Whip Use by Jockeys in a Sample of Australian Thoroughbred Races—An Observational Study Paul D. McGreevy 1 *, Robert A. Corken 1 , Hannah Salvin 1 , Celeste M. Black 2 1 Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2 Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Abstract The use of whips by jockeys is an issue. The current study viewed opportunistic high-speed footage of 15 race finishes frame-by-frame to examine the outcomes of arm and wrist actions (n = 350) on 40 horses viewed from the left of the field. Any actions fully or partially obscured by infrastructure or other horses were removed from the database, leaving a total of 104 non-contact sweeps and 134 strikes. For all instances of arm actions that resulted in fully visible whip strikes behind the saddle (n = 109), the outcomes noted were area struck, percentage of unpadded section making contact, whether the seam made contact and whether a visible indentation was evident on impact. We also recorded use of clockwise or counter- clockwise arm action from each jockey’s whip, whether the whip was held like a tennis racquet or a ski pole, whether the hind leg on the side of the impact was in stance or swing phase and whether the jockey’s arm was seen traveling above shoulder height. The goal of the study was to characterize the area struck and the visual impact of whip use at the level of the horse. We measured the ways in which both padded and unpadded sections of the whip made impact. There was evidence of at least 28 examples, in 9 horses, of breaches of the whip rules (one seam contact, 13 contacts with the head, and 14 arm actions that rose above the height of the shoulder). The whip caused a visible indentation on 83% of impacts. The unpadded section of the whip made contact on 64% of impacts. The results call into question the ability of Stewards to effectively police the rules concerning whip use and, more importantly, challenge the notion that padding the distal section of whips completely safeguards horses from any possible whip-related pain. Citation: McGreevy PD, Corken RA, Salvin H, Black CM (2012) Whip Use by Jockeys in a Sample of Australian Thoroughbred Races—An Observational Study. PLoS ONE 7(3): e33398. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033398 Editor: Colin Allen, Indiana University, United States of America Received September 4, 2011; Accepted February 12, 2012; Published March 1 , 2012 Copyright: ß 2012 McGreevy et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report. Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following conflicts: Paul McGreevy is a member of the Expert Advisory Panel – Dog Advisory Council (UK) (2010 - Present), Scientific Advisory Panel: International Fund for Animal Welfare (2008 – Present), Scientific Advisor: RSPCA (UK) (2008 – Present), Australian Animal Welfare Strategy Working Group (2008 – Present); Scientific Advisory Panel: World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) - Equine Specialist (2003 – Present); International Society for Equitation Science (ISES) - Co-founder (2002 – Present), Scientific Advisory Panel: RSPCA (Australia) (2001 – Present), International Society for Equitation Science: Hon. President (2011 – Present), Visiting Professor: Nottingham Trent University, UK (2010 – Present), Adjunct Associate Professor: University of New England, Australia (2010 – Present), Editorial advisory board: The Veterinary Journal (2009 – Present), Editorial board: Journal of Veterinary Behaviour (2005 – Present). This does not alter the authors’ adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. * E-mail: paul.mcgreevy@sydney.edu.au Introduction Whipping tired horses in the name of sport is becoming increasingly difficult to justify [1]. This view is supported by recent evidence showing that, in races of 1200 m and 1250 m, whip use was most frequent in the final two 200 m sections when horses were fatigued [2]. Further analysis of the same dataset revealed that horses were more likely to be whipped in the penultimate 200 m section of races if ridden by apprentice rather than non- apprentice jockeys and if drawn closer to the rail [3]. Given that horses further from the rail are known to have slower race times [4], one would expect them to need more whipping (if, indeed, whipping helps) to keep horses closer to the inside of the bend [3]. In a similar vein, the effectiveness of the whip in steering racehorses has been brought into doubt, in NSW at least, by data showing that handedness of riders, rather than direction of racing, seems to be the primary driver as to which hand jockeys use to carry the whip [5]. In Australia, the Australian Racing Board (ARB), representing the Thoroughbred racing industry, has developed the Australian Rules of Racing, and these rules are then adopted by state racing authorities, such as Racing NSW, with the addition of local rules of racing. Australian Rule (AR) 137A deals specifically with the design and use of whips. Under the current whip rules (in place since 2009), the general sub-rule provides that ARB Stewards may penalize any rider who in a race, official trial, jump-out or trackwork, or elsewhere uses his whip in an excessive, unnecessary or improper manner (AR 137A(3)). Beyond this sub-rule, the detailed rules concerning whip use provide that in the final 100 metres of a race, a rider may, subject to the other requirements of this rule, use his whip at his discretion, subject to the other requirements of this rule (AR 137A(5)(b)). In addition, the Stewards may penalize any rider who in a race, official trial or jump-out uses his whip: (a) forward of his horse’s shoulder or in the vicinity of its head; or (b) using an action that raises his arm above shoulder height; or (c) when his horse is out of contention; or (d) when his horse is showing no response; or (e) after passing the winning post; or (f) causing injury to his horse; or (g) when his horse is clearly winning; or (h) has no reasonable prospect of improving or losing its position; or PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e33398 9