this whole thing could end up with a....JOCKEYS STRIKE

Another nail in the coffin of the sport (NAP)

agree this could be chaos.wait till the jumps boys start

I thought jockey strikes was the problem.

indeed i can see it now the cast of time bandits brought out of retirement to cover for em, things could get nasty on the picket lines....

They will be finishing some  Jump races at furlong intervals.

anyone ever seen richard hughes being HARD on a horse?.....its crazy

yep jockeys can hold a horse in the stalls,fall out of the stalls,get trapped on a rail,find trouble in a nunnery,split into 2,3,4 groups,find trouble in a 3 runner race on newmarket heath,manage to walk past a scales clerk and a set of scales,but we are led to believe they cant count to 5, in the heat of the moment, and even better some want it extending to 10,jesus give them a chance if they cant count to 5 what chance of counting to 10 [;)]

One thing is now certain....

ALL the top jockeys will NOT be riding - or, worse still, riding SERIOUSLY - for LONG periods prior to  when a Whip BAN would put them out of an upcoming  BIG meeting - or top class Weekends abroad - with the bans now being a minimum of 5 days.

Joe Soap and his brother will be vying for the Jockeys Championship.

Jockey's cannot strike over this issue.  Imagine the media, jockeys not willing to play ball as they are now not allowed to hit their mounts as much as they would like.

Would be suicidal PR for them

The BHA have made a massive PR mistake by putting the emphasis of punishing the jockey imo.  Disqualifying the horse is the only way to resolve whip abuse.  Tomorrows headlines will be all about the two 'cruel' jockeys who continued to break the rules, on the other hand if the horses had been disqualified you wouldn't have heard a peep about it imo.

jockeys asked for clarity and severe punishments in a whip rule review and got it

however,i don't think it makes a blind bit of difference either way if the stewards can't count and don't apply the rules correctly, based on hughes view of today he's already questioning that

" you wouldn't have heard a peep about it ."
------------------------------------------

You must be bloody joking.

This place would EXPLODE - just for a start.

a BIT OF POT LUCK imagine if it was a LADY JOCK!!!!!

Do you know how many jockeys were consulted, elise?

It sounds to me like only a few of the media darlings have had input into this process...

the ban makes no difference if its 3,4,5,or more days ,because ive heard 2 jocks interviwed today saying they cant count to 5,so they wont no the difference

onlooker - I'm referring to the tabloid press, not knowledgeable people on here whos voice is never heard...

agree with aviboyd the horse must be disqualified. What is the point if not????????

no stake i don't sorry

i think whatever the rules we need proper policing and stewarding, if in the case of RH he is correct i'd hope they will stand down the stewards for several meetings, that would maybe buck them up a bit into doing their job properly

i would not be surprised to see utter carnage over the sticks this autumn, you will have jocks deliberately going to the start without their whips before the end of the month

Plenty have bean work to rule for years.

paul eddery?

i just watched the hughes ride i think he might win an appeal

metro - and others.

Disqualifying the horse would kill the game stone dead .... and put all the current law enforcers, and television and media pundits, out of work.

Why? - Because just who in the right mind could BET on racing with that noose continually hanging over EVERY punter's head.

As I have posted elsewhere ...
----------------------------

ab67     Joined: 05 Apr 06

Why don't they make it simple and disqualify the winner if the jockey breaks the rules.
------------------------------------

Do you want the Stands tearing down ?

A jockey, or Steward, being physically attacked - following a disqualification - by punters who have not only lost out on winnings - BUT ALSO LOST THEIR STAKE - Don't dismiss that, in this day and age.

- and betting turnover to PLUMMET to unsustainable levels?

Because ... If we have  that LOTTERY - of WORRYING after EVERY winner whether it is going to get 'thrown out', or not - then there will only be the 50p Lucky15 daydreamers left betting.

