There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
10 Oct 11
20:06
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
Just in case there's someone who hasn't seen it before.
Suppose we both own a horse, we race each other regularly along the beach for a grand and neutral spectators come along and bet with each other. After each race we try to agree weights to add in an attempt to level things out for the next race. No whips are used. Now, would there or would there not be a result in each race? Suppose now we both decide to carry whips. There's several things that can happen
1) Neither of them respond to the whip.
2) The two horses respond in different degrees to the whip which hands one of us an advantage.
3) They respond the same to the whip. This hands whichever one of us is prepared to be the cruelest an advantage.
In case 1 the whip is pointless.
In case 2 all that will happen is the weights will be jiggled to account for the whip advantage so what was the point of introducing it in the first place?
In case 3 we would have to introduce whip guidelines so no one could gain an advantage through cruelty. Interpreting these guidelines isn't exactly easy, so what will we do? a) Just ignore whipping with respect to the result, b) employ a drunk to administer the guidelines for each race or c) just not bother with whips at all.
Surely both us would see that introducing whips caused problems while the only thing it introduced was a cruelty aspect? And WTF would the neutral observers want it introduced? In what way would it help their betting?
If anybody sees a flaw in the above logic feel free to spell it out for me. I've heard all the cr@p about the whip being needed to keep the horse straight (if that's true let it be used only to straighten the horse as in hands'n'heels races, but more often than not it's the whip that horses veer away from). As things stand, you don't see non-triers being whipped unless you include airshots or the token slap once all chance has gone. When the money's down though, jockeys are only too willing to break the guidelines and will often even use the whip to ensure their horse takes their nearest challenger's ground. Banning it would not only remove an aid to cheating but would make for more consistent form and improve racing's image.
Suppose we both own a horse, we race each other regularly along the beach for a grand and neutral spectators come along and bet with each other. After each race we try to agree weights to add in an attempt to level things out for the next race. No whips are used. Now, would there or would there not be a result in each race? Suppose now we both decide to carry whips. There's several things that can happen
1) Neither of them respond to the whip.
2) The two horses respond in different degrees to the whip which hands one of us an advantage.
3) They respond the same to the whip. This hands whichever one of us is prepared to be the cruelest an advantage.
In case 1 the whip is pointless.
In case 2 all that will happen is the weights will be jiggled to account for the whip advantage so what was the point of introducing it in the first place?
In case 3 we would have to introduce whip guidelines so no one could gain an advantage through cruelty. Interpreting these guidelines isn't exactly easy, so what will we do? a) Just ignore whipping with respect to the result, b) employ a drunk to administer the guidelines for each race or c) just not bother with whips at all.
Surely both us would see that introducing whips caused problems while the only thing it introduced was a cruelty aspect? And WTF would the neutral observers want it introduced? In what way would it help their betting?
If anybody sees a flaw in the above logic feel free to spell it out for me. I've heard all the cr@p about the whip being needed to keep the horse straight (if that's true let it be used only to straighten the horse as in hands'n'heels races, but more often than not it's the whip that horses veer away from). As things stand, you don't see non-triers being whipped unless you include airshots or the token slap once all chance has gone. When the money's down though, jockeys are only too willing to break the guidelines and will often even use the whip to ensure their horse takes their nearest challenger's ground. Banning it would not only remove an aid to cheating but would make for more consistent form and improve racing's image.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 289
|
By:
good post. well written.
|
|
By:
I agree with virtually everything you have written there.
Seems to me that many people just hate the idea of change. There is no doubt that it would take a while for the form to settle down, but it would settle down, and then as you say we would all be in the same boat minus the cruelty. Also, very good argument that the whip can be used unscrupulously - most people are convinced that its removal opens the door to non-triers. I don't think that argument holds any water at all. If stewards and betting pattern investigators are on their game it should be a non-issue. |
|
By:
Id pretend mine was hanging and belt it 3 times for 'correction' purposes. Once that makes it go 2l quicker go back hands and heels
|
|
By:
If fecknejit is right about not needing a whip to make it go faster, lets do away with tongue ties and blinkers etc, even shoes. That looks horrible nailing some aluminim plate to a poor horses feet.
