing their inherent competitive drive 

    

   2

   .
3. 

   

    

   2 Sources

Regulation and Cultural Shift

The conversation surrounding whipping has intensified, prompting changes in New Zealand's racing regulations. Recognizing the potential for animal welfare abuse, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) has called for a reevaluation of whip policies, aiming to align with international best practices.

• Current Regulations: Existing rules allow restrict the number of strikes a jockey can make with the whip, and any excessive use leads to sanctions. Despite these rules, incidents of excessive whipping have been reported, highlighting the challenges in enforcement and the need for better oversight 

   

  1

  .
• Industry Perspectives: Growing public and industry consensus suggests that the use of whips could be phased out entirely. The idea that whips are necessary for the safety and performance of horses is being increasingly questioned, as evidenced by a significant body of scientific research stating that proper technique in riding and training can effectively replace the need for whipping without compromising the horse's welfare 

   

  2

  .
• 

  

   

  2 Sources

Conclusion

In summary, whipping has significant negative consequences for horse behavior in thoroughbred racing in New Zealand. The growing concern regarding harm to racehorses emphasizes the need for a cultural shift within the industry towards more humane practices. With continued advocacy for banning whipping and implementing alternative training methods, the thoroughbred racing community is poised to rethink its stance on the use of whips, ultimately prioritizing the welfare of the horses involved.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

As with most of the words in the rules I'd think noscitur a sociios would apply, wouldn't it? If you don't know yourself, any kid who has passed the C level pony club test should be able to help you.

How do the words surrounding the word flank in the rules explain it?  That's for those that haven't googled the term noscitur a sociios yet.

As for Level C Pony Club - well research the area defined as the "flank" - it varies widely and indeed on at least one photo presented by @Thomass and yourself the whip appears (it isn't clear) to have struck the rib cage which by the standard defintion ISN'T the flank. 

BTW you shouldn't play in the cess pit too often as it makes you sarcastic.

Since you have taken on this crusade and want to "educate" everyone perhaps you could draw a circle on a horse and show the "flank".  The reality is you would rather there was a circle around the entire horse.

[curious]

I don't disagree that the rules could be better written, but that same rule is in use in a number of jurisdictions and I'm not aware that there has been any dispute over it's interpretation. Seems to me it would be hard to strike a horse on the ribcage with hands off the reins without using the reinforced part of the stick rather than just the flap.

The simple solution would be to change the rule so it is simple and enforceable. i.e., No use for encouragement with hands off the reins.

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, curious said:

I don't disagree that the rules could be better written, but that same rule is in use in a number of jurisdictions and I'm not aware that there has been any dispute over it's interpretation.

Right that's great - let's do it like everyone else instead of better.  At least you admit the rules are poorly written.  BTW in NZ and most jurisidictions Jockey's cop the fine or suspension and don't legally challenge anything.  Part of the reason we end up with inconsistency and INCA's.

6 minutes ago, curious said:

The simple solution would be to change the rule so it is simple and enforceable. i.e., No use for encouragement with hands off the reins.

Then promote that rather than what you admit is a poorly written rule which as a consequence is hard to enforce.  But much more fun to incite the masses is it not?!