It's hard enough trying to find a winner in the first place - FFS

Swardean .. suicidal PA by the BHA. When jockeys stop riding for fear of a ban AND the results are CLEARLY questionable as a result there will be total chaos. How do we know everything is trying? Will now have to figure in if a horse needs a smack or doesn't and the consequences. We've got horses going to slaughter over the way and lots of other nasty animal stuff and the PC brigade jump on the whip bandwagon. FEEBLE. Common sense is all we ever needed. What a fecking mess. We will all be counting up
the home straight together. C4 might even have to have captions like number of fences jumped. Bizarre.

And .. let us all pray we don't get a death that could have been avoided by using the whip. The game would be dead then literally.

liberator

Jockeys won't be banned for riding - only for using the whip too much. If they stop riding then that should result in a severe ban imo.

This is a clue suggested......................move the last fence nearer the post

Aintree, cartmel and kelso gonna be fun

it's ironic that certain jockeys are given lengthy bans for questionably exceeding whip abuse rules, whilst being allowed to coast home out of the places all season without any riding at all.

Then again it's not about the punter is it.

the whole thing is an utter shambles. As with most things these days Bureaucracy has taken over common sense.

THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE OLD RULES AND STEWARDS USING COMMON SENSE

Makes as much sense as banning overtaking in F1,totally and utterly moronic.[>o]

doantwin2easy

It is indeed ironic. I reckon Hughes has been deliberately provocative today - trying to make the point that the BHA should haver left the rules alone. All he and the stewards have done however, is to further reinforce the argument for banning the use of the whip altogether.

If all instances of whipping today were removed would it have made much difference? The absence of thrashings did not ruin my day's betting. Most of today's complaints could be resolved with a complete ban.

I now reluctantly agree with Feck. Better a complete ban than the ridiculous nonsense that is this new rule.
Having said that if I were a decent flat jockey and could get a visa I`d be off to the USA.

day one is never going to be smooth, it will take a few weeks to bed in but even after that i suspect the new rules are flawed

Why is it that the antis always win? Why do the minority always get there way?

Better than a strike would be for them to rebel. Every jockey in every race for the next week should deliberately break the rules (in a manner that doesn't put horses at risk).What would the wimps at the BHA do about that?

It`s been a long process. I haven`t heard one commentator including the pro-whip ones say that they were in favour of the way that Spencer rode Cape blanco in a couple of races in The US recently,but that`s how Piggott used to ride in any big race ( and some smaller ones if the money was down ).

Wait till March arrives at the Festival and We could have some real twist and turns coming up that hill now

roggrain

Have you not read the launch publicity? McCoy and Dettori, the two biggest names in the game, support the new rules.

gman500 - Absolutely spot on! - on all counts.

McCoy & Dettori don't give a toss, only have a couple of years left in the sport in all probability.

I blame the pro-whip w@nkers for this 5 strike fudge. If it wasn't for you traditionalists (by fk is this game full of people averse to change or what) we'd have a complete ban.

---IF, whips are "essential" for steering purposes, rather than being "persuaders",( horrible term ), why don't they just make 'em about 15 inches long instead of dominatrix size ?, (couldn't reach the hosses backside)-----also, if I was planning a real betting coup now, I would be looking for a jockey who would "take the ban", for a percentage of winnings------all weather beckons, should be fun !

S&C

What are you talking about? These guys support the new rules - they said so at the time they were announced. To suggest that they don't support the rules is tantamount to calling them liars imo.

Jockeys carrying whips only to be used in emergencies to take corrective action, would seem to be the next logical step...

GG

They support them, but in all likelihood won't affect them for so much time, so why would they be that bothered about the rules compared to some?

Feck N Eejit. Have you ever sat on the back of a precocious three year old travelling at nearly 40 m.p.h in amongst a pack of horses?