Course it sounds ridiculous but so does his argument about giving a horse that responds to a whip an advantage over one that doesnt because if the one that doesnt respond to the whip or travel sweetly on the bridle, chances are it will be pulling the milk cart next week |
|
By:
pathetic fishing effort feck
|
|
By:
according to who is whipping Cruel?
|
|
By:
lets do away with tongue ties and blinkers etc
I'll go along with that urchin (medical reasons excepted). More aids to cheating imo. |
|
By:
Cruelty seems a big part of this argument. If jockeys have been cruel to animals for 6/7 days a week, some for quite a few years, they should be brought before the courts and custodial sentences handed down. Cruelty to animals is against the law.
|
|
By:
I wouldn't say cruelty was a big part of my argument. My main point is that as far as running a race and getting a result is concerned the whip is pointless. Before today's new rules the whip was an issue, after today's new rules the whip's still an issue. Ban the fkng thing and there's no issue.
|
|
By:
Some George Orwell double-think going on with the new rule surely : if using the whip is cruel then how is it any better to limit its use with these new rules ,rather than ban it totally ?
If on the other hand whipping the horse is not cruel then what reason to set these measures ? I am personally in favour of sensible use of the whip. Surely nobody wants to see a horse that has given its all and is very tired (and not just a lazy one) being forced over the fence that makes it fall etc,but on the other hand if the whip is not cruel what is wrong with using it as the jockey sees fit to gain the best finishing position ? |
|
By:
Sorry. I thought I saw something along the lines the advantage is handed to whoever is cruelest. Old eyes must be going. Apologies again.
|
|
By:
Feck.... Can i ask you a question
Have you ever ridden a horse...?? |
|
By:
Just a few random points, sorry if I am treading on old ground.
If I go up to a horse in a field and a strike it with a whip (however modified it might be) and there is a copper watching I would expect to be arrested. I doubt I would get off by saying 'I was hitting it in the right place'. In general there is a reluctance to accept change, but that isn't necessarily an argument for keeping something. Pro-whip arguments voiced within the cosey sanctuary of a racing forum often look feeble opened up to a wider audience - witness Mark Pitman v Big Mac this morning. Love to the see the likes of Willo & Co thrown to the 'lions'. It would appear every presenter wants to do their utmost to rubbish the new rules and present what they see as an industry stance. Obviously, far better to pander to the trainers/jockeys than the BHA. Pretty sad. Some may claim to but let's face it nobody knows how much it hurts a horse when it is hit with a whip. You cannot put a measure on it. Why is it suddenly considered such a bad thing that horses with more naturally willing attitudes may win more races? The biggest problem many people seem have is non-disqualification. Clearly if the whip was only carried for steering purposes this issue would disappear. The idea of pushing and shoving rather than using the whip as a first resort might not appeal to jockeys who resent the idea of having to make more effort. Two jockeys were banned today - you might be forgiven for thinking it was 22 - hardly earth shattering news but no doubt the scaremongering will continue. |
|
By:
Brian, yes.
stevie, I did say that but it was a small part of the argument the mainstay of which was that introducing the whip merely added new complexities the likes of what we've witnessed today. Still a result without it. good post differentdrum. |
|
By:
Come on now, do you think I don't understand there would still be a result whether or not a whip is carried. I just feel the word cruel has very strong implications and is out of place in this argument.
|
|
By:
Not trying to devolve this well-measured debate but I don't feel anyone can really say using the whip is not cruel - that's too cast-iron a statement to make. I believe that the majority of jocks do not mistreat their horses, but nobody with a semblance of experience in this game can say that horses are never beaten up with the whip. We have all seen some pretty bad cases.
