Forums

Horse Antepost

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
cryoftruth
31 Jul 23 09:34
Joined:
Date Joined: 22 Mar 04
| Topic/replies: 9,382 | Blogger: cryoftruth's blog
One jockey kept to the strict whip rules.

One jockey breached the rules by over use of the whip.

The rule breaker won by a head.

Justice?
Pause Switch to Standard View Did “cheating” pay in the King...
Show More
Loading...
Report cryoftruth July 31, 2023 9:42 AM BST
I am personally in favour of the John Francome idea of banning the whip.

But a good second best would be the Sir Mark Prescott’s view. If a jockey goes one stroke over the permitted  number the horse is disqualified.

If that rule had been in place on Saturday we might have seen a fairer and more just result. I doubt that Hukum’s clever and very able rider would have breached the rules if he knew he’d lost the race, and his winning percentage.
Report sageform July 31, 2023 11:56 AM BST
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.
Report Figgis July 31, 2023 12:52 PM BST
Hi cryoftruth. I've long held the belief that using the whip in a finish doesn't make a horse run any faster than giving it a vigorous hands and heels ride. Assuming that the jockey is a competent rider, that is. So, to refer to your question of did it pay, then no I don't believe it made a difference to the result.

You are perfectly right though that this sort of carry on makes a mockery of the rules. And, as I have already said, I believe that in the vast majority of cases the whip makes no difference in a finish I agree with you that it should be banned. As Francome has said, it should be carried purely for corrective purposes. He's dead right that it is just a lazy go-to prop for a jockey and restricting its use would lead to better riding skills.
Report roadrunner46 July 31, 2023 2:18 PM BST
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
Report Sandown July 31, 2023 2:45 PM BST
Its the rule that is the problem and the punishment involved.

Counting strokes assumes that one more or less makes a difference which I don't think it does , which in turn begs the question of how many would be the optimum amount?  Theres no answer  to that really as its racings equivalent of how long is a piece of string and depends on too many variables - the horse, force of application, area where applied, and when. The only simple rule would be no whip used to propel the horse forward but I don't think that is the answer either. There would be any number of issues arising from that including interference.

Behind all of this lies the perception issue and its negative effect on the public which I believe is more behind the concern, than "cheating" , an interpretation of motive that should be confined to doping and similar .

A much better punishment if one is required for over-use of the whip is not disqualification which demoralises the betting public but one which carries a financial penalty for connections although in the very high reward prizes that may not be a concern because the status and value of a top race has rewards running into the millions. This could lead to fines which are beyond being a deterrent unless there is a cumulative build-up of offences. Even then, is it the jockey, the trainer ort he owner that should be fined or all three? All are beneficiaries.
Report Figgis July 31, 2023 2:51 PM BST
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.
Report Figgis July 31, 2023 2:54 PM BST
Francome told the Racing Post: “It’s 10 times easier to hit a horse than it is to push one.

“The better jockeys – the ones who know how fast they’re going in a race and the ones who can pick a horse up and push it without having to hit it three times – will be the ones who come to the top of the pile.

“It will put emphasis on the jockeys.

“You’ve definitely got to carry a whip (when racing), but I’m completely against hitting horses when they’re racing.

“There’s a knack to getting the best out of a horse, like humans, and it’s without using a big stick.”


Francome added: “Let’s have a month’s trial.

“If it doesn’t work and it all kicks off, then okay, but I really don’t think that will be the case.

“If this new whip doesn’t hurt the horses, then why use it?

“Do away with it completely and jockeys will be able to keep horses straighter and it will be so much easier to govern and more enjoyable to watch.

“If I’m a young person coming to watch racing, I’d be thinking: ‘What is going on here?’

“This horse is doing its best and someone is hitting it.

“And then the jockey on the winner hit his horse more times than the jockey on the horse I backed.

“It’s crazy and the fact that it goes on is beyond me, yet it’s something we can sort out in an afternoon.

“They’ll never sort it (the whip rule) because they haven’t the nous to stand up and say it’s not right and we’re stopping it now.”
Report Sandown July 31, 2023 4:09 PM BST
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.
Report Figgis July 31, 2023 4:36 PM BST
Sandown, but punter and public opinion matters. Without that support (money) there is no sport. Francome, to his credit, is clued up on the importance of this. I wouldn't say all trainers and jockeys are. A lot of them live in their own little bubble.
Report Figgis July 31, 2023 4:48 PM BST
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.
Report Sandown July 31, 2023 4:57 PM BST
Francome is just one voice though Figgis . Not enough of a sample for me.
Report Figgis July 31, 2023 5:03 PM BST
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".
Report cryoftruth July 31, 2023 5:32 PM BST
Francome is just one voice though Figgis . Not enough of a sample for me.

Francome is in my own view the finest horseman and what he says counts for a lot.

