Richard Boock: Whip it good

SOPHISTRY: THE art of inventing a clever excuse to mask an ulterior motive.

You get a lot of it these days, particularly when it comes to justifying the unjustifiable, or avoiding what should be a clear responsibility. Take the racing industry's defence of the practice of whipping horses. That people are still prepared to support the abuse in the name of entertainment says a lot about the strength of the propaganda campaign so far. Or maybe it just tells us more about ourselves.

As Australian RSPCA chief executive Heather Neil said recently, people are now so accustomed to the sight of race horses being whipped that it's hardly even noticed. She's right, you know. More attention is paid to the design of the frocks, the imagination of the local milliners; the bubbles, the bonhomie. The reality of horses on the periphery being flogged and beaten is usually avoided at all costs. Really, it can only spoil a good day out.

The issue has prominence across the Tasman as Australian racing authorities ponder a review into whipping, and the likely implementation of some much overdue restraining orders. Their New Zealand counterparts have already introduced stricter guidelines but have no reason to feel smug. Limiting jockeys to six successive blows, after which they must allow their horse six whipless strides before starting again, is hardly a breakthrough for animal welfare.

In fact, it almost makes less sense. Having no restrictions is bad enough, certainly. But a rule determining how many times an animal can be beaten before anyone takes official notice is institutionalised cruelty, plain and simple. Paradoxically, it's also a concession that whipping horses is wrong. France continues to consider an outright ban on the practice; New Zealand should go a step further and implement one. Until it does, the entire industry remains beneath contempt.

Under the present conditions, horse racing is no more a sport than bear-baiting or dog-fighting. You wonder if the thousands who will turn up to watch more than 100 horses flogged around Ellerslie today would be just as happy at a local cock-fight or a bull-fighting extravaganza. The mentality seems to be, who cares if animals are suffering; just as long as the punters are having a good time.

What's more, no one in the racing industry has come up with anything beyond a smokescreen in terms of a decent explanation. The ones who claim whipping "doesn't hurt" have already been shown up as complete dimwits, so it's hardly surprising they continue to plead their case. Quite how a horse can feel a fly land on its hide, but not a whip has yet to be adequately explained. And if it doesn't hurt, why is there a limit on the number of blows allowed?

If it doesn't hurt, why do it at all?

Then there are the folk who rationalise their position, claiming a "little" whipping is fine, in moderation. That it's OK to whip horses in order to keep them concentrating on the job at hand, or because they might need a "wake-up call". In other words, they believe that if a horse isn't performing strongly enough in a race without being whipped, the jockey has a right to whip it. All I can say is that, if this really is morally acceptable, then we should start using it on our Olympians.

Outrageous? Before he passed away, my wife's maternal grandfather used to talk about a Timaru Boys' High School rugby master who caned players at training for dropping the ball or throwing a wayward pass. Somewhere along the line we learned it was wrong to treat people like that, but not race horses. And to think, the industry claims it cares about the welfare of the animals. What nonsense. It merely cares about the welfare of racing.

If there was any genuine intent to reform the activity, New Zealand racing boffins wouldn't only monitor and ban the mistreatment of horses at race meetings, but also when they're being trained, well out of the public eye, beyond the scrutiny of race-day stewards. Having grown up next to the back straight stables at Dunedin's Forbury Park, and having witnessed standardbreds beaten mercilessly by angry, swearing men, it's hard to imagine the abuse has suddenly stopped.

As it stands today, horse racing is a miserable, horribly exploitative pastime, designed to appeal to those with a prehistoric mentality and a cavalier disregard for animal rights. Whether it's the racing of grossly immature two-year-olds, the cruelty of the steeplechase, or the fact that only a small percentage of those bred are fast enough to escape the knacker's yard, it's hard to even think about it without an accompanying sense of shame.

As newspaper columnist Patrick Smith pointed out late last year in a stunning attack on the Australian horse racing environment, "it is a sick, misguided industry that spends millions a year on veterinary expertise, research and drugs so horses remain fit and sound enough to be whipped countless times in the name of a good time or a big payout. That's every day of the week, in every state and territory in the country." An unspeakable state of affairs.

New Zealand authorities will doubtless claim the high ground in comparison, having already moved to quantify how much lashing is allowed before it's deemed to be unfair. But if anything their logic is even more twisted and perverse, and deserves to be further challenged. There is no minimum threshold on cruelty, after all. To quote Smith once more, "if the point of whipping a horse is to hurt it, which it is, then one strike is as cruel as 100".

- © Fairfax NZ News