The whip rules are a failure: Cheltenham's stewards addressed 14 cases of misuse last week. The whip rules are a success: vets reported none of the horses were abused or injured.

Failure: jockeys keep breaking them. Success: they are less reliant on the whip than ten years ago.

Failure: repeated infringements at high-profile fixtures brings the sport bad publicity. Success: their consistent application proves racing has the will to regulate itself.

Failure: the sport's vocal professionals are in open dissent with the regulator's fierce policing. Success: the Government has not yet overruled the regulators, rewritten their rules or banned the whip.

All of these seemingly contradictory statements are true. They illustrate what a fine mess racing has got itself in. Before the sport plunges into harsher regulation, it needs to know its own mind.

First principles: is the whip cruel? Every vet to whom I spoke agreed that the whip, used within racing's existing rules (that is, used to encourage a horse to give of its full athletic potential and not merely for corrective purposes), is an entirely legitimate item of riding equipment.

Interestingly, none would go so far as claim that its use in a finish makes a difference to the result of races, except perhaps in the case of a small number of uncooperative horses. Yet these vets acknowledged that most racing professionals “believe” that the whip affects results.

So this first principle is actually polarising. If the whip is not cruel, why talk of banning it? But if it does not make a difference to the result, why have it? Or, if it does, giving an advantage to more genuine horses, might that not be a good thing?

While it awaits scientific answers, racing should refrain from experimenting in the manner of John Francome's well-meaning but unhelpful suggestion of a whip-free trial. This would tacitly, erroneously, concede that the whip is cruel.

Perhaps, instead, racing can agree what its whip rules are for? Surely they must reflect what is reasonable force in the communication of human will to the horse. They set a minimum standard of behaviour for those unwilling or unable to regulate themselves. I believe that the rules, as they exist, fulfil these criteria.

However, there are two antagonistic problems, setting perception against actuality, that make this issue critical for racing.

First, the reforms made by racing in the past ten years have been lost on the public. Compare footage of this year's Cheltenham with that of 1998. Not only is the whip now used with greater restraint but its new shock-absorbing design means it would need to be wielded with far greater intent to inflict actual harm.

It is also not widely known that a whip ban does not mean abuse has taken place. Racing's regulators have built a huge cushion between their trigger point for a ban and that which would concern an independent welfare observer. This is proper: jockeys should maintain unimpeachable professional standards. It is, however, confusing and open to wilful misrepresentation.

The second perception problem may be exacerbated by the first. Perhaps because they know the regulatory bar is set so high, many racing professionals persistently break the rules and then complain when they are punished, decrying the stewards rather than the offence. Some seem oblivious to the real pressure at present being exerted on the regulators by powerful people to stamp out whip misuse or have the issue taken from their hands.

Racing's next move will decide the future of the whip - whether it has one. Professional and public opinion must be sought and the risks of ignoring or pandering to either must be balanced. I urge the authorities to host an open debate on this issue and then take a strong lead.