There was much sadness among racing fans on Saturday when it became known that the popular gelding Beat The Bank had suffered a fatal injury in winning his ninth race at Ascot, in typically battling fashion.

It had initially looked as if he might be saved when he walked on to the horse box but it was not to be.

Most tributes noted what a brave ‘warrior’ he was. In many races he had looked beaten but responded to being ridden and a few smacks of the whip to rally and pull victory out of the fire, just as he did on Saturday. His ability and courage saw him win over half a million in prize money for his connections.

As the ‘whip debate’ still rumbled on in the media through the racing channels over the weekend, we are led to believe there are many who are still hoping for the day when the use of the whip will be banned outright.

The main argument is that people are being put off racing because they do not like to see horses being hit and, therefore, the next step would be to ban the whip.

But the question should be asked, if there was no whip allowed in racing, would a horse like Beat The Bank have won so many races or been so popular? And is he not just the type of horse we need to attract people to the sport?

Racing needs horses like him, brave, likely to be around for quite a few seasons, the type of horse people watch out for every time he runs.

There is a feeling that the ‘whip debate’ is being driven more by media professionals, both in print and on television, rather than there being a huge outcry among racing people for its removal, even if selected trainers are frequently invited to comment.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

The ‘we must get ahead of the game for public perception’ argument lingers on instead of the sport defending what it offers and being proud of racing’s record on horse welfare.

The implications of the ‘disqualify or not’ debate were summarised pretty well by Ed Chamberlin on in his Sporting Life column at the weekend. “We would have a duty to speculate about whether a horse should be disqualified and we’d have to look at it umpteen times, analysing how many times a horse has been struck.

“Can you think of worse PR for a sport than that? A magnifying glass on the whip to see if they missed or hit, how many times they were hit, we’d be counting, someone in the ITV truck would be having to count how many times and we’d have to analyse it as throwing a horse out of a race would have huge implications.”

And if we concede and disqualify winners, will that end the debate if the whip stays in the headlines?

To take it to the next logical step and the bigger issue, and one that so many racing professionals and media seem reluctant to grasp, is that if we keep drawing attention to this subject, convincing ourselves that people are staying away from racecourses because they do not like to see horses being hit, the next step will be to ban the whip. And where would that leave us?

Veterinary experts agree are there is little ground for making the current whip a ‘welfare’ issue, and swift action is taken against anyone seen to abuse a horse on a racetrack.

But if you concede on this issue now, then you have to concede even more when you consider there are elements of racing that do inflict pain and even cause death.

Flat racing is lucky in that there are fewer deaths on the track than over jumps. Beat The Bank’s fatal injury was bad luck, the same cannot be as easily said of injuries sustained in races over obstacles where there is a much greater risk of injury in a fall, and a death is harder to make palatable or defend. And especially so if it was of a popular horse.

We can defend the whip as it is used currently, that when used properly it reminds horses to pull out that little bit more.

There will always be a winner, runs the counter debate, even if there is no whip used, but be careful what you wish for because it’s horses like Beat The Bank, who show admirable traits like resolution under pressure, that make a public connection and bring people to the sport.

Beat The Bank tributes