Horse Antepost
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.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 238
|
By:
My own view is I've always believed that whether the whip is used or not it would not make one jot of difference to my overall success, or lack of success, when punting.
|
|
By:
Figgis
You may be right, but even so, I don't believe that the punting angle is really relevant to this issue. It's really about whether a small group of people who have access to the media can win an argument on grounds that they claim have a moral basis, without any evidence whatsoever to support their argument. In fact, they are arguing their case without resorting to any facts of any kind, grossly distorting the claim to public opinion being on their side, and winning the argument purely on the basis of who can shout the loudest. What is morally wrong is that "bullies" with loud mouths are winning because the silent majority is just that - silent. |
|
By:
Sandown
I agree about the whip not doing much damage these days, I still don't like to see it used to excess though. I have to say though I was not against Dettori's ride of Rewilding, that wasn't abuse as far as I'm concerned. Rather than the BHA being bullied, don't you think they are also concerned with the future of the sport and attracting young blood? It is not just about what middle/old aged farts like us think. |
|
By:
Horse Racing is judged on one event a year, the General Public dont give a flying Fig about 99% of the other events, they should have made special rules about the race itself and told the Beeb not to do any fancy overhead camera shots as i believe the sight of the stricken horses caused more uproar than the whip incident itself, therefore the RSPCA had to react to the media frenzy.
If it needs to be make the race a bleedin Handicap hurdle and leave the rest alone |
|
By:
But some of those once a year viewers will be young potential future fans of the sport, zil.
|
|
By:
Figgis
Where's the evidence that youngsters are put off by the use of the whip? Just as easy to argue the opposite. |
|
By:
Well who was the bright spark at the Beeb who let those overhead shots of dead horses be shown(a fifth??)
As with meat consumption, if they dont see it, they dont really care imo, but given the Media frenzy and the RSPCA'S reaction this has forced the wrong response imo, give them what they want BUT FOR THE NATIONAL ONLY. Perception is everything, they have been told that the course is safer now despite more horse's dying in the race since 1990 than in the 30 years before(according to Wilki equine fatalities) so yes, they are Mushrooms and feed them accordingly |
|
By:
I wonder what the Anti whip brigade would make of some of the happennings at gymkannas some of the youngsters
their aren't afraid to give their pony some hefty belts if it doesn't do what its told. Monty Roberts makes horsey things look easy but thats because he's very gifted, for the ordinary person horses are anything but easy to handle. |
|
By:
Sandown
I would say the evidence is everywhere that society's treatment of animals has changed to some degree over the years, the chances of that trend reversing are pretty much nil. It's also a factor that people are influenced by the media, whether they want to admit it or not, unless they believe advertising is a complete waste of effort and money. Likewise, the media choose stories that they know will have a response from the public, the feeling is already potentially there, they're just tapping into it. |
|
By:
What about watering? Some think that is a horse welfare issue as well. Should perceived perceptions of the non-racing going and non-punting public dictate watering as well as whipping?
Imo only people who haven't a clue about horses or cattle could possibly objecting to use of the whip. And such people should be ignored unless and until they learn something about horses and cattle. |
|
By:
But watering isn't an emotive subject with the public, only with some punters. I'm not saying the new whip rules are correct, actually I think it's pretty ludicrous to expect jockeys to count strokes before and inside the final furlong, but if racing tries to cocoon itself from outside views of the sport it is doomed.
|
|
By:
Exactly Figg, so stage manage what the outside public judge us on which is that one saturday in April every year.....
|
|
By:
Zil, well if we were talking about artistic integrity or something like that then I'd agree, **** the public and be true to yourself. However, racing is an industry and public perception is vital to a business, like it or not.
|
|
By:
Yep, but 99% of it is only one day, where else in the mainstream Media has there been a feenzy like last April over any issue regarding whips(until this week where it was self inflicted)??
And i repeat, it was more the sight of visible dead animals thanks to a camera angle than anything else |
|
By:
Yep, but 99% of it is only one day, where else in the mainstream Media has there been a feenzy like last April over any issue regarding whips(until this week where it was self inflicted)??
