Horse Antepost
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Why have the racing authorities allowed themselves, and racing, to be put in the dock where they stand accused of allowing the physical abuse of racehorses by jockeys who use the whip?
Where is the evidence that horses are actually abused when the whip is used? I can understand that using spurs with sharp spikes which draw blood might be unacceptable but why should the use of a padded whip used mainly on the animal's muscled quarters hurt when applied by a human weighing 126-140 lbs to an animal that weighs 1200 lbs? The force applied by an adult teacher using a cane to the hand or backside of a child might sting, but the effects soon wore off. Society has decided against the use of the cane in schools but it doesn't necessarily follow that this thinking should apply to horses.
The core argument used is that of public perception? What public? Where are the thousands or even hundreds of letters of complaint from the general public? As far as I can tell this is an issue "whipped up " by the media, and probably a handful of journalists at that. True, the animal welfare lobbies are vocal but they are just a minority and do not represent the general view imo.
The anti-hunting argument was won by the urban elite and it looks like the same people are winning this argument , too.
If it is wrong to use the whip then it is wrong to use it once let alone 6 or 7 times. The only way this issue will go is the complete prohibition of the whip under all circumstances other than safety unless the racing industry discovers some backbone and stands its ground. It should go on the offensive and show how the arguments used have no evidential support. It should return to the previous whip rules immediately.
Where is the evidence that horses are actually abused when the whip is used? I can understand that using spurs with sharp spikes which draw blood might be unacceptable but why should the use of a padded whip used mainly on the animal's muscled quarters hurt when applied by a human weighing 126-140 lbs to an animal that weighs 1200 lbs? The force applied by an adult teacher using a cane to the hand or backside of a child might sting, but the effects soon wore off. Society has decided against the use of the cane in schools but it doesn't necessarily follow that this thinking should apply to horses.
The core argument used is that of public perception? What public? Where are the thousands or even hundreds of letters of complaint from the general public? As far as I can tell this is an issue "whipped up " by the media, and probably a handful of journalists at that. True, the animal welfare lobbies are vocal but they are just a minority and do not represent the general view imo.
The anti-hunting argument was won by the urban elite and it looks like the same people are winning this argument , too.
If it is wrong to use the whip then it is wrong to use it once let alone 6 or 7 times. The only way this issue will go is the complete prohibition of the whip under all circumstances other than safety unless the racing industry discovers some backbone and stands its ground. It should go on the offensive and show how the arguments used have no evidential support. It should return to the previous whip rules immediately.
Show More
Headmaster.
Both McCoy and Dettori have retracted. Keep up, mate.
Nichols and Cecil are as well as those two were simply going along. Numerous jocks noted that there was no REAL consultation and there was certainly no real testing.
Keep up, mate.
Both McCoy and Dettori have retracted. Keep up, mate.
Nichols and Cecil are as well as those two were simply going along. Numerous jocks noted that there was no REAL consultation and there was certainly no real testing.
Keep up, mate.
I dont watch every meeting Figg, but if Dettori's was rated the worse over here then it imo doesnt hold a candle to Cape Blanco which i rated as very harsh on the horse.
However that was high profile and i understand that over the jumps that there have been far worse
However that was high profile and i understand that over the jumps that there have been far worse
Paddy Brennan: words of wisdom on BHA and RSCPA. But he's just a jock.
Headmaster.
Both McCoy and Dettori have retracted. Keep up, mate.
Nichols and Cecil are as well as those two were simply going along. Numerous jocks noted that there was no REAL consultation and there was certainly no real testing.
Keep up, mate.
Blimey Yank. Do you expect the consultation process to involve every second, third and fourth rate jockey in the country? We'd be well into 2015 before anything could happen!
This is why there are trade bodies - such as the NTF and PJA, who are there to interact with other industry groups and offer a single view that represents the majority of their respected members. Anything more than that would just result in a whole load of noise that would be impossible to listen to. If the jockeys are now, rather strangely imo, reporting a lack of consultation, they should be asking some serious questions of the PJA, should they not?
...and if you think McCoy and Frankie made those initial comments with some sort of gun to their heads you clearly aren't aware of their (strong-minded) make-up.
Keep up indeed.....ffs
Both McCoy and Dettori have retracted. Keep up, mate.
Nichols and Cecil are as well as those two were simply going along. Numerous jocks noted that there was no REAL consultation and there was certainly no real testing.
Keep up, mate.
Blimey Yank. Do you expect the consultation process to involve every second, third and fourth rate jockey in the country? We'd be well into 2015 before anything could happen!
This is why there are trade bodies - such as the NTF and PJA, who are there to interact with other industry groups and offer a single view that represents the majority of their respected members. Anything more than that would just result in a whole load of noise that would be impossible to listen to. If the jockeys are now, rather strangely imo, reporting a lack of consultation, they should be asking some serious questions of the PJA, should they not?
...and if you think McCoy and Frankie made those initial comments with some sort of gun to their heads you clearly aren't aware of their (strong-minded) make-up.
Keep up indeed.....ffs
Paddy Brennan!!!
His argument seemed to revolve around not getting a result in the Eider!!
Did you watch this year's Edier Chase, Yank? That sort of thing 'do it for ya' does it?
His argument seemed to revolve around not getting a result in the Eider!!
Did you watch this year's Edier Chase, Yank? That sort of thing 'do it for ya' does it?
Headmaster. To borrow a line from your fellow bully boy Dave, 'Calm down, dear!'
Yes, Paddy Brennan as well as Richard Hughes and Ryan Moore are excellent horsemen. They are not about abusing horses. They are about winning raced by being able to use the whip in a similar way it was used here for centuries and is still used, more or less, in all other major racing countries. You seem to think that you can take cheap shots against anyone who disagrees with you and that dismisses them. Flashman!
And no, dont go chasing the straw dog that I am advocating no supervision of jockies. Any abusive incidents can and should be punished -- as every one who opposes the new changes to the rules that I have heard acknowledges.
As far as your touching faith in the genuine nature of the consultative process -- spoken like a real Headmaster. Bet you and your school have been inspected by Ofsted and come out with flying colours. Such a touching faith in the legitimacy of these rig ups. Like Tony Blair launching umpteen investigations into his conduct over the Iraq war: choose the boyos, set the guidelines, get the predetermined result. It is a PR exercise. That is what Cecil, McCoy, Dettori were lined up to participate in.
Yes, Paddy Brennan as well as Richard Hughes and Ryan Moore are excellent horsemen. They are not about abusing horses. They are about winning raced by being able to use the whip in a similar way it was used here for centuries and is still used, more or less, in all other major racing countries. You seem to think that you can take cheap shots against anyone who disagrees with you and that dismisses them. Flashman!
And no, dont go chasing the straw dog that I am advocating no supervision of jockies. Any abusive incidents can and should be punished -- as every one who opposes the new changes to the rules that I have heard acknowledges.
As far as your touching faith in the genuine nature of the consultative process -- spoken like a real Headmaster. Bet you and your school have been inspected by Ofsted and come out with flying colours. Such a touching faith in the legitimacy of these rig ups. Like Tony Blair launching umpteen investigations into his conduct over the Iraq war: choose the boyos, set the guidelines, get the predetermined result. It is a PR exercise. That is what Cecil, McCoy, Dettori were lined up to participate in.
zil - that's poor mate. I thought British Champions' Day was tremendous and government should get to grips with Gibraltar but it doesn't mean I'm Paul Roy! 
Yank, cut the patronising cr@p and get down to it. I'm answering all your questions, chasing you round the room, in fact.....but you continue to spout away, creaming off over these jockeys...well, I'm afraid to say there is only one group that has got us where we are. It's not the Jockey Club, HRA, BHA, RSPCA, AA, NTF or any other flipping acronym you can think of. It's your beloved jockeys, cocker. 900 breaches, Yank. 900. You can keep ignoring the facts and telling yourself THAT Twice Over ride was a thing of beauty....an example of man and beast in perfect harmony....you can look at Rewilding and think what a wonderful horsemen Frankie is....you can marvel at how Maguire kept Ballabriggs 'honest' or how Cool Mission gave his all at Donny.....but I won't agree with you and never will. Quite amazing that you also think the BHA, who couldn't organise the proverbial, have somehow lined up all those industry pros to crack one off (against their will) over how wonderful the review was? That would be a career highlight and no mistake.
People need to man up a bit here and admit...if we obeyed the old rules we wouldn't be in this mess....if we hadn't asked for a number we wouldn't be in this mess.....if we could count to seven we wouldn't be in this mess.....you get the drift, Yank?
