This article was written by guest writer Dene Stansall, a long-time advocate to help horses in British racing. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lawyers for Animals, but we are sharing because this topic may be of interest to our readers.
During the first six months of this year, under the Rules of Racing, jockeys committed 286 ‘Use of the Whip’ offences against their horses on English, Welsh and Scottish racecourses. The figure should be seen as more than just an alarming statistic; it is a serious welfare problem that racing and our wider society has failed to resolve.
The use of the whip in horseracing is arguably the most publicly visible and contentious form of animal cruelty that exists in the uneasy space between societal acceptance and moral condemnation. Every race day, horses are struck with a whip with the approval of the sport’s governing body, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), and as a permitted practice within the bounds of UK law. This legal exemption undermines the effectiveness of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in the protection of race horses.
Legitimising the violent act of striking an animal - and the racing industry describing it in the highly misleading and euphemistic term of ‘encouragement’ — is an effort to push a horse to the extreme of their physical ability. The industry further defending the use of the whip in the context of ‘horse welfare regulation’ is an appalling misnomer.
The whip is a dangerous tool of coercion to compel performance; it causes pain and unpredictable race outcomes. A 2002 study found that horses were at a greater risk of a limb fracture within ten seconds after receiving ‘encouragement’. In jump racing, whipping can increase the chance of a horse falling, often fatally.
The Whip
There are two whip designs currently in use with the option of being either flexible or rigid. One whip is used to strike horses in Flat races, the other is for striking horses in National Hunt (jump) races. Both are made up of a carbon composite spine with a polymer surround, foam pads with a synthetic cover, and a rubber handle.
Race Whip Dimensions
The Flat Race Whip’s padded area makes up only twenty-five percent of the whips total length and the Jump Race Whip under forty-five percent. The stitching along the sides of the whip makes for a harder surface that can easily come into contact with the horse, as can the handle and the unpadded central rod, which occurred in 64% of whip strikes in a study of its use.
The Rules of Racing that uphold the use of the whip
The BHA rules on the whip form the basis of their defence. The format and text laid out on their website is there to instill public and political confidence in the BHA’s authority and abilities to uphold horse welfare within their guidelines on the use of the whip, even though the rules are subjective and self-regulated.
Under the current Rules of Racing, the BHA allows jockeys to strike their mounts up to six times in Flat races and up to seven strikes in National Hunt (jump) races. The strikes fall within certain parameters of BHA acceptance; they can’t be random hits to a horse. Breaches of the rules that carry a sanction, include: hitting a horse above the permitted level; using the whip on a horse by starting the strike above the jockey’s shoulder height; hitting a horse in the incorrect place [sic] (is there a correct place?); hitting a horse without giving time for the horse to respond; hitting the horse when out of contention; hitting a horse when clearly winning; hitting a horse down the shoulder with the whip hand off the reins; or using excessive force — which can be capable of causing weals on a horse’s flesh.
Notably the guidance contains no acknowledgement of coercion or pain that the whip may cause to a horse. On the contrary, the BHA sees it as ‘an essential aid to horsemanship and safety.’ Its opening ruse states, ‘In British racing the use of a foam padded, air cushioned whip is permitted, with strict controls on its use.’ It is a biased narrative with limited detail.
The penalties against jockeys for breaches of the rules primarily focus on suspensions from race riding with an entry point of 4 days, and in specific circumstances jockeys can be fined and a disqualification sanctioned. An appeal process is in place for jockeys to challenge their given penalty.
The BHA penalty framework has, in a vast number of cases, failed to protect horses from whip abuse. For example, in 2024, 18 horses were abused more than once during a season. And repeated offending from individual jockeys was commonplace with five jockeys breaking the whip regulations on six occasions.
This could be because key aspects within the whip rules and the penalty system remain subjective and expose the weakness in the current self-regulatory system. For example, what constitutes ‘force’ is determined by race-day Stewards’ judgement rather than by any objective scientific evaluation.