And i repeat, it was more the sight of visible dead animals thanks to a camera angle than anything else |
|
By:
Yes, I agree about that. The situation couldn't continue though where jockeys just didn't give a sh!t about the rules.
|
|
By:
Public perception of racing is not important in my opinion. In America, racing and gambling have always had a very bad rep. But no one involved gives a f**k. Be true to what you love and what you know, whether it is art or marketing. Then the public that matters will follow. For racing to catter to English aunties who think horses should be treated like their lapdogs -- all that says to anyone with half a brain is that English racing doesnt respect itself. And if you dont respect yourself aint nobody gonna give a hoot de hoot.
|
|
By:
You must have a higher opinion than me then about the British public then. Stuff like the X Factor proves how much marketing matters and how the public will buy any old crap in the suitable packaging.
|
|
By:
You can imagine what would happen to sales of KFC if they had a programme in house showing "Heres how your bargain bucket reaches you"
The Camera angles should be controlled where there are stricken animals |
|
By:
Zil, but even KFC and Mac's have had to make concessions to outside pressure.
|
|
By:
Not a matter of having high opinion about public or not. Matter of people who know and do respecting themselves and not worrying about apologizing or packaging. That is what anyone, no matter how dumb or uncultured or how smart or cultivated, respects.
Whips are the tools of the trade. Is someone doesnt like it, let them play with their **** cats. It wont effect racingt a single iota. |
|
By:
Yep but they dont have a camera showing dead animals in their shops. Control shots and ffs dont show the general public dead horses on the floor
|
|
By:
Zil, but that's the price racing has to pay if they want it nationally televised.
|
|
By:
Well i would hope they learn from last year then and have a meeting with the Beeb before the race about switching angles.
It wont matter a jot about the whip if it occurs again, Ch4 managed it in the Derby when one broke down near the furlong marker, they switched to a close up of the leaders |
|
By:
The timing of all this was what I found unbelievable, extreme stupidity.
|
|
By:
So ,how many "New fans" would have been turned of the sport by todays Champion Stakes??
|
|
By:
Zil, as I've said I think the new rules are ridiculous, but I also think the same of the "hands off our sport" attitude many in racing seem to have.
|
|
By:
It is getting ridiculous. No. We are there already.
Why not give a jockey a softer, lighter, more ineffective whip if he whips too often? And if he does it again give him an even softer whip. I was going to comment of the savvy of racing rulers but that target is too easy to hit. |
|
By:
Figgis
The media frequently pursue stories in which the public has no real interest. Do you think that the public gives a gnat's fart as to whether Liam Fox and his friend are of any interest to them. Do they know who is is, even? No, the media is interested because it is interested not because the public is interested. The whip issue is an easy anbandwagon to get aboard, just like fox-hunting. And I am not even a supporter of fox-hunting by the way.Ththat doesn't mean I agree with the ban anymore than i agree with the whip ban. The busybodies have emasculated this country in so many ways.banning the whip altogether will be the next step eventually and it will destoy racing as we knew it. |
|
By:
Sandown
I'd say a section of the public who follow the news have a political interest, so that story is of interest to them. The same as it is to people who buy those newspapers, it would be financial suicide for newspapers to bang on about stories that are a turn off to their readers. It was just like all the furore with the News of the World, everybody was criticising them, rightly so, but much of it was hypocrisy, it was the most popular Sunday paper around, so a lot of people must've been buying the sh!t. |
|
By:
Figgis
Does anyone really think that horses respond to the whip because they get hurt when its used? Horses are flight animals and they will shie away from a paper bag which wasn't there last time they went past the spot. They respond to the sight of the whip because they don't like anything being that close to them. If they feel the whip their reaction is totally out of proortion to the actual effect. I weight 170 lbs. Put a child on my back weighing 17lbs (if you can find one) give him a ruler and let him hit me. Do you think that wuld be cruel to me because I would be hurt?That's the eqivalent force applied by a jockey to a 1200lb animal. For goodness sake, this has got out of hand. Its a cave in to the PC brigade. |
|
By:
Animal Aid website:
