Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
i think we should all take note of this ping pong champion. He obviously knows more than any of us
Show More
I think the whip is an evil necessity (for a small minority of horses) made worse by over zealous jockeys and their slanted competitiveness to win at all costs.
For anyone who missed this most insightful copy
The racing industry is in denial. Horses are being thrashed with whips at meetings up and down the country, these graceful creatures being offered what apologists euphemistically call “encouragement”. The industry should stop insulting the intelligence of those it seeks to persuade. The truth is that pain is being inflicted upon animals for the purpose of making them run faster.
The great Peter O’Sullevan, whose melodious tones were such an integral part of the coverage of racing until his death in 2015, campaigned for much of his life against misuse of the whip. Other voices have been raised in protest, including dozens whose careers depend on the industry. Yet these voices, and millions more among the paying public, have been consistently ignored.
We will come to the science presently but could anybody dispute the sheer violence of the spectacle? I went to two meetings last year and was appalled by what I saw, and couldn’t help overhearing the complaints of fellow punters. Rob Wright, the acclaimed tipster on these pages, often takes friends to his cherished sport and spends much of the time fielding criticism. “Young people in particular are affronted by the whip,” he told me yesterday. “If horse racing is going to appeal to the next generation, it has to wake up to how this is perceived.”
The excuses offered by advocates of the whip are risible. Insiders talk about the importance of safety but if this is the true concern, why not limit the use of the whip to occasions when a horse is veering off course? More pertinently, why not study what has happened in Norway, where the whip was curtailed more than three decades ago? As an article in one peer-reviewed journal put it: “Norway has strictly limited whip use since 1982, including removing whips completely from most Flat races since 2009, and while the industry is comparatively small, there is no evidence that the safety of jockeys and horses has been negatively affected.”
Others pretend that the whip, with its padded energy-absorbing design, doesn’t cause distress to horses and that its only effect is to create a loud sound when making impact on the flesh, which helps a jockey to focus the attention of the animal. Well, if this is the only reason for the whip, why not replace it with a device that makes the requisite sound but which doesn’t require the horse to endure impact? Has nobody within this supposedly creative industry thought of that?
On the issue of distress, the industry talks up the idea that a horse’s sensitivity to pain during a race is dulled because of high arousal, citing the phenomenon of “sportsman’s analgesia”. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. A recent paper, lead-authored by an expert in veterinary science, said: “Recent research suggests that pain perception may be enhanced, rather than reduced, in some stress-related states. And, if exercise does induce an analgesic state, this could actually imply that horses would need to be struck especially hard to overcome this. The prospect of pain from post-whipping inflammation once the adrenaline response has subsided is not considered.”
This is corroborated by a different piece of research led by Paul D McGreevy of the University of Sydney, which examined 15 races frame by frame. The results showed that the use of the whip caused a visible indentation on 83 per cent of impacts, while the unpadded section of the whip made contact on 64 per cent of impacts. The conclusion states: “The results call into question the ability of stewards to effectively police the rules concerning whip use and, more importantly, challenge the notion that padding the distal section of whips completely safeguards horses from any possible whip-related pain.”
Indeed, the pretexts and excuses used for the whip are so moribund that one cannot help wondering what is really underpinning the industry’s resistance to reform, although perhaps this isn’t so difficult to identify, either. Insiders are gripped by the fear that if they give in to protests against the whip, if they finally acknowledge the welfare issues at play, it will be the first step in a long retreat that may culminate in the prohibition of racing itself. As one source put it: “If you give in on the whip, what next? People will want to ban jump racing, then Flat racing. It will be the thin end of the wedge when it comes to welfare.”
It is here, however, that the industry is making a profound strategic miscalculation. My sense is that the majority of the British public accept most forms of horse racing and recognise the dangers that are inherent to the spectacle. As the late sportswriter James Lawton put it: “Most inhabitants of the real world understand that you cannot have something so filled with courage and straining athleticism, both equine and human, without a considerable measure of risk.”
Yet what the British public struggle to understand is when welfare is compromised unnecessarily, when pain is inflicted in a way that adds nothing to the underlying basis of the sport itself. Horses carrying humans can race perfectly well without being thrashed, whether by a whip or anything else. Little wonder that a YouGov poll from 2014 found that 70 per cent of respondents, including many aficionados of the sport, opposed the use of the whip.
The racing industry is in denial. Horses are being thrashed with whips at meetings up and down the country, these graceful creatures being offered what apologists euphemistically call “encouragement”. The industry should stop insulting the intelligence of those it seeks to persuade. The truth is that pain is being inflicted upon animals for the purpose of making them run faster.
The great Peter O’Sullevan, whose melodious tones were such an integral part of the coverage of racing until his death in 2015, campaigned for much of his life against misuse of the whip. Other voices have been raised in protest, including dozens whose careers depend on the industry. Yet these voices, and millions more among the paying public, have been consistently ignored.
We will come to the science presently but could anybody dispute the sheer violence of the spectacle? I went to two meetings last year and was appalled by what I saw, and couldn’t help overhearing the complaints of fellow punters. Rob Wright, the acclaimed tipster on these pages, often takes friends to his cherished sport and spends much of the time fielding criticism. “Young people in particular are affronted by the whip,” he told me yesterday. “If horse racing is going to appeal to the next generation, it has to wake up to how this is perceived.”