Anyway, you keep praying at the jockey altar, old boy. You're not going to change your view so best of luck in future and I hope you can still enjoy the racing without all those whips flailing around. In my honest opinion, not that you've asked for it but hey-ho, I'd dump the final furlong/final fence thing tomorrow and make it 9 for all races flat and jump. I fully understand the difference between a 5f Sprint and the National but this is about how many times we think it's acceptable to hit a horse right? How can that number change based on whether the horse has fast-twitch or slow-twitch muscles? Are slow-twitch horses a bit thicker than fast-twitchers or summit? Nonsense. I would absolutely keep the 'draconian' penalties though. Brennan going off about Molly today. Gotta drive to the races, gotta pay the petrol, gotta pay the valet, the agent, gotta feed the kids....yeah well, you know what boys, you don't gotta hit the horse 10 times when you know the rule's 8. I know I'm not allowed to smoke at work so I don't sit here puffing away and then, when they sack me, scream 'but I gotta feed the kids'. Sort it out ffs. The mere fact the jocks are squealing shows it's a deterrent that's going to work...not like the old rules everyone's such a fan of. 900 breaches. Yep, they worked great, eh? Good grief.
P.S. Which country????
Yank, cut the patronising cr@p and get down to it. I'm answering all your questions, chasing you round the room, in fact.....but you continue to spout away, creaming off over these jockeys...well, I'm afraid to say there is only one group that has got us where we are. It's not the Jockey Club, HRA, BHA, RSPCA, AA, NTF or any other flipping acronym you can think of. It's your beloved jockeys, cocker. 900 breaches, Yank. 900. You can keep ignoring the facts and telling yourself THAT Twice Over ride was a thing of beauty....an example of man and beast in perfect harmony....you can look at Rewilding and think what a wonderful horsemen Frankie is....you can marvel at how Maguire kept Ballabriggs 'honest' or how Cool Mission gave his all at Donny.....but I won't agree with you and never will. Quite amazing that you also think the BHA, who couldn't organise the proverbial, have somehow lined up all those industry pros to crack one off (against their will) over how wonderful the review was? That would be a career highlight and no mistake.
People need to man up a bit here and admit...if we obeyed the old rules we wouldn't be in this mess....if we hadn't asked for a number we wouldn't be in this mess.....if we could count to seven we wouldn't be in this mess.....you get the drift, Yank?
Anyway, you keep praying at the jockey altar, old boy. You're not going to change your view so best of luck in future and I hope you can still enjoy the racing without all those whips flailing around. In my honest opinion, not that you've asked for it but hey-ho, I'd dump the final furlong/final fence thing tomorrow and make it 9 for all races flat and jump. I fully understand the difference between a 5f Sprint and the National but this is about how many times we think it's acceptable to hit a horse right? How can that number change based on whether the horse has fast-twitch or slow-twitch muscles? Are slow-twitch horses a bit thicker than fast-twitchers or summit? Nonsense. I would absolutely keep the 'draconian' penalties though. Brennan going off about Molly today. Gotta drive to the races, gotta pay the petrol, gotta pay the valet, the agent, gotta feed the kids....yeah well, you know what boys, you don't gotta hit the horse 10 times when you know the rule's 8. I know I'm not allowed to smoke at work so I don't sit here puffing away and then, when they sack me, scream 'but I gotta feed the kids'. Sort it out ffs. The mere fact the jocks are squealing shows it's a deterrent that's going to work...not like the old rules everyone's such a fan of. 900 breaches. Yep, they worked great, eh? Good grief.
P.S. Which country????
I think those Yank horsemen you like to slag off might have some medication that could help calm you down, mate. You are having a horse tranquillizer size tizzy.
Yeah, I do admire jockeys. I think they are among the most underrated and courageous athletes in sport. Angel Cordero, Lester Piggott, Michael Kinane are legends, rightfully so. Johnny Murtagh, Frankie Dettori, Richard Hughes are master horsemen whom I admire enormously. And -- whips and all-- they know more and care more about horses than everyone on this forum multiplied by 1000.
By the way, ever been a horse other than the hobby sort?
Yeah, I do admire jockeys. I think they are among the most underrated and courageous athletes in sport. Angel Cordero, Lester Piggott, Michael Kinane are legends, rightfully so. Johnny Murtagh, Frankie Dettori, Richard Hughes are master horsemen whom I admire enormously. And -- whips and all-- they know more and care more about horses than everyone on this forum multiplied by 1000.
By the way, ever been a horse other than the hobby sort?
Telling people to calm down when you're being owned on a forum is the last act of a desperate man, Yank. Thankfully, you and your views appear to be running out of steam.
See ya.
See ya.
Most of this debate has been about the use of the whip, especially within the last furlong, but not very much about the penalties imposed, and in particular the disgraceful penalty imposed on Soumillon for his winning ride in the G1 Champion Stakes.
To withhold the riding fee makes no sense whatsoever as this basically implies that the job of work undertaken by the jockey, his expenses incurred in the course of that job, can summarily be thrown out. Surely, this is tantamount to breaking a contractual arrangement that a lawyer will be able to claim is unlawful.
As for the share of prize-money being confiscated, this is an act of larceny on the part of the authorities. If the breaking of a whip rule is proven then common justice suggests that this should be the same penalty for everyone irrespective of the purse involved. Should we punish a burglar more for breaking into a mansion than we do for a council flat? Should the theft of £50m be treated more harshly than the theft of £1000? Theft is theft. Burglary is burglary.
The absurdity of the penalty imposed on Soumillon is that the jump from no penalty to a £50k penalty is one strike . ONE EXTRA strike and the cost is FIFTY THOUSAND POUNDS! What planet are these people on? I just hope that common sense prevails in this instance because it makes us look stupid, and incapable of handing out just sentences.
Surely, as a general principle, it must be more of a crime to stop horses from winning rather than trying too hard to win.Soumillon, and others, must not punished more for trying to win than others might for trying to lose.
Penalties are of two types namely, time suspended and financial penalty. Any punishment should fit the crime and there can be no-one who thinks that it would be fair for them to lose £50000 for over hitting a horse by one strike. In many ways,imo, this is a more important issue than the actual number of strikes which is agreed upon (although I believe that the previous number rule was more sensible.)
To withhold the riding fee makes no sense whatsoever as this basically implies that the job of work undertaken by the jockey, his expenses incurred in the course of that job, can summarily be thrown out. Surely, this is tantamount to breaking a contractual arrangement that a lawyer will be able to claim is unlawful.
As for the share of prize-money being confiscated, this is an act of larceny on the part of the authorities. If the breaking of a whip rule is proven then common justice suggests that this should be the same penalty for everyone irrespective of the purse involved. Should we punish a burglar more for breaking into a mansion than we do for a council flat? Should the theft of £50m be treated more harshly than the theft of £1000? Theft is theft. Burglary is burglary.
The absurdity of the penalty imposed on Soumillon is that the jump from no penalty to a £50k penalty is one strike . ONE EXTRA strike and the cost is FIFTY THOUSAND POUNDS! What planet are these people on? I just hope that common sense prevails in this instance because it makes us look stupid, and incapable of handing out just sentences.
Surely, as a general principle, it must be more of a crime to stop horses from winning rather than trying too hard to win.Soumillon, and others, must not punished more for trying to win than others might for trying to lose.
Penalties are of two types namely, time suspended and financial penalty. Any punishment should fit the crime and there can be no-one who thinks that it would be fair for them to lose £50000 for over hitting a horse by one strike. In many ways,imo, this is a more important issue than the actual number of strikes which is agreed upon (although I believe that the previous number rule was more sensible.)
Anyway they've had a climbdown on the flat with the "Final Furlong" rule, im glad that most of my bets are on the level though and dont envy punters who rely on jumps for a living
Common sense has prevailed. Hallelujah! The BHA will not live down this ****-up and the wider issue of the media driving the direction of the sport "under the whip" of minority interest groups, remains with us.This will not be the end of their pressure and they will not be satisfied until horseracing, especially jumps racing, is banned.So be warned all you appeasers. The opportunity was there to draw a line in the sand and you've blown it.
zil - thank the Lord that's gone, eh? Illogical that it was ever there imo.
Sandown,
Absolutely agree that not trying is far worse than trying too hard. I am also deeply concerned at the penalties imposed on a rider at Plumpton on Monday, that by implication seemed to lead to the death of a horse, when compared with those you outline. But rather than water down one set I believe the others should be beefed up.
That 50K fine sounds outrageous to many it seems, but may I ask what you think would be a suitable deterrent to stop jockeys breaching the whip rules?