But 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. Some horses definitely find a bit extra for the whip, others may be less so.

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

But the fact on Saturday is that the winning jockey went over the whip limit exactly to the point when he will get a ban, but Not long enough to keep the race. Hukum won by a diminishing 12 inches from a horse that was rallying, but whose jockey did not break the rules.

Maybe it made no difference to the result. I think it’s a 50/50 call on that myself. It certainly might have done.

I do not see the comparison to a professional fouls in footy as valid. A better comparison would be to a mile race at the Olympics, with one runner getting to run on steroids and another not. When caught the cheat is disqualified and quite right.

Even in horse racing, you are not allowed to use spurs. You are not allowed to run a horse on amphetamines. If you break the rules you don’t keep the race. Why should you be allowed to win when the jockey uses the whip over the limit?

If you disqualified the horse the jockey would not break the rule.
Report Figgis July 31, 2023 5:47 PM BST
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.
Report Figgis July 31, 2023 5:55 PM BST
If you disqualified the horse the jockey would not break the rule

Cryoftruth, I'm assuming that the disqualification would not affect the result of a winning bet? Or would you go back to the days where punters lost out because of a jockey's misdemeanour?
Report penzance July 31, 2023 7:45 PM BST
A cracking finish to a race overshadowed by the use of the whip.
Let jockeys be jockeys.
Report Sandown July 31, 2023 7:48 PM BST
My opinion is that if a horse respondd to the whip then use it. If it doesn't then don't. If experts believe in limiting or banning the whip then I will accept that. I have no concerns about public perception as they and I are not experts on horse behaviour. As ever I would like evidence to be available.
Report Figgis July 31, 2023 7:57 PM BST
Let's leave the whole game to the "experts" then and see how long that lasts.
Report Sandown July 31, 2023 9:41 PM BST
Figgis

By experts I mean people who know and live with horses the whole time such as trainers, breeders, jockeys , who represent a fount of knowledge and knowhow which I respect and would abide by their opinions. Horseracing in England can be traced back to 200AD in Yorkshire. The first horse race meeting was in 1174. The Kiplingcotes Derby was run in 1519. Newmarket was established in 1636. Derby winners trace from 1780. 1750 saw the Rules of Racing introduced by the Jockey Club in 1758.

This potted history is to demonstrate that racing has a been around one way or another for at least 500 years or longer  in its current form, so to answer your statement "lets see how long that lasts"  I would say as long again,I guess. I don't think that whether whips are banned or continue to be used is existential.

Whaty might be are the absurd AFFORDABILITY CHECKS proposed by the Gambling Commission which could easily to the loss of support from punters betting on racing, an issue which it might be worth arguing about rather than the use or otherwise of whips.

Anyway, as I stated, we should ask to see all the evidence on this whip issue instead of taking one man's opinion, like Francome (which I respect anyway).
Report Figgis August 1, 2023 3:46 AM BST
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.
Report cryoftruth August 1, 2023 1:50 PM BST

Cryoftruth, I'm assuming that the disqualification would not affect the result of a winning bet? Or would you go back to the days where punters lost out because of a jockey's misdemeanour?


Yes the bet would be lost if it was on the horse that we the subject of a ride that tried to gain a better place through cheating

Of course, if your bet was on the horse which was robbed by a jockey cheating, you would win. So happy days.

And of course the old days where punters lost because of a jockey’s misdemeanour can also be characterised by the punters winning when the cheater is disqualified.
Report cryoftruth August 1, 2023 1:55 PM BST
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.
Report Figgis August 1, 2023 2:15 PM BST
Croftruth, I assume you remember the days when horses were instantly disqualified for interference? It didn't exactly stop jockeys breaching the rules. Phil Bull campaigned long term against those ridiculous rules. I don't see a return to punishing the punter being any kind of answer.

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

You can't categorically know that giving a horse an extra crack was the difference between winning and losing.
Report penzance August 1, 2023 2:41 PM BST
Hornby went 1 over on Westover.
Report Figgis August 1, 2023 2:52 PM BST
Penzance, hold on, we could've had a situation where Hukum and Westover were both disqualified and my bet on King Of Steel became a winner!Wink. Maybe I'm up for COT's plan after all Grin
Report penzance August 1, 2023 2:58 PM BST
I already posted that on the horse race forum.
I backed King Of Steel.Only btn over 4Ls.
Makes a mockery of it.
Report Sandown August 1, 2023 4:36 PM BST
Like some people, horses can be thin skinned and will show whip marks ,even weals. Others are not and are not so easily marked. This argument about numbers is ridiculous for one reason and that is the force used varies as does the place applied. Back in the day there were often articles about how Lester's horse never showing his whip use despite the rat-as-tat technique. This "smacks" of  the debate about youngsters needing to be given trigger warnings because of some issue which might upset them. This is all in the eye of the beholder and my eye is not offended. I am sure there are plenty of others like me. But if the whips are banned I wont be whining. That's the strongest argument for banning I can see, but its not the best reason to ban imo.If the horses can be shown in numbers to resent the use  of the hip or be hurt then I might be persuaded.