The excuses offered by advocates of the whip are risible. Insiders talk about the importance of safety but if this is the true concern, why not limit the use of the whip to occasions when a horse is veering off course? More pertinently, why not study what has happened in Norway, where the whip was curtailed more than three decades ago? As an article in one peer-reviewed journal put it: “Norway has strictly limited whip use since 1982, including removing whips completely from most Flat races since 2009, and while the industry is comparatively small, there is no evidence that the safety of jockeys and horses has been negatively affected.”
Others pretend that the whip, with its padded energy-absorbing design, doesn’t cause distress to horses and that its only effect is to create a loud sound when making impact on the flesh, which helps a jockey to focus the attention of the animal. Well, if this is the only reason for the whip, why not replace it with a device that makes the requisite sound but which doesn’t require the horse to endure impact? Has nobody within this supposedly creative industry thought of that?
On the issue of distress, the industry talks up the idea that a horse’s sensitivity to pain during a race is dulled because of high arousal, citing the phenomenon of “sportsman’s analgesia”. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. A recent paper, lead-authored by an expert in veterinary science, said: “Recent research suggests that pain perception may be enhanced, rather than reduced, in some stress-related states. And, if exercise does induce an analgesic state, this could actually imply that horses would need to be struck especially hard to overcome this. The prospect of pain from post-whipping inflammation once the adrenaline response has subsided is not considered.”
This is corroborated by a different piece of research led by Paul D McGreevy of the University of Sydney, which examined 15 races frame by frame. The results showed that the use of the whip caused a visible indentation on 83 per cent of impacts, while the unpadded section of the whip made contact on 64 per cent of impacts. The conclusion states: “The results call into question the ability of stewards to effectively police the rules concerning whip use and, more importantly, challenge the notion that padding the distal section of whips completely safeguards horses from any possible whip-related pain.”
Indeed, the pretexts and excuses used for the whip are so moribund that one cannot help wondering what is really underpinning the industry’s resistance to reform, although perhaps this isn’t so difficult to identify, either. Insiders are gripped by the fear that if they give in to protests against the whip, if they finally acknowledge the welfare issues at play, it will be the first step in a long retreat that may culminate in the prohibition of racing itself. As one source put it: “If you give in on the whip, what next? People will want to ban jump racing, then Flat racing. It will be the thin end of the wedge when it comes to welfare.”
It is here, however, that the industry is making a profound strategic miscalculation. My sense is that the majority of the British public accept most forms of horse racing and recognise the dangers that are inherent to the spectacle. As the late sportswriter James Lawton put it: “Most inhabitants of the real world understand that you cannot have something so filled with courage and straining athleticism, both equine and human, without a considerable measure of risk.”
Yet what the British public struggle to understand is when welfare is compromised unnecessarily, when pain is inflicted in a way that adds nothing to the underlying basis of the sport itself. Horses carrying humans can race perfectly well without being thrashed, whether by a whip or anything else. Little wonder that a YouGov poll from 2014 found that 70 per cent of respondents, including many aficionados of the sport, opposed the use of the whip.
Why is a lefty thinking bedwetter allowed to write stuff like that in the Times?
I thought it were a serious newspaper.
I thought it were a serious newspaper.
Getting shot of the whip will render many animals useless for competition and betting purposes jump racing in the winter in boggy ground would be particularly pointless best bets might come in the number of finishers market.
Another one who isn't even interested in the sport ffs
At some point they've just got to be ignored, don't even respond or rise to their BS
Like a child when it just keeps saying "mummy", ignore him/her long enough and they'll get bored
Its only because people keep responding to the simpletons they keep pushing this c***
At some point they've just got to be ignored, don't even respond or rise to their BS
Like a child when it just keeps saying "mummy", ignore him/her long enough and they'll get bored
Its only because people keep responding to the simpletons they keep pushing this c***
The author is completely clueless don't want to say too much and come across all Billy big bolox as I've done previously on this issue to put it simply I've seen the demos of a young girl being hit full pelt with the whip and nothing happened bar laughter,case closed.
This was the guy who was almost completely sidelined in a debate the other week on Sky with Allardyce and the presenter having the whole show to themselves while Syed stumbled to articulate even a whole sentence without some pseudo-intellectual chin rubbing.
i don't like being negative (Leadsom is an exception) about people if it can be helped, Jed but this guy gives me no conceivable choice. He's a sanctimonious prat
It's a modern day phenomenon Baphornet, that people like Syed think their righteous indignation should change laws and customs.
Fortunately any writer in the Times is only ever really preaching to a very limited congregation, especially given its online paywall, so his voice does not carry anywhere near the weight he thinks it does.
Fortunately any writer in the Times is only ever really preaching to a very limited congregation, especially given its online paywall, so his voice does not carry anywhere near the weight he thinks it does.
He was also the dullest table tennis player of his entire generation, made Jose Mourinho's tactics look adventurous.
some loon,or very intelligent person might ask if you thrash a little girl with one and she laughs at you , rather than wasting your time hitting half a ton of horse with none ,you might as well get rid of them,presumably the people you think we should listen to trainers,owners jocks think horses do respond to been hit with the whip
Maybe we could dangle a carrot in front of each horse like in cartoons ?
When a horse slows then the jockey shouts " Have you forgotten about your carrot ? "
Or maybe : " CARROT ! "
....due to time constraints of course.
....due to time constraints of course.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539