Sandown,
Absolutely agree that not trying is far worse than trying too hard. I am also deeply concerned at the penalties imposed on a rider at Plumpton on Monday, that by implication seemed to lead to the death of a horse, when compared with those you outline. But rather than water down one set I believe the others should be beefed up.
That 50K fine sounds outrageous to many it seems, but may I ask what you think would be a suitable deterrent to stop jockeys breaching the whip rules?
Yep TH, I know that the argument was that "Its Big Enough" but in a pack of horses you dont want to be looking around for the thing.
Over the jumps i think you will see slightly different races that will favour the stronger travellers and i dont think the fine will stop anyone at the Festival from giving them "One Over"
That would only happen if you took the owners prize away.
In Short imo this rule is just about ok for the flat, i can imagine there will be many races over 3m+ that will see very few finish at all, maybe they will abandon on Heavy??
Over the jumps i think you will see slightly different races that will favour the stronger travellers and i dont think the fine will stop anyone at the Festival from giving them "One Over"
That would only happen if you took the owners prize away.
In Short imo this rule is just about ok for the flat, i can imagine there will be many races over 3m+ that will see very few finish at all, maybe they will abandon on Heavy??
Yep TH, I know that the argument was that "Its Big Enough" but in a pack of horses you dont want to be looking around for the thing.
Over the jumps i think you will see slightly different races that will favour the stronger travellers and i dont think the fine will stop anyone at the Festival from giving them "One Over"
That would only happen if you took the owners prize away.
In Short imo this rule is just about ok for the flat, i can imagine there will be many races over 3m+ that will see very few finish at all, maybe they will abandon on Heavy??
Over the jumps i think you will see slightly different races that will favour the stronger travellers and i dont think the fine will stop anyone at the Festival from giving them "One Over"
That would only happen if you took the owners prize away.
In Short imo this rule is just about ok for the flat, i can imagine there will be many races over 3m+ that will see very few finish at all, maybe they will abandon on Heavy??
Headmaster
A few random thoughts generated in one minute of thought:
Bans could be tailored to cover like for like races. Soumillon could have been banned from riding in the next x number of G1 races, possibly?
As with speeding offences, jockeys could be sent back to a facility where they are instructed in the correct use of the whip?
All offences to incur points docked off their licence to ride which is suspended once they break the limit, as with driving offences.
Put in metaphorical stocks where the public can throw metaphorical vegetables?
Seriously, I'm sure that we could borrow from the judicial system and find ways and means that have proven dissuasive effects.
A few random thoughts generated in one minute of thought:
Bans could be tailored to cover like for like races. Soumillon could have been banned from riding in the next x number of G1 races, possibly?
As with speeding offences, jockeys could be sent back to a facility where they are instructed in the correct use of the whip?
All offences to incur points docked off their licence to ride which is suspended once they break the limit, as with driving offences.
Put in metaphorical stocks where the public can throw metaphorical vegetables?
Seriously, I'm sure that we could borrow from the judicial system and find ways and means that have proven dissuasive effects.
Sandown
It depends how far you think the minority interest groups can go while remaining in tune with wide public opinion? I'd argue that where we are now is pretty much the middle ground. I'm doubtful that the mass public would ever be as opposed to horse racing in general as they would fox hunting, well certainly not in the near future anyway.
It depends how far you think the minority interest groups can go while remaining in tune with wide public opinion? I'd argue that where we are now is pretty much the middle ground. I'm doubtful that the mass public would ever be as opposed to horse racing in general as they would fox hunting, well certainly not in the near future anyway.
Put in metaphorical stocks where the public can throw metaphorical vegetables?
Possibly the most sensible thing I've read since this whole sorry debate started!
Where do I sign???
Possibly the most sensible thing I've read since this whole sorry debate started!
Where do I sign???
Figgis
One of the problems in today's world is that minority groups are more vocal than majority groups and it is the majority who are now persecuted. A few letters of complaint to the BBC (usually orchestrated) and the Beeb will jump and down. People who do not object do not write in.Those of the public who are not bothered about the whip issue are not interviwed becasue they do not make good copy. And I know that the BHA conducted research and apparently found a majority against the use of the whip, but I'm very sceptical of that. It all depends on the question. Ask someone if they think horses should be whipped and you will get a strong negative because of the way that the question is phrased.So, to answer your question, I wouldn't assume for one minute that "the middle ground" has been reached.
One of the problems in today's world is that minority groups are more vocal than majority groups and it is the majority who are now persecuted. A few letters of complaint to the BBC (usually orchestrated) and the Beeb will jump and down. People who do not object do not write in.Those of the public who are not bothered about the whip issue are not interviwed becasue they do not make good copy. And I know that the BHA conducted research and apparently found a majority against the use of the whip, but I'm very sceptical of that. It all depends on the question. Ask someone if they think horses should be whipped and you will get a strong negative because of the way that the question is phrased.So, to answer your question, I wouldn't assume for one minute that "the middle ground" has been reached.
Sandown
Yes I take your point about them being more vocal, but they will only strike a chord with the masses if they're in tune. Now we can all talk about educating the wider public about the whip, but living in the real world that isn't going to happen, as horse racing will continue to be a "minority" interest itself. Like it or not appearances matter.
Personally, I can't see the problem with the 7 strikes limit, I think it would be a pretty clueless punter who would blame that for his lack of success at the game.
Yes I take your point about them being more vocal, but they will only strike a chord with the masses if they're in tune. Now we can all talk about educating the wider public about the whip, but living in the real world that isn't going to happen, as horse racing will continue to be a "minority" interest itself. Like it or not appearances matter.
Personally, I can't see the problem with the 7 strikes limit, I think it would be a pretty clueless punter who would blame that for his lack of success at the game.
Agree with Sandown 11:09 post, except for the overly optimistic view that common sense has prevailed. Holding the line would have cost the BHA more than the back down.
But the whole problem is that 'the line' is the will-o-the-wist PR game -- someone manufactures a 'public opinion' and then declares 'That's the fact of the matter, you cant argue with it.' And they tailor a policy to accomodate that preconceived view of what public opinion is. That apologetic position is a loser's game. Racing has nothing to apologize for on the horse welfare front, certainly not in the UK! Any abusers can and should be dealt with -- but there was no problem, only a perceived problem.
There is no argument with the RSPCA -- they have an attitude that will never change. How far that view reflects so - called public opinion is anybody's guess. I dont think any community that actually lives and works with large animals that that view has legs. It is your maiden aunt with a kitty cat and puppy dog who thinks it is not nice to whip horses.
The BHA report on whip use raised no issues of horse welfare -- it was always only about a pr game. And as the jocks have rightly grasped, the BHA has both lost the pr game and now damaged the competitive edge of the sport. Just ask yourself: two horses in a tight finish, one jock drops his whip and other doesnt. Now with some horses that would not be an issue, but most of the time -- well, which horse would you rather be backing?
Ruby said it right on Saturday RUK. Great horseman, Ruby, from a horse family in a horse community in a horse country. Let them write the rules -- oh, I forget, that wouldnt be the BHA making rules for BRITISH racing, but a real sensible and proven horseman. Cant have that!
But the whole problem is that 'the line' is the will-o-the-wist PR game -- someone manufactures a 'public opinion' and then declares 'That's the fact of the matter, you cant argue with it.' And they tailor a policy to accomodate that preconceived view of what public opinion is. That apologetic position is a loser's game. Racing has nothing to apologize for on the horse welfare front, certainly not in the UK! Any abusers can and should be dealt with -- but there was no problem, only a perceived problem.
There is no argument with the RSPCA -- they have an attitude that will never change. How far that view reflects so - called public opinion is anybody's guess. I dont think any community that actually lives and works with large animals that that view has legs. It is your maiden aunt with a kitty cat and puppy dog who thinks it is not nice to whip horses.
The BHA report on whip use raised no issues of horse welfare -- it was always only about a pr game. And as the jocks have rightly grasped, the BHA has both lost the pr game and now damaged the competitive edge of the sport. Just ask yourself: two horses in a tight finish, one jock drops his whip and other doesnt. Now with some horses that would not be an issue, but most of the time -- well, which horse would you rather be backing?
Ruby said it right on Saturday RUK. Great horseman, Ruby, from a horse family in a horse community in a horse country. Let them write the rules -- oh, I forget, that wouldnt be the BHA making rules for BRITISH racing, but a real sensible and proven horseman. Cant have that!
Sandown
As a big fan of some American comedy, like Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, I thought the view of them having no sense of irony was grossly exaggerated, it seems not.
