Did “cheating” pay in the King George

It is a very difficult choice for riders but how does it differ from a "professional foul" in football when a player takes a yellow card or even a red one to stop a goal being scored? In both cases participants make a calculated decision to accept the punishment ACCORDING TO THE PRESENT RULES for the good of the "team". I also doubt how accurately anyone can count whip strokes that really connect with a horse.

It makes a difference, remember years ago a jockey broke the rules and over whipped a horse and beat my selection by a nose, it’s cheating and there should be severe punishment especially in a group 1 race, the rules are applied the same even if it’s a class 5 race, ban the whip, doesn’t bother me, I’m not a horse person, wouldn’t be able to make an informed opinion on that, stop the cheats

There would be any number of issues arising from that including interference

Sandown, Francome's proposal was that the whip would be carried but not used in a finish. For every instance where someone could point to an example of where a horse veered without use of the whip there are far more examples of where whip use actually caused a horse to hang.

Figgis

I would certainly support any attempt to obtain the opinions of trainers and jockeys whether flat or NH and accept the result of these people who should know more than those of us who are not involved with horses, rather than the opinions of administrators, journalists, public and punters.

A lot of the opposition is from people who don't want any change whatsoever. Their attitude is 'this is how it's always been and we don't want any outsiders meddling'. Well that attitude is fine if you're content to see the sport die on its arse.

As a punter, I don't see what there would be to cry about. The form to study would be from races run without the use of the whip. Leaving us to try to pick the winners of races run without the use of the whip. It would be a non issue. As would trying to create rules that will never work satisfactorily.

Sandown, so you don't have your own view? If it had been left to most trainers we wouldn't even have Exchanges. The likes of B. Hills who wanted things to remain the same so they could pull off their "old fashioned gambles".

I do personally think Lester Piggot won at least 2 Derbies as a result of his use of the whip. Roberto and The Minstrel both were unlikely to have won without the rattatat of Lester

Cryoftruth, but that was his chosen style. For all his talent, when it became a battle he'd immediately rely on the whip. Would Carson's head down, hands and heels driving achieve lesser results? It's a matter of opinion. I'd say the impression that horses are running faster when whipped late on in a race is usually just an optical illusion.

But would it bad for the breed if the best horse were those not requiring to whip to do their best?

As I think you're already implying, of course it wouldn't. I've always been baffled by the general opinion that a horse who appears to find nothing when whipped, such as Harchibald, is a bit of a rogue. Whereas one who appears to find more is good and honest. I would've thought the one that was already giving its all with little persuasion from the saddle was the honest runner.

A cracking finish to a race overshadowed by the use of the whip.
Let jockeys be jockeys.

Let's leave the whole game to the "experts" then and see how long that lasts.

trainers, breeders, jockeys

These people get settled into habits as much as anyone else. They are also susceptible to flawed, received wisdom, like any of us. If you'd asked NH trainers in the mid 80s if their horses were as fit as they could be they'd have answered yes. Then a certain M. Pipe came along and showed them otherwise.

racing has a been around one way or another for at least 500 years or longer  in its current form

As I'm sure you're aware, having a long history is no pointer to an equally long future. The fact is the world has changed since 1758, and so have the rules of racing along the way. It is no longer a private challenge between two toffs. Racing is now a spectator sport that relies on bringing in new fans. There have been studies in Australia and Scandinavia that strongly indicate whip use has no overall impact. Favs still won at the same rate, etc. There has never been any evidence to prove the opposite.

The point is that even if it could be proved the occasional racehorse will find a head when whipped, is it really worth digging your heels in over the matter when there can never be any really satisfactory way of ruling on the issue? I certainly don't want to forfeit a winning bet just because some dimwit onboard couldn't count, or restrain himself. As I said the world has changed and, like it or not, the whip will go sooner or later. Better to face the issue now instead of clinging on like an old Betamax user. Get rid of the whip and get rid of the problem.

I certainly don't want to forfeit a winning bet just because some dimwit onboard couldn't count, or restrain himself

And I don’t want to continue forfeit a winning bet when my jockey sticks to the rules and is beaten by one who breaks to rules and gets advantage by doing so.

Even with the tighter whip rules. Saturday showed that Hukum’s jockey, (who is not a dimwit) ignored the rules because he knew he would keep the race anyway.

If he knew that he would have been disqualified he would not have broken the rules.

And those you call “dimwits” would be unlikely to get many rides of they kept getting disqualified.

So I am still for banning the whip, but meanwhile disqualifying and placing last any horse getting more than the legal number of smacks. Simples.

Hornby went 1 over on Westover.

I already posted that on the horse race forum.
I backed King Of Steel.Only btn over 4Ls.
Makes a mockery of it.

Jim Crawley just intervied about the KG fine where he was very open about the problem of counting strokes in the middle of a tight finish. He said he was completely unaware that he had exceeded the prooscibed limit, clearly perplexed. In his view the horse responded, was not marked, and punters have not given him any criticism. No complainaints from the other jockey either.

Like armchair generals, armchair jockeys don't have a grasp of the reality of what is being asked of jockeys.

Hi Figgis

Yes I remember when disqualifications were more numerous. But then the rules were tougher.

But whip misuse if different from accidental or care less riding,

And actually I am in favour of the rules being tightened up again at least somewhat. Again and again I see horses being carried across the track by careless riding and no action taken.

For example the quite notorious one

https://www.racingpost.com/results/174/newmarket-july/2013-07-12/580895

When Buick took Hughes across the track.

No disqualification under the rules - ridiculous.

Jim Crawley just intervied about the KG fine where he was very open about the problem of counting strokes in the middle of a tight finish.

He would very quickly learn to remember to count if his horses kept on being placed last.

I would like to ask the BHA two questions.

1; Do you think a horse runs faster if given the whip?

2; Do you think the whip hurts a horse?

If they think the whip does make a horse run faster but does not hurt a horse, then why have a limit?

If it does hurt the horse, then surely we should not be striking the horse. Why is 6 strikes ok but 7 not?

If the whip does not make a horse run faster, then why strike it.

As it stands it is a complete mess.

How can you have a limit, but if you exceed it the horse still wins?

If you argue that breaking the whip rule is "cheating" and should lead to disqualification , but also argue that the application of the whip doesn't actually encourage the horse to go any faster, there is an  glaring inconsistency in the logic of this argument.

If on the other hand, you argue that "rules are rules" and if broken, penalties should be imposed such as disqualification, fines and bans should follow, then you arguing that an arbitrary number of strikes has some significance and meaning when obviously it can't have other than for reasons of perception.

If that is so, then it would be logical to argue for zero strikes as that would be the best way of achieving the best perception approval rating. I would expect this to be the eventual outcome   as the number of acceptable strikes which have no effect anyway would be immaterial and therefore unnecessary to have any. The animal rights pressure group would ultimately succeed in banning the use of the whip for encouragement of the horse.

The evidence for or against the use of the whip from what I can see, is at best mixed and indeterminate in its effect with a question mark against the metrics used to evaluate the results.

For this reason, I believe that we should listen to the opinions of the professionals involved in horse management before we reach the stage of banning the use of the whip for encouragement, which for many people would actually spoil the sport as a  spectacle, not improve it.

Hard to believe how some old farts think it's all about what they themselves think. It has nothing to do with the animal rights lobby, or middle class, pisswit woke politics. It's about making the game acceptable and still attractive to a younger audience when the old farts are all 6 feet under.