IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0192843.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Flogging tired horses: Who wants whipping and who would walk away if whipping horses were withheld?

Author

Listed:
  • Paul D McGreevy
  • Mark D Griffiths
  • Frank R Ascione
  • Bethany Wilson

Abstract

Recent studies have cast doubt on the effectiveness of whipping horses during races and this has led to questions concerning its continuing justification. Furthermore, it has been argued that whipping tired horses in racing is the most televised form of violence to animals. The present study used de-identified data from a recent independent Australian poll (n = 1,533) to characterise the 26% of respondents (113 females and 271 males) who support the whipping of racehorses and the 10% of racing enthusiasts in the sample (44 females and 63 males) who would stop watching races and betting on them if whipping were banned. Logistic regression models examining associations between age, gender, and income level of respondents demonstrated that those who support racehorse whipping are significantly more likely to be male. Among racing enthusiasts who would stop watching races and betting on them if whipping were banned, those in the lowest income bracket were over-represented. The more frequently respondents attended races or gambled on them, the more likely they were to agree that horses should be hit with a whip during the normal course of a race. These findings align with previous studies of violence among men and women but may also be attributed to male support of traditional gambling practices. Globally, racing organisations may consider the findings of the present study helpful in their deliberations on the merits of continuing the practice of whipping tired horses in the name of sport. The study might also provide important data for stakeholders who demand that it continues.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul D McGreevy & Mark D Griffiths & Frank R Ascione & Bethany Wilson, 2018. "Flogging tired horses: Who wants whipping and who would walk away if whipping horses were withheld?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-10, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0192843
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192843
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192843&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0192843?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Evans & Paul McGreevy, 2011. "An Investigation of Racing Performance and Whip Use by Jockeys in Thoroughbred Races," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(1), pages 1-5, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Camie Heleski & C. Jill Stowe & Julie Fiedler & Michael L. Peterson & Colleen Brady & Carissa Wickens & James N. MacLeod, 2020. "Thoroughbred Racehorse Welfare through the Lens of ‘Social License to Operate—With an Emphasis on a U.S. Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Bethany Wilson & Bidda Jones & Paul McGreevy, 2018. "Longitudinal trends in the frequency of medium and fast race winning times in Australian harness racing: Relationships with rules moderating whip use," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Bethany J Wilson & Kirrilly R Thompson & Paul D McGreevy, 2021. "The race that segments a nation: Findings from a convenience poll of attitudes toward the Melbourne Cup Thoroughbred horse race, gambling and animal cruelty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-13, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0192843. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.