Sandown

I don't know about the horses Piggott rode but it was mentioned on ATR the other day that horses used to return marked in the old days, I'm sure it was a trainer that said there would be wheal marks for about 3 days. I know this isn't the case anymore but on that basis they had no option but to make concessions on whip use, which is what led to the new whips, it wasn't because "horsemen" chose to switch.

I would also be surprised if you haven't been in a situation, like I have, where you've seen a horse have a hard race and then be unsure about backing that horse next time? I know many show no ill effects next time but a lot do. Like I've said, I don't agree with the new rules as they are just idiotic and unworkable but there has to be some kind of rule on the matter and it should be one that jockeys (and their connections) will, on the whole, try to adhere to, instead of just seeing the penalty as a price worth paying.

Sandown. You are right.

Zil, I agree with much of what you're saying. Believe me I'm not the kind of person that agrees with much of the media or public opinion, but like it or not, that's the world we live in now and as an industry (as racing is) it just can't be ignored.

Zil, for me, while I think something needed to be done, there is no excuse for the huge mess they made of it and the people responsible should be held to account and sacked.

Figg, things have been done for a while now, we have had a whip for a while and the rules are far more friendlier to the horse than they used to be.

As ive said, but for those TV pictures of the dead horses beamed live to millions of viewers we wouldnt have had this from the RSPCA.

So right then, say we even kept these new rules and we get another National where they are shown dead horses what then, nowt to do with the whip, you can't appease people who want racing(esp jumps)abolished, you HAVE to manage them, thats why i would have played the RACE not the sport.

Slippery slope tbh. They go on about the whip which does nothing to hurt a horse these days. It's like a stick of foam ffs. What about all the cuts bumps bruises & injuries horses get from jumps. If the public saw some of the horses the day after a bad fall or clattering a hurdle etc. the jumps game would be banned. Ridiculous state of affairs from the RSPCA & BHA you either race or don't race. It's a very sad state of affairs these days horses are looked after so well but have to pay their way. Without racing they would be near on extinct. A huge mountain out of a molehill & totally ignoring the main welfare issues of horses which is after their career has finished. The animal aids of this world won't give up until the game is gone & that's why the BHA needed to stay strong and have some balls over this.

Don't know whether anyone watched the 5.20 Newmarket won by Main Sequence but this was a good example of a horse which repsonded immediately to the whip and found a length on application. It was the same in his first race. I doubt if he would have responded quite as much if no whip had been used as the jockey both times was applying plenty of leg pressure but it was only the whip that got the surge. If we ever get to the state of no whips (why "if" - its a certainty) then this type of horse will be penalised as will the one-pace gallopers. David Pipe makes the good point that different horses will be penalised and it will affect the entries for races especially those with stiff finshes or where there is a heavy ground. Is that what the BHA wants? Just wait until punters find that a horse loses when it should have won if the jockey had used the whip. People will vote with their feet

Why do we always assume that the horse that doesn't/won't win unless it's whipped is the one all the 'punters' have backed?

Would it not be equally true to say, Sandown..."Just wait until punters find that a horse wins when it shouldn't have done as the second couldn't be leathered over the line. They'll be delighted."

Where there is an unnecessary increase in uncertainty then it would affect the frequency and the amount although i doubt that that it would stop me.

Take a situation where the horse is also disqualified. This would cause great aggravation if you had backed the winner.

And, imo Head, the pain of losing is far greater than the pleasure of winning especially if that win is by default. Of course, others may hold a different opinion.

As for what trainers have to say, I'd say some of the goings on by their ranks, particularly at the minor tracks, is doing more to put people off the sport than any whip regulations could ever do.