It could be argued that it is irrelevant to count the number of strikes as a measure of ‘acceptable’ or ‘poor’ welfare. The mere fact that horses are legally allowed to be beaten whether below or above racing whip thresholds is in itself disturbing.
This criticism is supported by Professor Paul McGreevy, one of the world’s leading authorities on whip research. In a recent lecture for the International Society for Equitation Science, he observed:
‘There is no such thing as a standard whip strike. So, counting them in a bid to protect horse welfare, is unfortunately, a non-science.’
International standards on whip use
The BHA is a member of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA). The international authority, despite its claims in its Mission Statement to ‘protect the welfare of horses and riders through promotion and co-ordination of standards’, has failed to deliver a unified global policy on the whip in racing. This allows the various national and regional regulators across the world to decide their own whip policy and set their own rules and sanctions. This has produced striking differences, with the most progressive welfare standards seen in Norway and Sweden who have removed the whip from racing, except in limited circumstances, to the permissive regulators like Japan and Hong Kong who allow horses to be hit at will. British Racing sits in the middle tier on global whip regulation.
Self-regulatory reviews on the whip
The principal arguments in favour of continued whip use rely on internal reviews with minimum external input, and policy documents produced by the racing regulators themselves. In the past fifteen years the BHA has conducted two published reviews with amendments at various timeframes during that period.
Public and media concern after the whip beating given to the horse called Ballabriggs during the 2011 Grand National in which he received 17 strikes, forced the BHA to review the whip. Titled ‘Responsible Regulation’, it was promoted by the BHA as a landmark review, with the main outcome being a reduction of permitted strikes and increased penalties for jockeys who broke the new rules. However, the Review was revised and some aspects rescinded after a high-profile jockeys’ backlash.
The BHA’s ‘Whip Consultation Report’, published in 2022, gave a more balanced view on the use of the whip than that of the 2011 review, by acknowledging, though not implementing, the findings of scientific research. But the concluding document did little to improve the race horses’ lot. Again the outcome focused on a reduction of one strike per racing discipline (flat and jumps) and increased penalties for offenders - but this has had minimal practical effect on reducing whip breaches.
Public support for a ban and the racing industry’s response
The most recently published public opinion poll, conducted by Ipsos UK, on the use of the whip in racing, found that the majority of respondents supported a ban.
Despite a consistent level of public opposition to the whip expressed through numerous opinion polls over many years, the BHA has remained resistant to change. Its response is to defend its position by arguing that the public lacks a full understanding of the facts surrounding the use of the whip. And it is this argument that has been expressed to politicians who, on the whole, remain either indifferent or supportive of the industry’s view.
Science putting the whip to the test
Significantly, there are no scientific papers published that support a pro-whip policy in horse racing.
There is, however, well documented, peer-reviewed, empirical data examining the use of the whip that covers objective, systematic, evidence-based scientific research in areas including, efficacy, safety, integrity, and horse welfare.
Two recent examples of peer-reviewed scientific papers, both published in the journal Animals in 2020, lay the ground for change. The data and observations covered two distinctly different aspects of whip use.
The first paper was designed to inform the debate surrounding whip strikes in horse racing with a focus on horses’ welfare and whether they had the capacity to detect pain - with a comparison to human skin pain levels.
Titled ‘A Comparative Neuro-Histological Assessment of Gluteal Skin Thickness and Cutaneous Nociceptor Distribution in Horses and Humans’ the results showed no significant difference between humans and horses in the concentration of nerve endings in the outer layer of skin, and that humans and horses have the equivalent basic anatomic structures to detect pain in the skin. The paper noted that ‘accumulated damage from successive strikes [of the whip] is likely to create more pain and inflammation.’
