Whipped into Shape?

Forgive my trespass into a world that has always been slightly alien to me thus far. Horse racing. Last week jockey, Nicky Mackay, was given a 10 day riding suspension by the stewards at Wolverhampton for 'excessive use of the whip'. What was deemed to be 'excessive' was not apparently a judgement based on the circumstances of the case, but a matter of counting the number of hits inflicted upon the poor old horse from a certain defined point before the finishing post.
Nicky McKay was due to have his appeal against this penalty heard by the British Horse Racing Authority tomorrow, but he has now withdrawn that appeal and had his £500 deposit returned because his ban has now been reduced to 4 days.
 The reason for the reduction is that the BHA has now effected what it described as 'fundamental change to the rules governing the use of the whip together with revisions to the existing penalty structure' this week. The fundamental change introduced an 'emphasis on reviewing the manner in which the whip is used, as well as taking account of frequency'.
What is particularly surprising to me is that mid season these changes are being brought into effect, and that the rules themselves have only been in force for 4 months! The BHA went on to describe their own rules as 'fundamentally flawed'. Riders had apparently been given 'disproportionate penalties for the offence committed'. One of the objectives of these rule changes was to allow 'added discretion and common sense (to) be applied by stewards when considering whether a rider is in breach of the rules'. Rules which prevent the application of common sense would appear to indeed be  fundamentally flawed!
The number of hits is now to be used a trigger for the intervention of  the stewards. 8 whip uses in Flat racing and 9 uses in Jump racing will lead to consideration of how the whip was used, and presumably why, before deciding on the need to sanction or otherwise and, if so, the degree of penalty.
 The element of mandatory doubling of the penalty where a jockey has a previous qualifying ban within 12 months has been abandoned and the harshness of the penalties has been mitigated.
McKay originally qualified for a 5 day ban for 7 strikes uplifted to 10 by virtue of his previous ban within 12 months. His defence was that his striking of the horse was justified as an attempt to keep his mount from colliding with the rails. The horse's trainer described the original ban as 'bordering on the absurd'. McKay himself did not consider that he had done anything wrong at all, but is being pragmatic and probably realistic in following legal advice not to pursue the appeal given the reduced penalty.
The BHA is bringing into effect these changes from the 23rd February 2012, but with retrospective effect for suspensions still to be served. Fair enough, but what about those sanctioned jockeys who have already served their suspensions under rules that the BHA have themselves described as 'fundamentally flawed'. Surely there must now be some redress for them??
The BHA 'recognises that this question may come under scrutiny in major races and reserve the right to make further revisions in the future'. It strikes me that the BHA is far from confident that it has got this matter right now and is looking for the escape hatch. Brought in under pressure from Animal Welfare Groups, the BHA has tinkered with the rules mid season on more than one occasion without apparently giving sufficient thought, and doing adequate research into the consequences. The attendant bad publicity and furore brings considerable discredit upon the Sport and suggests that it is not being intelligently regulated.
These are just the musings of an outsider. I would welcome constructive comments.