I do not know the man personally, but I do like Mark Johnston. I said as much on the TRF thread about him joining the BHA Board. He has some terrific ideas and he is a bold speaker. But if he wants to help steer the BHA in his direction, he had better go back to his Glasgow University professors so that they can remind him how to structure an argument. They can also remind him that an argument is for “winning” not just “having”. Maybe the use of the whip in race riding is such an emotive concept for him, that he forgets the logical approach that he brings to many of his other ideas.
“I don’t suppose the cranks and the bunny-huggers will ever give up trying to get the whip banned from horseracing…” “…as the study was carried out in Australia, that, presumably includes when the jockey waves it around like a blade on a propeller” “They keep coming out with the same old drivel … “
Name calling or denigrating his opponents is not quite as useful as pointing out the flaws in their data or analysis. It gives opponents a stick to beat him with, whereas valid criticism of data or analysis does not.
“This issue rears it’s ugly head every year or so and, every time it does, I reiterate what I consider to be the logical case for the retention of the whip but it looks like nobody ever listens. “
Saying that his opponents are not listening is the opposite of reality; they listen but do not accept that what he propounds is the whole story (see below for Mark’s theory) It is only arrogance that says; “I have spoken, I must be right. I think it is logical, therefore it must be logical”.
“When David Ashforth wrote his first piece on the whip last week, I contacted Alan Byrne (Editor-in chief of the Racing Post) and said I believed David Ashforth to be an inappropriate choice, from all the more technically qualified journalists available, to cover this subject.”
I think that it is fair enough that he contacted the editor and put forward his views, but it doesn’t advance his argument one jot. After twenty years of racing journalism and two Journalist of the Year awards, I am sure Ashforth can look after himself. But Mark has taken the focus away from the real argument about the issue and placed it on a person. Albert Einstein was only a Patent Clerk when he published his paper on Special Relativity; perhaps all scientists should ignore it, since they know he wasn’t qualified to write it. Perhaps we should disregard a statistician’s contribution into research on heart disease, and rely only on the qualified doctors.
On his website Mark outlines his view on the purpose of the whip.
“The whip is often, as is recognised in the rules of racing, required to discipline horses, to prevent interference between horses in a race and, to some extent, to aid steering. But, to my mind, it has a far more important function in racing: to keep a horse balanced and, ultimately, reduce the risk of serious injury even when it is getting tired towards the end of the race. Horses are "flight" animals and we need an artificial predator or other stimulus (the whip) to initiate the full response. However, as the horse tires, many components of that physiological response wear off. The excitement wanes, the stride shortens and the weight distribution alters with the head and neck lowering and more weight being thrown onto the vulnerable front limbs. At this point, it is in the best interests of the horse to reinforce the flight response and get the horse to the end of the race in a fully alert state. The strokes of the whip, which cause no lasting damage to an animal of that size, initiate a new ‘injection’ of adrenalin and endorphins. “
It sounds scientific and relatively convincing. But it leaves out all the elements that cause the controvosy. How hard and how frequently must the horse be hit to initiate this response? Enough to mark or cut it? How many times can this procedure be repeated on a tired horse in a race before it becomes ineffective? If it is repeated beyond effectiveness, can it lead to injury if the horse tries to exert itself beyond its current physiological capability? How can a rider know whether the horse is running slowly because it needs a fresh injection of adrenaline and endorphins, or whether it has a physiological problem unrelated to obvious lameness or breathing difficulty? Why do some horses not respond to the whip in this way? Of course there are many other scientific questions unanswered here, as well as in the other categories that Mark believes are of lower priority, such as; although there may be no lasting damage (in “proper” use of the whip), how much temporary damage is acceptable for the entertainment of punters and racing’s other customers?
“Racing should, on all issues, be prepared to present experts who can educate the public rather than pander to the populist view.”
This is a good point. But racing should also be prepared to educate members of the racing industry. Has anyone ever collected data by asking jockeys; “Other than for correction, why do you use the whip on a racehorse”? How many would answer; “To make it run faster”, and how many would answer; “To initiate the flight response to minimise the risk of injury to the horse when it is tired”?
For Mark to do well on the BHA Board he will have to hone his arguing skills and have better information, not just the information he thinks is important in an argument but also information that his opponents think is important.