On this subject, the racing industry stance and many in the racing media have played down the physical effects of the whip on a horse’s flesh. They have argued that the whip is a cushioned implement designed merely for safety and encouragement, but they fail to explain, for example, why weals can be raised on a horse, or that coercion and intimidation are aspects of its use. But the slang language that has been openly used - notably by ITV presenters referring to the whip as ‘the persuader’ — is a giveaway to its menacing force that demands compliance.
The force of a whip, when striking a horse, can cause the animal pain, for example, especially when horses are hit in the face during the heat of a race. The force, known as Newton Force (N), that jockeys project when whipping a horse can impact at over 50N, which is equivalent in function to lifting five litres of bottled water from the ground. It is important to note that a force that exceeds the minor pressure thresholds that elicit sensory or avoidance responses in large animals can register at just 6N. The resulting Pressure — a concentration of force over a specific area measured in Pascals (Pa) - is governed by the surface area of the strike, so rarely, if ever, are two whip strikes the same.
For those with less concern for horse welfare but place their interests in race results and betting markets, a study titled ‘Is Whip Use Important to Thoroughbred Racing Integrity? What Stewards’ Reports Reveal about Fairness to Punters, Jockeys and Horses’
highlighted that whipping horses did not have any significant effect upon race outcomes in terms of safety, steering, interference or race finishing times when compared with races where whips were not used. The whip was exposed as a culturally entrenched implement that had no beneficial input into racing integrity.
The argument against the use of the whip requires new momentum from the public
The majority of the public according to polls believe that the whip is a cruel implement, and there is a large body of scientific evidence to support that view, which is a base to move forward.
But, whilst the thrust of this article is critical of the racing industry for failing horses on this issue, there could be a more meaningful response from the public with a strategic plan for banning the whip.
What a strategic plan could require
If the whip is to be removed from racing, campaigners need more than a demand — they need a route to change that accounts for how the industry protects itself. Four elements are missing from the current approach:
An evidence-led public campaign, not a slogan. The scientific record already exists — the nociceptor studies, the stewards’-report analysis on race integrity — but it sits in academic journals, unseen by the public whose opinion polls the BHA dismisses as “uninformed.” A campaign built around translating that evidence into plain, shareable public-facing material would remove the industry’s main rebuttal.
A legislative target, not just an industry one. The BHA has no incentive to reform against its own commercial interest, and fifteen years of internal review confirms it won’t. The real leverage point is Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 itself — not a named exemption, but the “legitimate purpose” and “proportionality” tests that courts use to decide whether suffering counts as unnecessary. Because BHA rules currently define what counts as legitimate and proportionate whip use, the industry effectively sets the boundary of its own legal protection. A strategic campaign would target that mechanism directly: pressing for either a statutory clarification that whip strikes cannot be treated as serving a “legitimate purpose,” or an amendment that removes self-regulatory compliance as a defence under Section 4. That shifts the fight from persuading the BHA to reform itself, to a concrete legislative ask that Parliament can act on.
A coalition, not parallel statements. Welfare charities are condemning the whip with limited direction. It will be more powerful for organisations to take a joint position, such as a shared legislative ask, backed by welfare science, legal expertise, and public polling. This would carry far more weight with politicians than isolated statements.
International precedent as leverage. Norway and Sweden have already shown a whip-free model is workable within competitive racing. A strategic campaign would use their approach as proof of concept, forcing the BHA’s “essential aid to horsemanship and safety” argument to answer directly to a country where it patently isn’t essential.
None of this guarantees success against an industry with as much political and commercial weight as British racing. But without a plan of this kind, “ban it” will remain exactly what it has been for years: a moral position with nowhere to go.
Lawyers for Animals, a registered charitable incorporated organisation in England & Wales. Principal Office: 147 Station Road, Chingford, E4 6AG. Registered charity no. 1215659
I would like to remove horses from horse racing not just the whip.
The whip is a traditional part of horse racing, winning is all, causing
a horse pain is of low priority.
Horse racing will probably never be banned, but the whip has no place
in a civilised society.