As a big fan of some American comedy, like Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, I thought the view of them having no sense of irony was grossly exaggerated, it seems not.
Whadda ya mean? My shirts never have wrinkles, I got a brilliant sense of ironing.
Daarley on Morning Line clearly indicates there was no proper consultation and that statements made by PJA and jocks were merely pro forma endorsements.
BHA cocked up and is still not getting it right.
BHA cocked up and is still not getting it right.
I am absolutely convinced that there is no groundswell of public opinion against the use of the whip. If the question was put to the public in a manner that was not leading, I doubt that there wiuld be a majority against. In any event, why should the views of those not involved in, not interested in, and ignorant of the management of horses, be allowed to have the dominant sday in the sport. The urban majority, and I include myself in the "urban" part, are sheltered from the realities of dealing qwith livestock. Certainly, there have been cases, such as the Howard Johnston case, where one would say that mismanagement will occur, but in the main those who have been brought up managing thoroughbreds know that their livelihood is bound up with the proper care of their horses.
This issue is not the most important issue in racing, far from it, yet it seems to so. The BHA is running scared of the minority groups and opinionated know-alls like McCririck. The BHA have shown ,once again, that they appoint weak people to the top positions.
This issue is not the most important issue in racing, far from it, yet it seems to so. The BHA is running scared of the minority groups and opinionated know-alls like McCririck. The BHA have shown ,once again, that they appoint weak people to the top positions.
Dont get Darley OR Stier
As most followers of Systems will tell you, the difference between what might look good on paper and applying it practically can be a lot different.
I dont think the limit, esp over jumps can be workable and if it isnt then the fire will be fed as MORE jockeys will be reported by the Media for whip abuse and thus it will be used by Animal rights groups that there are now MORE offences and therefore it should be taken away.
Some Drink driving limits in countries are so low that a glass of Sherry and something cooked in a wine sauce could send you over, if they suddenly made it zero and subjected EVERY driver to a test then the numbers breaking the law would INCREASE and that could be the self fulfilling prophecy we get here.
Why someone didnt ask the WWH guy on the blower(he's supposed to be worldwide??) about the pressure's being applied to the respective racing authorities in the Countries involved is beyond me
Didnt anyone think about Challenging this assertion that whip offences are "Three times what they were" and not point out that if they had been applied to the respective years before that with the amount of racing being collated Pro Rata that it would have showed a different side??
As most followers of Systems will tell you, the difference between what might look good on paper and applying it practically can be a lot different.
I dont think the limit, esp over jumps can be workable and if it isnt then the fire will be fed as MORE jockeys will be reported by the Media for whip abuse and thus it will be used by Animal rights groups that there are now MORE offences and therefore it should be taken away.
Some Drink driving limits in countries are so low that a glass of Sherry and something cooked in a wine sauce could send you over, if they suddenly made it zero and subjected EVERY driver to a test then the numbers breaking the law would INCREASE and that could be the self fulfilling prophecy we get here.
Why someone didnt ask the WWH guy on the blower(he's supposed to be worldwide??) about the pressure's being applied to the respective racing authorities in the Countries involved is beyond me
Didnt anyone think about Challenging this assertion that whip offences are "Three times what they were" and not point out that if they had been applied to the respective years before that with the amount of racing being collated Pro Rata that it would have showed a different side??
Sandown
Can you tell me what is so wrong about the current limit, what you think the limit should be, or do you think there should be no limit? As far as I've read, most of the flat jockeys, even the ones calling for militant action like Spencer, have said the limit itself is fine. The big problem they have with it is the financial penalty, hardly surprising. So far, all I've heard from them is they want to return to the old rules, they mean those same old rules that obviously weren't strong enough as a deterrent.
Can you tell me what is so wrong about the current limit, what you think the limit should be, or do you think there should be no limit? As far as I've read, most of the flat jockeys, even the ones calling for militant action like Spencer, have said the limit itself is fine. The big problem they have with it is the financial penalty, hardly surprising. So far, all I've heard from them is they want to return to the old rules, they mean those same old rules that obviously weren't strong enough as a deterrent.
Figgis
You must know the answer to your question in that I have never said "no limit" .If there has to be a simple metric involved, and counting the number of strokes although flawed, does have the merit of being simple, then it surely cannot be right to have a single arbitrary figure as the marker between what is acceptable and what isn't.Even a spread of 2 strokes doesn't make sense to me as you are left with the full penalty being imposed as soon as the jock goes "one over."
To my mind, a sliding scale is the only sensible way out of this mess. I would start with 6 and below being non-punishable and then a sliding scale being applied for anything over that. The scale needn't be linear; it could exponential increasing in severity as the number increases. The penalties should be less than the penalty for non-triers or criminal acts. It is highly confusing to have penalties that are harder on the jockeys for trying to win and succeeding than jockeys trying to lose. I would also have a scale for trainers and owners so that the pressure is felt by them as well. I would never move to the disqualification of the horse, because the horse that wins with a severe use of whip shows tremendous courage and to deprive him of the prize and breeding rights for responding under duress, is just stupid.
You must know the answer to your question in that I have never said "no limit" .If there has to be a simple metric involved, and counting the number of strokes although flawed, does have the merit of being simple, then it surely cannot be right to have a single arbitrary figure as the marker between what is acceptable and what isn't.Even a spread of 2 strokes doesn't make sense to me as you are left with the full penalty being imposed as soon as the jock goes "one over."
To my mind, a sliding scale is the only sensible way out of this mess. I would start with 6 and below being non-punishable and then a sliding scale being applied for anything over that. The scale needn't be linear; it could exponential increasing in severity as the number increases. The penalties should be less than the penalty for non-triers or criminal acts. It is highly confusing to have penalties that are harder on the jockeys for trying to win and succeeding than jockeys trying to lose. I would also have a scale for trainers and owners so that the pressure is felt by them as well. I would never move to the disqualification of the horse, because the horse that wins with a severe use of whip shows tremendous courage and to deprive him of the prize and breeding rights for responding under duress, is just stupid.
Sandown
Fair points, but with the new rules "one over" only leads to a suspension, nothing more than that.
Fair points, but with the new rules "one over" only leads to a suspension, nothing more than that.
Sandown, by the way, I totally agree with you about non-triers. Maybe some people on here think we should also take notice of jockeys and trainers when dealing with this issue too? Jockeys and trainers who remain sickeningly silent whenever one of their own has been caught duping the betting public.
The BHA are ruining horseracing with this approach. I hope that all jockeys come out in solidarity and refuse to ride until the port swigging, fois gras munchers in charge are booted out and replaced with people who have a regard for and an understanding of the sport, and don't pamper to the do-gooders outside of the sport.
Isn't it ironic that two of the most talented jockeys riding on the Flat and over Jumps, Richard Hughes and Ruby Walsh, are amongst the first jockeys to be banned under these rules. These riders are easily amongst the most talented riders we've seen and never could remotely be called whip riders. They are consumate horsemen and role models for countless young jockeys.
The real consequences of these stupid rules will be that top jockeys will be seen less often as they will not want to lose top rides for the sake of getting bans on low grade horses. This in turn will lead to race goers being deprived of seeing the best in action andcan only lead to fewer people going. Can you imagine what football would be like if top players were so easily banned?
I believe that the jockeys would be right to take a stand now rather than accept this imbecilic state of affa. No jockeys, no racing. No racing, no levy. They need the trainers and owners to get behind them if this course of action is to be acceptable. i would dearly like to see how amny of the racing public would support them.I believe that they would get a large majority supporting them.
The real consequences of these stupid rules will be that top jockeys will be seen less often as they will not want to lose top rides for the sake of getting bans on low grade horses. This in turn will lead to race goers being deprived of seeing the best in action andcan only lead to fewer people going. Can you imagine what football would be like if top players were so easily banned?
I believe that the jockeys would be right to take a stand now rather than accept this imbecilic state of affa. No jockeys, no racing. No racing, no levy. They need the trainers and owners to get behind them if this course of action is to be acceptable. i would dearly like to see how amny of the racing public would support them.I believe that they would get a large majority supporting them.
the new rules are 7 hits on the flat and 8 over the sticks.
how does that compare to last year?
how does that compare to last year?
The animal rights groups must feel that they have the racing industry by the short hairs now. Expect them to press their position further and raise their demands.
seeing horses routinely beaten in public for sport
WALOFS
WALOFS
It was the original "inside the final furlong" rule that Hughes fell foul of, the same as Soumillon. Incidentally, France has had an 8 strike limit for a few years now. Our jockeys have had to comply with the rule when riding over there and nobody predicted the hasty demise of French racing because of it.