Disqualification should not be a penalty imo. It punishes too many people and is unfair.  As with the interference you have to be able to argue strongly that the result would be reversed w/o the whip being applied. Good luck with that.
Report Sandown August 1, 2023 5:34 PM BST
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.
Report Figgis August 1, 2023 5:38 PM BST
Sandown, that's all very well, but, whether you like it or not, perception of the sport in a changing world matters if it is to have a healthy future.
Report cryoftruth August 1, 2023 7:58 PM BST
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.
Report cryoftruth August 1, 2023 8:04 PM BST
You can't categorically know that giving a horse an extra crack was the difference between winning and losing.

Of course that is true.

But then again you don’t know if a horse pumped full of drugs would not have won the race anyway.

But in both cases the rules are broken and the horse should be disqualified.
Report cryoftruth August 1, 2023 8:05 PM BST
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.
Report Figgis August 1, 2023 9:59 PM BST
COT, I agree with you that the current rules are not enough of a deterrent, but I just don't see any satisfactory solution to regulating whip use. We are told that the current whip is no more menacing than Ken Dodd's tickling stick. Fair enough, so why are they so protective about keeping it? This insular, all pissing in the same pot mentality does racing no favours.

As Francome said, there are other ways of getting the best out of a horse, but reaching for the stick is the easy option. Jockeys who have ridden that way for years will obviously be against restricting its use. Take my magic remote from me and I will be pissed off at having to get up to change channels, even though the end result will be the same. Fortunately my use of a remote doesn't require regulating.

“They’ll never sort it (the whip rule) because they haven’t the nous to stand up and say it’s not right and we’re stopping it now.”

Francome's words say it all. The only thing I disagree with is that they'll never sort it out and stop it. I'm sure they will, as it's inevitable. It's just a pity they don't have the nous to do it sooner rather than later.
Report brandyontherocks August 1, 2023 10:10 PM BST
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?
Report impossible123 August 2, 2023 7:14 PM BST
I've never ridden a horse. But, I firmly believe a whip does make a horse run faster otherwise why do cowboys or cattle ranchers use it. But, only up to a certain point eg the max ability and potential of the horse; the horse will not run progressively faster post each strike. The question is when will the max ability point be reached eg post 6/7/8 or more strikes.

I also think a horse feels the effect of the whip, some proportionately given size, others might not; the effect will depend on the power and frequency of each strike too.

I also believe there must be a limit imposed on the strike. If a jockey uses the whip more than the strike limit to win a race the horse ought to be disqualified, and its jockey banned. Otherwise, a mockery and no deterrent at all.
Report Sandown August 3, 2023 11:27 AM BST
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.
Report sageform August 3, 2023 12:33 PM BST
I would have thought that a large fine and 20 days not able to work is a big deterrent but the rules were applied. You could argue that a red card offence in football should mean that the other team is given a goal and a cricket team that persistently wastes time should be penalised 50 runs for every over they don't bowl but at the moment the rules don't allow that.
Report Figgis August 3, 2023 1:17 PM BST
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.
Report Sandown August 3, 2023 4:01 PM BST
It's about making the game acceptable and still attractive to a younger audience when the old farts are all 6 feet under.

I'll happily accept the "Old Farts" tag as anyone over 60 has views formed in earlier times and we all know that the past is a different country.

However, I  don't accept that the Animal Rights Group doesn't have any leverage whilst I also do not accept that we must change matters because of the woke views of in the main adolescents who tremble if they don't get a trigger warning about things which might upset them and consequently would not become interested in racing if whips continue to be deployed for encouragement.

If I am going to turn my guns on anyone or any subject it would be Affordability Checks which will have a serious impact on horse race betting, in turn leading to devasting effects on racing's finances. This issue is also being driven by people who have no understanding of the sport or gambling yet seemingly have a very large influence on government and racings rulers. Prohibition came about because of the influence of a pressure group of moralisers with devastating economic and social outcomes.

That said, if whips are to be reduced by number let it be openly for the reason that perception matters more than the welfare of horses which although an issue I agree with, as it is important, it is not whips which are the main welfare  problem. It's people.
Report Figgis August 3, 2023 4:19 PM BST
Sandown, as an over 50 I am also in the old farts bracket.

adolescents who tremble if they don't get a trigger warning about things which might upset them and consequently would not become interested in racing

I don't think you can lump youngsters who find the sight of a flailing whip unappealing with namby pamby nerds who think Peter Pan is emotionally challenging. It is a totally unconnected issue.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com