Gerry do you really think Dettori has a BA in Public Relationsspeak ?

dont change what isnt broken to cater for people who might become interested in racing
fecking joke sport imo

interesting how you all decide you,d use a jockey who,d give a horse a beating if you were planning a coup,yet theres plenty of jocks get the best out of a horse with hands and heels riding,plus the likes of mcoy say the whips are that light they make little difference,if a horse aint going for 5 ,he aint going for 6

If a horse was disq from winning after the jockey broke the rules,then what happens if 2 0r 3 jockeys are in a driving finish and they all used their allocated hits then the 3RD OR EVEN 4th horse would be promoted winner

roggrain, if it's that dangerous they shouldn't have hands'n'heels races for inexperienced apprentices. Whether I've sat on a horse is irrelevant. I don't ask jockeys if they've ever lost 30K because the were beaten in a photo by a thrashed home gamble.

Sensible reply Stakey,the only problem would be the moronic stewards interpretation.

SS

No - of course not. People are quite rightly castigating the BHA for not thinking this through. A pity then they don't castigate our most senior jockeys for the same reasons.

In many respects, Dettori and McCoy's apparent support makes it more difficult for the BHA to do anything other than plough on with their unworkable (imo) new rules. The correct thing to do however, is to ban the whip altogether.

maybe gerry, could be the whole point of the new rules in the long run

the very people who would initially be up in arms about losing the whip will now be the first in line asking for it to be banned

Would you be prepared to accept responsibilty for the serious injury or worse to a jockey Gerry because an avoidable accident occurred because a wayward horse caused one?

Feck, this whole debate has become one of politics. You are all for a ban. Fair enough, it's then a level playing field. But what about the claimers who depend on the whip to steer/get a beast home? (and rightly or wrongly, some do)

Can you honestly say your bank balance would be the same if there had never been any whips?

elise - the thought that the BHA had engineered what you suggest is too much of a stretch! Unwittingly though, that could well happen.

Scots - I accept responsibility for that if you also accept responsibility for a horse, veering away from its rider's whip, causing an avoidable accident.

Evolution and blood lines suggest that the fittest survive, the best horses in the past have responded to the whip in different ways and have lived to tell the tale and continue to pass on their genes.

In such they have evolved over hundreds of years to deal with being struck with the whip. Why now should this change in a sport that has been going for hundreds of years? It is Bureaucracy gone mad... Even the Scientist who have done tests say that the horses barely feel any pain from it. It is hitting them in an area which has very little sensitivity.

Like a smack on the bottom with a large elastic band for a human. It will sting for a little, may make you jump but will soon be forgotten.

aye gerry, they are probably not that bright, however, they now have unwittingly hit on the way to get it if they want it, jockeys wallets

gman500

Soon forgotten? Why do so many trainers insist that their 2yos are NOT hit with the whip on their first or second outings then?  The fact is that the whip causes pain.

Why do so many trainers insist that their 2yos are NOT hit with the whip on their first or second outings then

Mainly to get a low handicap mark so they can punt them off the boards when the time comes. HTH

_Scotboyass_    the whip would still be available for correction, even in the event of a ban

gman500

Doesn't help at all! The trainers who usually insist that their 2yos are not smacked first time up are the likes of Cecil, Stoute, O'Brien - trainers who generally don't have runners in nurseries.

Doesn't help at all! The trainers who usually insist that their 2yos are not smacked first time up are the likes of Cecil, Stoute, O'Brien - trainers who generally don't have runners in nurseries.

Have you ever thought that these are the trainers that have the expensive horses that will make the classic generation? They are not bred to be 2yos and so as such there is no point in pushing them hard in there first few races. Like an athlete training for the Olympics they will not go full pelt in the heats because they do not want to risk injury for the main event. The harder you push the more likely injury. HTH again

Can you honestly say your bank balance would be the same if there had never been any whips?