Ruby Walsh has lost his appeal and the scene is now set for a showdown between the jockeys and the authorities. I, for one, will be a supporter of the jockeyss whatever action they embark upon, because no-one other than them is putting their lives at risk everyday and its their livelihood that the clowns at the BHA are jeopardizing with their "rules is rules" myopia.
At the heart of this standoff is the premise that it is public perception that matters. This is the foundation of the never-ending bend-over backwards attitude of the BHA that the "public's" concerns must be assuaged at all costs.
Just where does this assumption come from, exactly? To start with, the campaign to limit or even abolish the use of the whip has been driven by the likes of McCririck, who has undeservedly laid claim to being the conscience of the sport and to being the spokesmen for the general public. There are other sports journalists who have jumped on the bandwagon, amongst them Alan Lee of The Times.
I like to think that I am pretty well read and well-informed of events outside this sport and to the best of my knowledge there is no public concern, no public outrage, no public mood of antipathy to the use of the whip within horseracing. There are much more major issues going on the world to be concerned with.
The anti-hunting lobby won a victory of sorts driven on by an alliance of animal rights groups and political opportunists and to be sure there was maybe a genera negative public view of the hunting scene. But is was never a major concern and if the law had never been changed the great British public would surely not have minded a jot.
To be sure, the BHA conducted some research and found that a slight majority of the general public were against ther use of the whip but this is not sufficient evidence upon which to make such a drastic change to the rules. Amongst the race-going and racing enthusiast audience I doubt very much that the number would be anything other than a small minority.The BHA must go back to the evidence and re-do the research with questions that are not loaded in favour of a particular response or at least they should present the evidence from scientific sources about the actual harm or lack of it that the new type of padded whips actually produce.
The BHA must step back to the old rules and interpretation of the rules together and they must scale down the level of penalty which is draconian depriving a group of fundamentally vital people of their livelihoods.
At the heart of this standoff is the premise that it is public perception that matters. This is the foundation of the never-ending bend-over backwards attitude of the BHA that the "public's" concerns must be assuaged at all costs.
Just where does this assumption come from, exactly? To start with, the campaign to limit or even abolish the use of the whip has been driven by the likes of McCririck, who has undeservedly laid claim to being the conscience of the sport and to being the spokesmen for the general public. There are other sports journalists who have jumped on the bandwagon, amongst them Alan Lee of The Times.
I like to think that I am pretty well read and well-informed of events outside this sport and to the best of my knowledge there is no public concern, no public outrage, no public mood of antipathy to the use of the whip within horseracing. There are much more major issues going on the world to be concerned with.
The anti-hunting lobby won a victory of sorts driven on by an alliance of animal rights groups and political opportunists and to be sure there was maybe a genera negative public view of the hunting scene. But is was never a major concern and if the law had never been changed the great British public would surely not have minded a jot.
To be sure, the BHA conducted some research and found that a slight majority of the general public were against ther use of the whip but this is not sufficient evidence upon which to make such a drastic change to the rules. Amongst the race-going and racing enthusiast audience I doubt very much that the number would be anything other than a small minority.The BHA must go back to the evidence and re-do the research with questions that are not loaded in favour of a particular response or at least they should present the evidence from scientific sources about the actual harm or lack of it that the new type of padded whips actually produce.
The BHA must step back to the old rules and interpretation of the rules together and they must scale down the level of penalty which is draconian depriving a group of fundamentally vital people of their livelihoods.
Sandown
So basically you're saying go back to a rule that the jockeys see as a price worth paying.
So basically you're saying go back to a rule that the jockeys see as a price worth paying.
What gets me is when you get Dave Yates on tv, constantly referring to the whip as a "piece of foam", asking what all the fuss is about but not having the brains to realise he's defeated his own argument, if it's just a piece of foam then why is he so bothered about it?
Figgis
Yes, I am saying that. A breathing space needs to be created to take the heat out of the situation. The "simple numbers" rules, which I know the jockeys wanted, breaks down when you get to single figures. Despite what every (non-rider) says, it is not that easy to count in the heat of the moment, and many of the instinctive uses of the whip, such as a flick down the neck, can happen without the jockey even being aware that he is doing it. You cannot sit in post-judgment in a nice warm safe room with freeze frames to help, and legislate on what happens in split-second decisions in the course of riding a race. There is a difference between the strength used, the place used, the character of the horse etc. Going back to the drawing board would not be admitting defeat it would be commonsense.
Yes, I am saying that. A breathing space needs to be created to take the heat out of the situation. The "simple numbers" rules, which I know the jockeys wanted, breaks down when you get to single figures. Despite what every (non-rider) says, it is not that easy to count in the heat of the moment, and many of the instinctive uses of the whip, such as a flick down the neck, can happen without the jockey even being aware that he is doing it. You cannot sit in post-judgment in a nice warm safe room with freeze frames to help, and legislate on what happens in split-second decisions in the course of riding a race. There is a difference between the strength used, the place used, the character of the horse etc. Going back to the drawing board would not be admitting defeat it would be commonsense.
I'm not getting into the jumps argument, as I don't follow jump racing anymore, but as far as the flat is concerned I can't see a problem with the current rule. Any lessening of the penalty will just see a return to jockeys viewing it as a holiday.
And Dave Yates may not be wrong either. It is the actual movement that horses respond to, and the reaction can be much greater than the apparent cause might warrant. Horses can go beserk from seeing a piece of paper. They can respond to heels being dug in and legs squeezing none of which could be described as abuse. The use of a padded whip may not cause any pain but it will still be felt and the horse will respond. Perhaps he didn't explain sufficiently.
Sandown
Equally I've seen countless poor rides owing to a hasty resort to the whip.
Equally I've seen countless poor rides owing to a hasty resort to the whip.
Figgis
You can't see a "problem" with the current rule!! And to say that the jockeys will see a return as a "holiday" is a touch sarcastic, isn't it?
You can't see a "problem" with the current rule!! And to say that the jockeys will see a return as a "holiday" is a touch sarcastic, isn't it?
Equally I've seen countless poor rides owing to a hasty resort to the whip.
I have too, but that's not the issue.
I have too, but that's not the issue.
Sandown
So under the old rules when a jockey was in for a big prize, how much consideration do you think they gave to those rules?
So under the old rules when a jockey was in for a big prize, how much consideration do you think they gave to those rules?
Basically you are arguing that a jockey can try "too hard" to win and he should be severely punished for doing so. He should also be punished for not trying hard enough, so somewhere in between is OK.
If trying too hard means abuse of the horse, then I'm with you, so the issue becomes one of what constitutes "abuse."
It makes no sense that 7 strikes is not abuse but 8 strikes is.
A better WORKING definition is required and that is what should be agreed by all concerned.
If trying too hard means abuse of the horse, then I'm with you, so the issue becomes one of what constitutes "abuse."
It makes no sense that 7 strikes is not abuse but 8 strikes is.
A better WORKING definition is required and that is what should be agreed by all concerned.
Sandown Joined: 06 Dec 01
Replies: 932 04 Nov 11 10:35
Equally I've seen countless poor rides owing to a hasty resort to the whip.
I have too, but that's not the issue.
It may not be the issue for the BHA, but it should be an issue for punters, many of whom seem to think the whip is nothing but positive.
Replies: 932 04 Nov 11 10:35
Equally I've seen countless poor rides owing to a hasty resort to the whip.
I have too, but that's not the issue.
It may not be the issue for the BHA, but it should be an issue for punters, many of whom seem to think the whip is nothing but positive.
Sandown Joined: 06 Dec 01
Replies: 933 04 Nov 11 10:42
Basically you are arguing that a jockey can try "too hard" to win
That's only if you believe that more whip equals faster, I don't.
Replies: 933 04 Nov 11 10:42
Basically you are arguing that a jockey can try "too hard" to win
That's only if you believe that more whip equals faster, I don't.
Maybe, but this is not about punters. For what its worth, the use of the whip, when used in rhythm with the horse's stride, is an aid which wins more races than its misuse loses, imo, and the correct use of the whip is fundamental to the training of both jockey and horse.
Ok, so we go back to the discretion of the stewards (even though the jockeys claimed they didn't know where they stood). We get another situation like Dettori on Rewilding, if I was in there I'd be arguing that I didn't see it as an over the top ride, but I can perfectly understand why another person would take the opposite view, and many punters did, where does that leave us?
Sandown
As you've already acknowledged that the new whip rules would make no real difference to your punting, the same as I have, why are you so keen to support jockeys on this issue? As most of those same jockeys have very little regard for the concerns of the punter and none of them ever speak out when one of them is found guilty of corruption.
