By Sidney Gibson
For decades, whether a jockey could strike a horse in the stretch depended on the state where the race was run. State racing commissions each wrote their own rules, with differing standards and uneven enforcement.[1] Now, a single national rulebook governs the use of a riding crop, and critics contend that it asks far too much of the riders. For some owners and riders, the fear is that a corrective strike made to keep a horse safe will still be counted against them.[2] Can one national standard protect the horse without leaving the rider exposed?
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority’s (HISA) National Riding Crop rules provide the answer. Properly understood, the rules are not a trade-off between welfare and safety, but a framework built to serve both. Rather than banning the crop in its entirety—which would strip riders of a steering and safety tool[3]—the rules confine it to a narrow, defined use with a built-in exception for safety[4].
Under the rules, a rider may use the crop only to maintain the horse’s focus for the safety of the horse and rider, or to encourage optimal performance.[5] In a race, a jockey is limited to six strikes, with no more than two in succession, and must give the horse a chance to respond before using the crop again.[6] The crop must be padded and cannot injure the horse or leave marks, nor may it be used on a horse that has reached its final placing or is showing no response.[7]
Owners and jockeys who are critical of the rule argue that it forces riders to choose between keeping their horses safe and staying compliant.[8] [CJ1] The rule, however, anticipates this concern by making an exception for safety: a jockey may use the crop as often as necessary to protect horses and riders without it counting towards the six-strike limit.[9] This exempts shoulder taps made with both hands on the reins, giving jockeys a way to refocus their horse without spending one of their six strikes.[10] A jockey who corrects their horse drifting into the traffic has not violated the rule. The critics’ real objection is not the rule’s text but its enforcement of the safety exception: because stewards decide after the fact whether a strike was truly made for safety, a jockey worried about being second-guessed may hesitate at the exact moment a strike is needed.[11] However, every safety exception needs a neutral reviewer. The solution here is clearer guidance and consistent stewarding, not a looser rule.
So far, early data has suggested that the fear of jockeys hesitating has not materialized.[12] [CJ2] HISA reported that crop violations fell from 4 per 1,000 starts between July and December 2022 to 2.8 per 1,000 starts between January and June 2023, a 30 percent decline.[13] Stewards have also observed less rider interference in the stretch.[14] Some owners and jockeys warned that limiting the crop would put horses and riders in danger.[15] If that were true, rider interference should have increased as jockeys came into compliance. Instead, stewards have anecdotally reported seeing less rider interference in the stretch.[16] These reports cover only the rule’s first year, and the evidence of reduced interference is anecdotal, but the early trend is what a well-balanced rule should produce.[17]
Critics of the riding crop rule also turn to constitutional challenges, but those criticisms are more concerned with who enforces the rule, not whether the rule strikes the right balance between safety and welfare.[18] On that criticism, however, the rule offers jockeys more protection than critics acknowledge.[19] [CJ3] Stewards may weigh aggravating and mitigating factors before imposing a penalty,[20] and a jockey who strikes their horse to avoid a collision is therefore not left to the judgment of a single steward with no recourse. The open question is not whether the rule protects safety, but whether stewards apply the safety exception consistently from track to track, and that is a problem geared more toward training and guidance, not the rule itself.
The crop rule also fills a gap in the statute. HISA is largely a horse protection act that does little for jockey safety.[21] The safety exception is one of the few places where it explicitly protects both the horse and the human athlete. For example, a jockey whose horse veers into another runner may use the crop as needed to straighten the horse, and none of those strikes count against the six-strike limit.[22] The same logic runs through the other limits of the rule: a jockey cannot use the crop during the post parade, after the finish, or on a two-year-old before April 1, except to avoid a dangerous situation or preserve the safety of the horses and jockeys.[23] In each case, the rule restricts the crop for the horse’s sake but lifts that restriction the moment the rider’s safety, or the horse’s safety, is at stake.
HISA’s crop rules do exactly what a national standard should: they limit the conduct that threatens the welfare of the horse and rider, while also preserving the tool a rider needs when safety is on the line. The remaining issues, hindsight review and consistent stewarding, call for better implementation, not a looser rule. A rule can protect the horse without leaving the rider exposed, and HISA’s crop rules accomplish both.
[1] Bennett Liebman, Introducing the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act and a New Era of Racing Regulation, 32 N.Y. St. B.A. Ent., Arts & Sports L.J. 64 (2021).
[2] Dan Ross, In a First, FTC Overturns HISA Whip Adjudication, Thoroughbred Daily News (Sept. 12, 2023), https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/in-a-first-ftc-overturns-hisa-whip-adjudication/.
[3] HISA Racetrack Safety, 87 Fed. Reg. 435, 441–44 (proposed Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/05/2021-28513/hisa-racetrack-safety [https://perma.cc/2BQ8-XLRS] (explaining that permitting crop use is critical to the safety of horses and riders).
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Horseracing Integrity & Safety Auth., Rule 2000 Series: Racetrack Safety Program Rulebook, r. 2280(b)(2) (effective July 8, 2024).
[8] Ross, supra note 2.
[9] Horseracing Integrity & Safety Auth., supra note 7, at rr. 2280(b)(2), (6), 2282(a).
[10] Id. at r. 2280(b)(4).
[11] Id. at rr. 2133(a), 2283(a).
[12] Horseracing Integrity & Safety Authority, HISA Publishes 2025 Annual Metrics Report (Mar. 24, 2026), https://hisaus.org/news/hisa-publishes-2025-annual-metrics-report.
[13] Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, HISA Makes Significant Strides in First Year of Implementation (July 11, 2023), https://hisaus.org/news/hisa-makes-significant-strides-in-first-year-of-implementation [https://perma.cc/2NCD-C6JA].
[14] HISA Makes Strides in First Year of Implementation, Bloodhorse (July 11, 2023), https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/270076/hisa-makes-strides-in-first-year-of-implementation [https://perma.cc/RS9R-KHTC].
[15] See supra note 2.
[16] Horseracing Integrity & Safety Auth., supra note 13; see also HISA Makes Strides in First Year of Implementation, supra note 14.
[17] Id.
[18] See generally Kyle Kendall, The Fifth Circuit's Holding in National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association v. Black Keeps HISA from Crossing the Wire, 103 Wash. U. L. Rev. Online 63 (2025), https://washulawreview.org/the-fifth-circuits-holding-in-national-horsemens-benevolent-and-protective-association-v-black-keeps-hisa-from-crossing-the-wire/ [https://perma.cc/73F8-QNYT].
[19] See Horseracing Integrity & Safety Auth., supra note 7, at r. 2282(b).
[20] Id.
[21] Erik L. Pedersen, Ready, Set, Go: The Race Between the Government, the Constitution, and Racehorses, 35 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 439, 450 (2025).
[22] Horseracing Integrity & Safety Auth., supra note 7, at rr. 2280(b)(6), 2282(a).
[23] Id. at rr. 2280(c)(4), (7).