No stewarty. It would be bigger.

gman500

No - still no help. We're not talking about "pushing them hard" here; we're talking about giving them a smack with the whip - something that the bigger trainers won't have at all. Have you ever heard a jockey say post race: "If I'd given him / her a smack they'd have won?" The reason they don't smack 'em is that the horse remembers the pain and some (not all) won't run for it again.

Gerry Gallbladder
10 Oct 11 19:58
Joined:
22 Jun 04
| Topic/replies: 2,434 | Blogger: Gerry Gallbladder's blog
gman500

Doesn't help at all! The trainers who usually insist that their 2yos are not smacked first time up are the likes of Cecil, Stoute, O'Brien - trainers who generally don't have runners in nurseries.



GG, you could add Godolphin, Gosden etc. But I'm punting to make money, not to defend a few 'love taps' as Gary Stevens once famously said.

If the whip doesn't work to an extent, ban it. End of. But if you polled all the wise trainers and jockeys, they'd have a right laugh at that suggestion.  (nap)

GG your argument is completely flawed....whipping a horse pushes it harder than just a hands and heels ride.... pushing a fragile 2yo is pointless when win or lose the horse will learn much more from the racecourse experience than being tired out and pushing its body to the limit. There is very little point to win a small maiden rather than a listed or group race at 3yos

Feck N. Eejit

Feck N. Eejit
10 Oct 11 20:05
Joined:
10 Jan 02
| Topic/replies: 5,398 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog
Can you honestly say your bank balance would be the same if there had never been any whips?

No stewarty. It would be bigger.



Fair enough Feck, but for someone, (like myself) who detests non-triers, I have to disagree with you on this matter.

If you had to trust someones judgement regarding the whip and it use would you trust Feck or say Ginger McCain?

No contest imo,Ginger hands down.

Scots

Who would you trust more - Ginger McCain or Willie Shoemaker and Michael Dickinson?

"I think more horses are whipped out of the money than into it." - Legendary American jockey Willie Shoemaker

I love horses and I hate hitting them. I reckon that if you hit a horse twice then next time you will have to hit him three times and so on. It's a vicious circle. I won 23 races on Dorlesa and I never had to hit her once." - Michael Dickinson, former jockey turned Cheltenham Gold Cup winning trainer, now based in the United States

_Scotboyass_     10 Oct 11 19:47 
Would you be prepared to accept responsibilty for the serious injury or worse to a jockey Gerry because an avoidable accident occurred because a wayward horse caused one?
----------------------------------

Swardean     10 Oct 11 19:56 
_Scotboyass_    the whip would still be available for correction, even in the event of a ban
----------------------------------

Would it?

This is what HUGHES said - after today's ban ...


"They said you aren't allowed to use your stick as correction and I was under the impression you were allowed to do that.
If I let him bump the other horse, I'd have got two days.
I feel a bit hard done by as I thought it was a corrective measure and nothing else, but they said six is six."

onlooker, you can hit for correction, but if your hand is off the rein then it counts as a strike as per any backhand strike in a finish corrective or not

a tap down the neck with hands on the reins wouldn't have counted in hughes total strikes

that's my understanding and i think rh believes his corrective hit should not have counted and that he'd be ok with the stewards, i don't think he did it in with intent, he was probably just reaacting as he normally would and fell foul of the new law

he had a huge W on his hand, he's obv thinking about it, to pick him up on day one for a corrective strike i thought was harsh but as he said, they called it 6 hits inside the last furlong and hung him out to dry

it may make some of them drop their stirrups a couple of notches and make them use their legs a bit more,
i cant believe the extent that more and more are riding shorter and shorter,
it only means the whip is used more to get them going forward.
it may  also result in less unseateds
i think it should be given a chance .nobody wants to see them being flayed unless you have sado masochistic tendencies or 5 grand on it.

perhaps andy thornton can be used as a role model

Ginger never advocated thrashing horses,I used the analogy purely as a measure of trusting someone with many years experience as opposed to an anti.