As you've already acknowledged that the new whip rules would make no real difference to your punting, the same as I have, why are you so keen to support jockeys on this issue? As most of those same jockeys have very little regard for the concerns of the punter and none of them ever speak out when one of them is found guilty of corruption.
My concerns are that the changes introduced are too black and white and leave no room for the grey area which is much larger than the rules suggest. As with any law, I am against people being found guilty and being punished on circumstantial evidence and for me it is circumstantial that the number of times a whip is applied is exactly correlated with abuse to the extent that this can be measured by a difference of one or two strokes. It makes no sense to me as it is currently drafted.
Should this road lead to disqualification of the horse, which is a probability imo, then that would introduce an unacceptable variable which would put off thousands of bettors, imo.
The courage of a horse is an important quality in that horse, and courage when responding to pressure from the jockey and competition from other horses, should be rewarded with prizes and breeding rights. Eliminating or even reducing the use of the whip will tilt the scales towards the talented but less courageous horse, which again imo, is not to be encouraged.
It is of no concern to me that jockeys are not outspoken or complicit in breaking the rules.They are human beings who have all the same flaws as the rest of us. What matters is whether the rules themselves can be respected and the present rules cannot, imo.
Should this road lead to disqualification of the horse, which is a probability imo, then that would introduce an unacceptable variable which would put off thousands of bettors, imo.
The courage of a horse is an important quality in that horse, and courage when responding to pressure from the jockey and competition from other horses, should be rewarded with prizes and breeding rights. Eliminating or even reducing the use of the whip will tilt the scales towards the talented but less courageous horse, which again imo, is not to be encouraged.
It is of no concern to me that jockeys are not outspoken or complicit in breaking the rules.They are human beings who have all the same flaws as the rest of us. What matters is whether the rules themselves can be respected and the present rules cannot, imo.
And you believe the discretion of the stewards will eliminate the grey area? The jockeys previously believed that is exactly what made things grey for them.
I'm always curious about this courage of the racehorse argument, what makes people believe that the only courageous horse is one that (supposedly) finds more when whipped? Couldn't it be argued just as well that a horse that's already freely given its all is just an honest runner, with nothing left to give, unlike one that's holding something back until fully pressured?
As for jockeys behaviour, I'd say they're far more insular than other sportsmen and their refusal to condemn known cheats can lead to the impression that they all p!ss in the same pot.
I'm always curious about this courage of the racehorse argument, what makes people believe that the only courageous horse is one that (supposedly) finds more when whipped? Couldn't it be argued just as well that a horse that's already freely given its all is just an honest runner, with nothing left to give, unlike one that's holding something back until fully pressured?
As for jockeys behaviour, I'd say they're far more insular than other sportsmen and their refusal to condemn known cheats can lead to the impression that they all p!ss in the same pot.
Figgis
Have you seen the latest rule book that the stewards have to follow? It's page after page of verbiage and has been written by bureaucrats for imbeciles. A little more discretion would be a good thing. But, I repeat, the situation requires a working definition of abuse which makes sense.
As for courage, well yes I do believe that some animals won't put it all in unless they are persuaded to so so, just like humans.
As for jockeys, well they can't all be tainted by the same brush.
Have you seen the latest rule book that the stewards have to follow? It's page after page of verbiage and has been written by bureaucrats for imbeciles. A little more discretion would be a good thing. But, I repeat, the situation requires a working definition of abuse which makes sense.
As for courage, well yes I do believe that some animals won't put it all in unless they are persuaded to so so, just like humans.
As for jockeys, well they can't all be tainted by the same brush.
Sandown Joined: 06 Dec 01
Replies: 936 04 Nov 11 12:03
As for courage, well yes I do believe that some animals won't put it all in unless they are persuaded to so so, just like humans.
I don't disagree, but I don't see why that should be deemed any more worthy than one who doesn't need persuasion. I also think the argument some have used that it will negatively affect the breed is garbage.
As for jockeys, well they can't all be tainted by the same brush.
I never said they should be, but they do little to help themselves in that department.
Replies: 936 04 Nov 11 12:03
As for courage, well yes I do believe that some animals won't put it all in unless they are persuaded to so so, just like humans.
I don't disagree, but I don't see why that should be deemed any more worthy than one who doesn't need persuasion. I also think the argument some have used that it will negatively affect the breed is garbage.
As for jockeys, well they can't all be tainted by the same brush.
I never said they should be, but they do little to help themselves in that department.
Surely we all know the game is not being played on a straight wicket all of the time. Isn't that part of the allure ?
liam the lips Joined: 15 Sep 03
Replies: 420
Surely we all know the game is not being played on a straight wicket all of the time. Isn't that part of the allure ?
We know it can never be fully eliminated so we have to accept it to a certain degree, but part of the allure? Not for me it isn't and now that the racing industry has to compete more than ever for every gambled pound against other straighter (if not entirely straight) sports they have to be doing more to combat it.
Replies: 420
Surely we all know the game is not being played on a straight wicket all of the time. Isn't that part of the allure ?
We know it can never be fully eliminated so we have to accept it to a certain degree, but part of the allure? Not for me it isn't and now that the racing industry has to compete more than ever for every gambled pound against other straighter (if not entirely straight) sports they have to be doing more to combat it.
Figgis
We're straying away from the central issue discussing temperament issues and integrity.
The point is, that even seasoned racing players like ourselves can't agree on what constitutes whip abuse and what doesn't because it is not well defined. We know for certain when we see it at the extreme and we can probably agree on that. Flogging a dead horse can become literally that. The problem is that we are into the verbal argument area i.e. when does stubble become a beard. It's a question of definition and 7 or 8 strikes has the advantage of precision but as with a beard it is a gradation issue - there is no single line in the sand that can be drawn without creating more problems than it solves. Various ranges must be defined , if a number is to be used, and the very serious penalties must be used for the very serious offenders, not for stepping one over the first line.
We're straying away from the central issue discussing temperament issues and integrity.
The point is, that even seasoned racing players like ourselves can't agree on what constitutes whip abuse and what doesn't because it is not well defined. We know for certain when we see it at the extreme and we can probably agree on that. Flogging a dead horse can become literally that. The problem is that we are into the verbal argument area i.e. when does stubble become a beard. It's a question of definition and 7 or 8 strikes has the advantage of precision but as with a beard it is a gradation issue - there is no single line in the sand that can be drawn without creating more problems than it solves. Various ranges must be defined , if a number is to be used, and the very serious penalties must be used for the very serious offenders, not for stepping one over the first line.
One other point. The Law of Unintended Consequences could lead to a situation where jockeys say, "right I can't go over x hits so I will damn well make each one of them as hard as I possibly can" leading to more chance of hurting the horse rather than less.
It is likely that we have the two best jockeys ever to ride over jumps, riding at present, in Ruby Walsh and A.P. Mcoy. They have both now fallen foul of the new rules and McCoy's quote in today's RP sums up the stupidity of a simple numbers rules especially when its so few:
"It wasn't so much as I forgot [that I'd hit him] but I flicked him and it was barely a flick - I'd have done more if I'd patted him - whereas before you wouldn't count it as a smack, now you count it as a smack."
On the Flat, two of the best current jockeys riding in England and France, Hughes and Soumillion, have also fallen foul.
They are all now on the verge of very lengthy bans and the race going public will be deprived of some great talent. It won't stop here. BF should open a market on who will be next to receive a ban. It would be a lively one.
"It wasn't so much as I forgot [that I'd hit him] but I flicked him and it was barely a flick - I'd have done more if I'd patted him - whereas before you wouldn't count it as a smack, now you count it as a smack."
On the Flat, two of the best current jockeys riding in England and France, Hughes and Soumillion, have also fallen foul.
They are all now on the verge of very lengthy bans and the race going public will be deprived of some great talent. It won't stop here. BF should open a market on who will be next to receive a ban. It would be a lively one.
Sandown
It was the initial rule change that Hughes and Soumillon fell foul of, not the present one.
It was the initial rule change that Hughes and Soumillon fell foul of, not the present one.
Figgis
Yes I know.The point is that even the very best find counting difficult when the number is small, and flicks shouldn't be counted as strikes. If that is accepted, then what constitutes a 2flick" and what constitutes a full-bloodied strike needs clarification.
Yes I know.The point is that even the very best find counting difficult when the number is small, and flicks shouldn't be counted as strikes. If that is accepted, then what constitutes a 2flick" and what constitutes a full-bloodied strike needs clarification.