If my horse had won by breaking the rules I'd accept it,

(being thrown out)

I'm getting a bit sick of pandering to the bookmaking industry, zil.  Did you read the Post today?  Page 3 'Strike action would be a disaster say bookmakers'.  Apparently "punters" (as though we're all this one big breed, but that's another debate) will start betting on football (Primarolo and Miller).  Really?  What - at 2:15 on a Tuesday afternoon??? Good luck with that line, gang.  Primarolo again: "a strike would be a nail in the coffin".  Yeah?  My 10K againt yours, George, that racing will somehow prize that nail from it's coffin and limp on. Ciaran O'Brien - "a strike would be costly to racing and the levy"...no mention of Laddies there then, Ciaran.  Presumably you wouldn't feel a thing?  Simon Clare "a danger of alienating core audience" "we'd have loved to have an input (into whip review)".  Simon generally is one of the measured PR guys but I'm not sure 'Bookmakers pressure racing into mainting whipping of horses" is a great story for anyone.

You'd want to be getting rid of the current BHA and call the Bookmakers bluff TH


Usually negotiations between the Bookmakers and Racings Reps end up with the Latter removing their strides and bending over. Hence the ridiculous amount of fixtures we have.

We have a situation now where a race could finish with horse A winning but the jockey being penalised for hitting his horse too much, losing his percentage and his fee and getting a 15 day ban, horse B hit 6 times, all down the flank with the jockey receiving no punishment, and horse C where the jockey is punished under the non-triers rule and receiving less punishment than the jockey on the winner, who tried too hard. How does any of this make any sense? How have the BHA allowed this happen? It's bonkers.

Yank
20 Oct 11 10:19
Joined:
26 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 185 | Blogger: Yank's blog
Ryan Moore makes a great deal of sense. e.g. 'How can seven be fine, but eight is too much, it doesn't make sense. You can't put a number on what is abuse, you could hit a horse once and it could be abuse and you could hit a horse 20 times and it wouldn't be.'

Jockeys, of which Ryan Moore is one the last time I looked, asked for a number ffs. Keep up.

Yeah, Headmaster, that Queally ride was a particularly OTT one I thought.

Not 'arf, zil.

I use the word with consideration, but Queally's contribution to the Classic was nothing short of brutal and completely overshadowed the race imo. 

Let's put aside the welfare debate for one moment and concentrate on the aesthetics.  Did the ride given to Twice Over make any of you proud of our noble sport?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLQcc686vxk

Zilzal

I agree with you entirely that the Grand N is the most visible race and this year's has played a big part in this furore but to my mind the thrashing that Dettori gave Rewilding was more OTT  and by a jockey with the most play with the general public and for a yard renowned for their concern for horse welfare. So, unfortunatley, I have to agree with headM and Figgis that regulation is necessary as it is almost everywhere. Its a question of whether the regulations make any sense and the current situation is barking mad.

Sandown
Personally I didn't find Dettori's ride offensive, as I didn't think he rode with extreme force. Nevertheless, I agree he was right to be punished simply because he overstepped the guidelines. Obviously it's a grey area, one jockey's 6 smacks could be extreme and another jockey's 10 smacks could be tame in comparison. But the same is true for many rules/laws, one tackle from behind in football could be harmless, whereas another could be a career ender. 2 pints would have hardly any effect on one man, whereas another would be ****d. Having a limit is not ideal, but it's the easiest way to go.

"Jockeys, of which Ryan Moore is one the last time I looked, asked for a number ffs. Keep up."
You're not in school now Headmaster, maybe if you were you could get away with your patronizing twaddle.
Which jockets were consulted, in what way, and who said?

The puppy huggers, RSCPA, the press, a so-called 'public opinion' -- which turns out to be whatever suits someone's argument -- are not in a position to determine this. Everyone involved in horseracing who thinks you can satisfy them is bonkers.

British racing should be concerned to keep pace with the rest of international racing. BHA is making the sport a joke.

Ruby Walsh, Ryan Moore. Richard Hughes -- yes, they are jockeys, but they know and care a lot more about horses than anyone on this forum.


And, oh yeah, your comments about Yankee racing [ "Frankie threw away a Classic getting Yank-happy with the stick too."

- implicitly endorsed by Figgis [big surprise!] -- are part of the problem here. Stop being so mug and insular.