The modern whip was instigated by Peter Scudamore who was a brutal user of the old stick,now he is contradicting all he said years ago.

I remember a horse called Bottles who was soured by being whipped with the old stick.Won a 3 horse race at about 2/5 after being beaten hellishly with the whip.The jockey said he had to do it or he wouldnt have won and he would probably have been lynched.

The point is that there are more than just two schools of thought as to whether a horse will run faster or just keep going rather than down tools.

Recently a respected veterinary scientist stated that the whips in use today did not hurt a horse,he based this on sound and in depth research.

Contrarily Bottles jockey was insistent the horse would have downed tools if he hadnt been hit.

Imo whether a horse will run faster is pure conjecture,whether it will respond by carrying on is far more convincing.Scudamore of all people should be aware of that.


In the days before the present model of whip was used there were frequent bannings for marking horses,today that is almost unheard of.Surely the BHA should have had at least a year of research involving people like the vet,the type of jockey that rode Bottles,todays jockeys and Scudamore.

Then analysed all the opinions,facts and data before caving in to the PC unwashed brigade who are probably in Dale Farm at this very minute planning the next cause?


Btw i do not advocate hurting horses purely for gain,however the whip is an essential aid imo.

An essential aid to what scotboyass? You do realise there would still be a result without one?

elise     10 Oct 11 20:35 
onlooker, you can hit for correction, but if your hand is off the rein then it counts as a strike as per any backhand strike in a finish corrective or not

a tap down the neck with hands on the reins wouldn't have counted in hughes total strikes

that's my understanding and i think rh believes his corrective hit should not have counted and that he'd be ok with the stewards, i don't think he did it in with intent, he was probably just reaacting as he normally would and fell foul of the new law

he had a huge W on his hand, he's obv thinking about it, to pick him up on day one for a corrective strike i thought was harsh but as he said, they called it 6 hits inside the last furlong and hung him out to dry
-------------------------------

"they called it 6 hits inside the last furlong and hung him out to dry"

Yes - The Hughes ban smacks (every pun intended) of the BHA et al, chomping at the bit to get a first day high profile ban handed out.

i watched it back, i counted it and for me he's spot on with his drive and he's right about hitting it once before the 1f pole, but he def hits for correction in the middle of his drive up the neck and for me that is harsh to get a ban because that was sound horsemanship in the heat of a finish which protected himself and other riders from a poss accident

there's a grey area here where an experienced jockey might now hesitate a split second which will be the difference between a couple of days ban and carnage on the track

i hope he appeals this one to at least seek clarification and make sure the bha are really clear about the diff between hitting for the run and hitting for safety

Its not so much how many times they can/can't hit the horse thats bothering the jocks its the severity of the punishment.
They wanted it like the previous rules where the punishment didn't fit the crime, basically it allowed them the luxury of breaking the rules especially in big races knowing they have a group race in the bag and a paltry two days ban to face, missing out riding at folkestone, brighton or some other gaff tracks.
Now that almost failsafe luxury has been taken away, that irks them much more than the whip usage restrictions.

Feck are you deliberately avoiding the issue of safety or have you never tried to get a galloping horse to change direction?

Trust me,hands,heels and reigns are not enough at 30 mph mostly.

Trust me scotboyass. The whip is the no 1 cause of horses straying from a straight line. It's like Toyotah drivers complaining because all Toyotahs are being recalled for having defective steering because they won't be able to steer properly once they're fixed.

Feck,whatever credibility you had.


YOU JUST LOST IT!!!! nap

Btw I hope you are either pissed or fishing,if neither then you are on your way to join charnier and fraudboy at the trick cyclists clinic.[:o][:o][:(][;)]

Just wonder how they seem to deal with this in other countries, being public perception and all that.

Mind you public perception says the national is safer for racehorses, only trouble is if you google equine fatalities you find there's probably more horses died since they modified the course.

I look forward to public perception when its made lawful to shoot kiddie fiddlers