Figgis
Sandown
Fair points, but with the new rules "one over" only leads to a suspension, nothing more than that.
Only ? Entry suspension is 5 days wages lost and a 12 month hangover where one more equally small breach = 10 days wages lost.
The penalties are totally inequitable and not serving their main purpose which was to improve the public perception.
There report stated there is no welfare issue with proper whip use and that the hit limits they are " arbitrary" - BHAs own word.
Sandown
Fair points, but with the new rules "one over" only leads to a suspension, nothing more than that.
Only ? Entry suspension is 5 days wages lost and a 12 month hangover where one more equally small breach = 10 days wages lost.
The penalties are totally inequitable and not serving their main purpose which was to improve the public perception.
There report stated there is no welfare issue with proper whip use and that the hit limits they are " arbitrary" - BHAs own word.
According to a report in The Times today,"if the present rules were then in place, (at Cheltenham last year),there would have been a minimum of 35 bans for excessive use of the whip, with jockeys earning suspensions totalling more than a year. Ruby Alash would have received 5 bans and Tony McCoy four. Waley Cohen would have been penalised as he struck Long Run 13 times in the Gold Cup and he would be stood down for 13 days under the new regime."
What a totally ludicrous state of affairs. What on earth has happened that demands such massive changes to the sport need to take place.
The claim that the public perception of the sport is that such action is needed MUST BE CHALLENGED. The rules must be restored to the way the were and a public debate needs to be had to see if such drastic revisions to the rules are warranted. The sport has crossed over into pure farce.
What a totally ludicrous state of affairs. What on earth has happened that demands such massive changes to the sport need to take place.
The claim that the public perception of the sport is that such action is needed MUST BE CHALLENGED. The rules must be restored to the way the were and a public debate needs to be had to see if such drastic revisions to the rules are warranted. The sport has crossed over into pure farce.
Another unintended consequence judging by the poll in the RP whereby 76% are currently voting NO in response to the question "Do you bet as much as you did before the whip rule changes?" Watch this space as this impacts on the Levy.
Waley Cohen would have been penalised as he struck Long Run 13 times in the Gold Cup and he would be stood down for 13 days under the new regime
Waley Cohen stands to benefit from these new rules. He isnt in it for the money and being an occasional rider is much less likely to fall foul of the rules and the penal totting up system (even if he has a much higher non compliance rate with when riding)
How inequitable is the 12 month period before the slate is wiped clean when AP will ordinarily have about 900 rides and Sam 30 in that period ? More unintended consequences.
Waley Cohen stands to benefit from these new rules. He isnt in it for the money and being an occasional rider is much less likely to fall foul of the rules and the penal totting up system (even if he has a much higher non compliance rate with when riding)
How inequitable is the 12 month period before the slate is wiped clean when AP will ordinarily have about 900 rides and Sam 30 in that period ? More unintended consequences.
Interesting Point about last years festival Sandown, i had a feeling that it would be quite high, i think it will be interesting to see if jocks do their sums and see what dates a ban at Cheltenham will occur on
The death of Joe Frazier this week, and memories of the Thriller in Manilla, the greatest fight ever, between 2 of the greatest heavyweight boxers ever, brings into sharp contrast the relative abuse levels of boxing and racing.
Both Frazier and Ali showed immense courage in that fight and received punishment that perhaps that may never have recovered from. Nevertheless, the sport continues, with little change, and we can safely claim that there is no public outcry against the sport.
Compare that with horseracing, where it is claimed that there is a huge public concern over the use of the whip. If true, why the difference? Is it purely because dumb animals are involved who can't exercise choice in the matter? is it because we truly believe that the level of punishment is far greater than that recorded by boxers? Surely it is not for the latter reason because no-one could possibly believe that administering a cushioned whip to a 1200lb animal by a 140lb human compares in any way with 45 minutes over 15 rounds during which maybe 20 punches are delivered every minute.
Si, it must be because the former reason, that a dumb animal is involved, that we apparently are so concerned. How irrational is this, I wonder,because if even a tiny amount of reason were to be applied there would be no concern. Does the sight of someone using a whip make the situation so emotional? Why do we have such a reaction? The answer may be, that not ALL of us feel this way and that the some of us who do, have a disproportionate voice in this debate.I would truly like to know how strong the anti-whip feelings reallyare. And I would like to see someone strongly present counter-arguments or are we just going to roll over and allow this minority view steamroller changes to the sport which will change the nature of it forever.
Both Frazier and Ali showed immense courage in that fight and received punishment that perhaps that may never have recovered from. Nevertheless, the sport continues, with little change, and we can safely claim that there is no public outcry against the sport.
Compare that with horseracing, where it is claimed that there is a huge public concern over the use of the whip. If true, why the difference? Is it purely because dumb animals are involved who can't exercise choice in the matter? is it because we truly believe that the level of punishment is far greater than that recorded by boxers? Surely it is not for the latter reason because no-one could possibly believe that administering a cushioned whip to a 1200lb animal by a 140lb human compares in any way with 45 minutes over 15 rounds during which maybe 20 punches are delivered every minute.
Si, it must be because the former reason, that a dumb animal is involved, that we apparently are so concerned. How irrational is this, I wonder,because if even a tiny amount of reason were to be applied there would be no concern. Does the sight of someone using a whip make the situation so emotional? Why do we have such a reaction? The answer may be, that not ALL of us feel this way and that the some of us who do, have a disproportionate voice in this debate.I would truly like to know how strong the anti-whip feelings reallyare. And I would like to see someone strongly present counter-arguments or are we just going to roll over and allow this minority view steamroller changes to the sport which will change the nature of it forever.
Personally I can't see any relevance whatsoever in the comparison to boxing, as the difference is so obviously about choice.
Actually, I'm amazed that punters think the new whip rules will affect their betting more than over watering of courses, but really I shouldn't be surprised.
Figgis
You make me laugh, honestly. So, it's all about choice , is it? Horses have no choice in the matter, I suppose, and for that reason different standards must apply. We don't apply that to humans at all times so why apply it to animals? More importantly, I take it that you have no direct knowledge of horses or you wouldn't assume that they do not exercise choice. The old saying, "you can take horse to water, but you can't make him drink" comes to mind.
You make me laugh, honestly. So, it's all about choice , is it? Horses have no choice in the matter, I suppose, and for that reason different standards must apply. We don't apply that to humans at all times so why apply it to animals? More importantly, I take it that you have no direct knowledge of horses or you wouldn't assume that they do not exercise choice. The old saying, "you can take horse to water, but you can't make him drink" comes to mind.
Sandown
If you could give me an example where it is classed as acceptable to strike a human who has no choice in the matter it would be helpful for me to understand your point?
I have some experience of horses as my girlfriend used to own a number of show horses, although I fail to see what difference that makes?
It's very naive (or maybe a case of deliberately unwilling to face facts?) to say that a horse can't be coerced into doing something it wouldn't choose to do.
If you could give me an example where it is classed as acceptable to strike a human who has no choice in the matter it would be helpful for me to understand your point?
I have some experience of horses as my girlfriend used to own a number of show horses, although I fail to see what difference that makes?
It's very naive (or maybe a case of deliberately unwilling to face facts?) to say that a horse can't be coerced into doing something it wouldn't choose to do.
Figgis
No point in debating this further as we come at the issue from very different points of view (possibly there is a considerable age difference between us)and I may be more comfortable with the use of corporal punishment to enforce discipline as was the case when I was younger. I do not believe that outcomes have improved with today's supposedly more "enlightened" approach. As for dealing with animals, I don't believe in projecting our human "values" onto them. I can be as sentimental as the next man and I respect animals, especially horses but I do not believe that normal race riding using the whip is both necessar and acceptable and is not injurious to the horse. Over-us, of course, is counter-productive and is not desirable as I'm sure your girlfriend would agree but that does not mean that we should pursue the vitual elimination of its use. I repeat an earlier point, it is not only the number of strokes but the degree of force used, the area of application, the stride pattern of the horse and the response achieved.
No point in debating this further as we come at the issue from very different points of view (possibly there is a considerable age difference between us)and I may be more comfortable with the use of corporal punishment to enforce discipline as was the case when I was younger. I do not believe that outcomes have improved with today's supposedly more "enlightened" approach. As for dealing with animals, I don't believe in projecting our human "values" onto them. I can be as sentimental as the next man and I respect animals, especially horses but I do not believe that normal race riding using the whip is both necessar and acceptable and is not injurious to the horse. Over-us, of course, is counter-productive and is not desirable as I'm sure your girlfriend would agree but that does not mean that we should pursue the vitual elimination of its use. I repeat an earlier point, it is not only the number of strokes but the degree of force used, the area of application, the stride pattern of the horse and the response achieved.