The BHA must stand firm on new whipping rules Posted 14 October 2011 With the growing jockey rebellion over the new, more restrictive whip regime, Animal Aid has urged the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) to resist the temptation to weaken either the new rules on how the whip can be used or the penalties for breaches. Described at the time of their announcement (27 September 2011) as ‘firm but fair’, the new rules were hailed by the BHA as vital because of public disquiet at seeing horses routinely beaten in public for sport and at the regulator doing nothing to stop it. As noted by Jamie Stier, BHA Director of raceday operations and regulations: ‘It's an impossible argument to win when you're saying what you have in place is effective when you have over 800 breaches a year and up to a maximum of 950 in a season.’ (RTE, 6 October 2011) A public poll published recently by the BHA itself showed that 57 per cent of the public (68 per cent of women) want an outright ban on the whip. These results would indicate that most people are likely to greet with incredulity complaints by rebel jockey Richard Hughes that the new regime is ‘barbaric’, and that restricting his use of the whip is ‘like telling Lionel Messi he can't use his left foot’. In response to the furore, the BHA has hinted that it could give ground on the new penalty structure, which includes loss of prize money, riding fee and an increase in the number of days’ suspension from racing. But as Jamie Stier has made clear, rules about how the whip can be used have no force unless they are backed up with penalties that act as a genuine deterrent. An argument jockeys are entitled to make is that all the penalties for whip offences fall upon them. A rider in breach of the rules and who wins a race can lose his or her winnings and riding fee but the horse is still ruled to have come first, with all the consequent rewards for the owner and trainer. This is despite the fact that the jockey will have ridden to the instructions of the trainer. Says Animal Aid’s Director, Andrew Tyler: ‘For more then 10 years, Animal Aid has campaigned for an outright ban on the whip – a position now supported by the general public. We were disappointed that the BHA fell short of introducing a prohibition but recognise that the new regime is a significant improvement over the previous system. If the BHA succumbs to jockey pressure and backtracks, racing will put itself at an even greater distance from the public on whom it depends for its future. But the ultimate argument for banning the whip is that it is a device to bully and intimidate animals to run to their physical limit, and sometimes beyond it. That is what is barbaric and not Richard Hughes’ misplaced sense of injustice.’ |
|
By:
And Soumillion being deprived of £50k because he exceeded the arbitrary figure of 5 hits by one inside the last furlong is just the height of stupidity, injustice and bureaucracy and will have the unintended consequence of top foreign riders not coming over. Is that what we want for the sport?
|
|
By:
Sandown
I don't disagree with your points, however, the racing authorities have to remain aware of how it looks. Do you think there should be no whip rules at all then? Or do you think the old ones were fine even though they were constantly broken? |
|
By:
Animal Aid will only stop when Horseracing is abolished in the UK. And if there are more deaths at Liverpool next May where the bodies are televised again then this new whip rule will be irrelevant and redundant
|
|
By:
Headmaster
What % of people who actually follow the sport want a ban? Look at the RP poll and you will see that 85% are supportive of Hughes action. From that I think we con deduce that a much smaller % than 57% would be in favour. So, are we to be influenced by people who don't actually follow the sport? |
|
By:
Its a bit like asking how many Christians are in favour of the Halal and Kosher methods of slaughter
And i bet their industries dont take much notice of the RSPCA or Animal Aid  |
|
By:
We were disappointed that the BHA fell short of introducing a prohibition
That's where we will get to if a stand isn't taken. As for the breaking of the existing rules, then penalties need to be applied to owner and trainer as well as the jockey |
|
By:
Sandown,
It is a very difficult situation for racing. Whenever non-racing journalists have a welfare-related racing story on their hands, Animal Aid, despite representing, at a guess, 1% of the population, get 50% of the air time. Racing PLC can ignore AA and label them as loons, quite rightly, and most right-minded non-racing people would probably agree. However, it is a very different story when the RSPCA are threatening to withdraw their suppport. We can only win the battle with leftwing welfare groups when the middle ground are on our side. In a public vote, how would you price up the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals versus the British Horseracing Authority? We're a million....and that's the absolute number one reason why we are where we are today. |