Sandown
I'm 43 and I'm not against corporal punishment. I'm also not particularly in favour of a complete whip ban, but if it was banned tomorrow it wouldn't make any difference at all to my betting activities or my enjoyment of the sport. What the "pro-whip" people don't seem to grasp, though, is that a continuing situation of jockeys failing to adhere to the guidelines will only increase the prospects of a full ban, not diminish it.
I'm 43 and I'm not against corporal punishment. I'm also not particularly in favour of a complete whip ban, but if it was banned tomorrow it wouldn't make any difference at all to my betting activities or my enjoyment of the sport. What the "pro-whip" people don't seem to grasp, though, is that a continuing situation of jockeys failing to adhere to the guidelines will only increase the prospects of a full ban, not diminish it.
Figgis
Only 24 years difference but it may be a factor. What I will concede is that prior to the current rule changes, jockeys appeared not to take any notice of the whip rule. To that extent, this has been a wake up call and perhaps they may not be so complacent now. However, even with the latest step-back, i still feel that the jockeys have made a mistake agreeing to such a low number and I also feel that the misuse was nothing like that indicated by the number of bans being given with the effect that there is no discrimination between a right old whacking of a tired horse and taps given to wake up and urge forward.
Only 24 years difference but it may be a factor. What I will concede is that prior to the current rule changes, jockeys appeared not to take any notice of the whip rule. To that extent, this has been a wake up call and perhaps they may not be so complacent now. However, even with the latest step-back, i still feel that the jockeys have made a mistake agreeing to such a low number and I also feel that the misuse was nothing like that indicated by the number of bans being given with the effect that there is no discrimination between a right old whacking of a tired horse and taps given to wake up and urge forward.
Sandown
I've not heard any jockeys, or race fans, announcing they have a problem with the rules in France, where an 8 strike limit has been in force for a while now.
Just to change the subject, without wishing to sound patronising, I'm quite impressed that you still calculate your own time figures, I sometimes wonder how long I'll be doing it for.
I've not heard any jockeys, or race fans, announcing they have a problem with the rules in France, where an 8 strike limit has been in force for a while now.
Just to change the subject, without wishing to sound patronising, I'm quite impressed that you still calculate your own time figures, I sometimes wonder how long I'll be doing it for.
Figgis
Experience is the answer. I don't have to spend much time on it as I know when and where to look. Plus its the key to getting an edge so I can't afford to not to do it, given my stakes.
Experience is the answer. I don't have to spend much time on it as I know when and where to look. Plus its the key to getting an edge so I can't afford to not to do it, given my stakes.
Perhaps the style/tactics of French racing helps or perhap its the whip rule which creates the style?
I enjoy it, but I sometimes wonder if I'll still be doing this in my seventies, I suspect it will be something tha's difficult to give up.
Figgis
I don't think it is possible to sustain interest at a full-on 100% level for ever. I did it for 10 years when I relied on my gambling profit in order to live but it was very draining and I lost my passion for the sport. I've since regained it but now I bet much less frequently and to a lower level. Quite honestly, I love horse racing as a sport as much as I do for its gambling opportunities, which perhaps explains why I am still here discussing things like the use of the whip, something which affects me personally not one jot.
I don't think it is possible to sustain interest at a full-on 100% level for ever. I did it for 10 years when I relied on my gambling profit in order to live but it was very draining and I lost my passion for the sport. I've since regained it but now I bet much less frequently and to a lower level. Quite honestly, I love horse racing as a sport as much as I do for its gambling opportunities, which perhaps explains why I am still here discussing things like the use of the whip, something which affects me personally not one jot.
I saw that when the RP did an on-line survey recently, 80% of replies were against the current rules.Since then, we've had some farcical decisions and penalties invoked culminating in the disgraceful,petty, unjust punishment for the ride on Swincombe Flame. I cannot believe that this situation has been allowed to continue. How do we persuade the BHA to listen to 80% of the sport's followers and reverse these rules.
you dont,its not just about horseracing fans,its also about being seen to address the concerns re how the sport comes across to the public- like it or not thats the reality,and you need to get yer head around that,and accept we wont go back to the old rules.
Then you can move on.
Then you can move on.
The majority of jockeys are coming round and getting on with the job.
Yes a few are struggling to ride within the rules,but they will get used to it.
Jockeys have always been banned over the years and always will be in this betting orientated sport,whatever the rules.
Yes a few are struggling to ride within the rules,but they will get used to it.
Jockeys have always been banned over the years and always will be in this betting orientated sport,whatever the rules.
It wont matter how many times they are allowed to hit. The plain fact is that Horseracing has to hold it effing breath every April whilst the whole sport is judged on one race per year
Lets hope Aintree tell the Beeb no overhead shots this year...
Lets hope Aintree tell the Beeb no overhead shots this year...
I hear that new rules are to be introduced in boxing stipulating that no boxer will hit his opponent more than three times per round or no more than thirty times in any fight and that all hits must be delivered from no lower than 90 degrees angle from the floor and no higher than 120 degrees. All punches must be to the body or arms only but not to the stomach. Each round will last one minute. If any boxer bleeds the fight will be stopped immediately as it will if any fighter says that he wants his Mummy.
The authorities deny that they are emasculating the sport and point to the success of horse racing's new rules which have led to a dramatic shift in the viewing figures with 80% of all new viewers under the age of 5. The compulsory introduction of carrots dangling at the end of a stick replacing the use of the whip is reported to be the main reason for this shift.Jockeys are allowed to tickle their horses with their fingers to get them to jump the fences which on the Grand National course have been eliminated and replaced with photographs of what the fences used to look like. Some animal rights are complaining that these photos may prove frightening to the horses and are campaigning for their removal.
The authorities deny that they are emasculating the sport and point to the success of horse racing's new rules which have led to a dramatic shift in the viewing figures with 80% of all new viewers under the age of 5. The compulsory introduction of carrots dangling at the end of a stick replacing the use of the whip is reported to be the main reason for this shift.Jockeys are allowed to tickle their horses with their fingers to get them to jump the fences which on the Grand National course have been eliminated and replaced with photographs of what the fences used to look like. Some animal rights are complaining that these photos may prove frightening to the horses and are campaigning for their removal.
In a further escalation in modifications made to our way of life as a result of the sensitivity studies (the effect on public opinion conducted by Mori) the British Army is to replace all its weapons with paint guns, grenades to be replaced by eggs and missiles to be replaced by fireworks rockets. The enemy (currently the Taliban)is thought to be in agreement with this move and is responding by agreeing to wash more frequently and to use a plastic knife instead of a steel knife when conducting beheadings.
The public shows a 70% approval rating for the new measures.
The public shows a 70% approval rating for the new measures.
LOL Buddelia. There is no concerns of the public. There is not a single jot of EVIDENCE to support it.
Dont know why you are laughing Sint.
There is no evidence that we know about maybe.Although i believe for a number of years now there have been people making it known that they are unhappy with the sport,notably the Grand National.
This has been coming for ages,something had to be done to nip in the bud what appeared to be a momentum growing for changes and even a complete ban.
If stopping jockeys from hitting a horse so much helps to keep the sport going,i am all for it.
I may not agree with it from a spectator element or a punting element,but i think we have to go a bit deeper than that.
There is no evidence that we know about maybe.Although i believe for a number of years now there have been people making it known that they are unhappy with the sport,notably the Grand National.
This has been coming for ages,something had to be done to nip in the bud what appeared to be a momentum growing for changes and even a complete ban.
If stopping jockeys from hitting a horse so much helps to keep the sport going,i am all for it.
I may not agree with it from a spectator element or a punting element,but i think we have to go a bit deeper than that.
"people making it known that they are unhappy with the sport,notably the Grand National" = some parts of the racing media and animal rights organisations. Not racing followers, not the general public, not politicians (as with fox hunting), not the judiciary, not punters, not anybody at all really who matters.
Well whatever,i know ive had a fair few discussions down the local where people have said they think racings cruel,and selling Sweepstake tickets i get people refusing to buy a ticket cos they dont like seeing horses hit.Think it naive to think that members of the general public are all of the same opinion as racing followers.
Anyway cant see them going back,whatever we say or think.
Anyway ive said my opinion on the matter,dont want to get into a big debate about it.
Anyway cant see them going back,whatever we say or think.
Anyway ive said my opinion on the matter,dont want to get into a big debate about it.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539