So although I am not sure I want to see the whip disappear altogether - I fully admit to playing devil's advocate to a degree - I don't see how we could ever clear up the cruelty aspect entirely without banning the whip altogether. If a horse is only hit seven times it can still be badly hurt if it is lashed seven times after all. I do find it slightly galling I suppose that so many people seem a) against any kind of change and b) angry whenever the word cruel comes up in racing. Just because horses race - and sometimes die - for our entertainment does not mean we should not care about their welfare and try to make the game as safe and kind as is possible for them. Many people make the choice to eat meat but some of these people would not dream of buying meat that hasn't been raised in a free range scenario and slaughtered locally. There is a spectrum from unacceptable to non-existent on all welfare issues and in my opinion we should be aiming to make things as kind as possible for all animals we use in some form or another. Just wanted to say that none of this is aimed at anyone in particular, just some general food for thought. |
|
By:
If you want cruelty to horses peep behind many a stable gate, there is a myth that goes around that people involved in horseracing are all horse lovers, yeh they love the good ones the poor ones are dispensable and if you're an unruly one well then god help you....
|
|
By:
Those who would ban the whip on the grounds that it is cruel must surely be in favour of banning horse racing on the same grounds. They argue that we can't know what horses feel when whipped so how can we know what they feel when racing?
This is the course the BHA has set racing on by these rule changes. Unless the jockeys act quickly to oppose this absurdity racing as we know it is doomed. We may as well sit in a betting shop playing virtual races. |
|
By:
Very well. If jockeys have been cruel to a horse in the course of a race, why haven't they faced the courts. These people are being accused of breaking criminal law and should be dealt with accordingly. If anyone has witnessed an animal being subjected to cruelty is it not their duty to report this to the relevant authorities or is it the mindset 'I'm not reporting it because no one else has?'
|
|
By:
Little interest in this debate as it never revolves around principal point that racing is about getting horses to run as fast as they can in a given direction, end of story. In most cases, horses will do this more successfully if threatened with or hit by a whip (or indeed kicked which apparently horse cruelty peeps dont have a problem with). If u ride a horse of any type - but particularly a young TB a whip is often crucial to getting it to do anything - walk, go thru gates, get past cars, bins, anything they dont like the look of. Its nothing to do with cruelty, its basic fact of domestication of a half ton animal. People who should know (stewards - although clearly many are morons) can determine easily if a horse is being hurt / not responding to the whip / whip is being over used. New rules are a fudge and moreover are easy to abuse and will penalise where its not to the benefit of owner / jock / punter.
|
|
By:
Very good point yer ma. Most on here have never had first hand experience with horses so maybe an analogy is in order. If you've ever taken a dog for a walk on a lead after it's been indoors overnight you will know what strength it can have, pulling your arms out of their sockets.Imagine that dog being the size of a horse.You must have the means of control.That involves expert horsemanship and ,on occasion ,the use of the whip.
|
|
By:
That reminds me of another amusing aside to this - I can say with almost complete certainty that a horse pulling like fook and having to be restrained is enduring more pain thru its gob than being smacked later on in the rear. I say on cruelty basis, ban bits or at least new rule banning restraining pullers.
|
|
By:
Last two post excellent...
just a quick point - How many horses die as a result of whipping?.... How many die as a result of jumping a fence.....? Jump racing living on borrowed time imo... just a thought for all you horse racing enthusiasts out there. |
|
By:
Racing will survive w/o whipping. What kind of sport is it that couldn't?
|
|
By:
Feckin,I humbly refer you to jetaways thread.hth[;)]
|
|
By:
gman500. good point. I'm a fan of horse racing, not jumps. Jumps racing is an oxymoron. They don't race at all in jumps. They plod around. Half of them are tailed off or fall at some point and of the rest a few are still able to muster a canter by the end of the race and are flogged to the finish. This whole debate was set off because of the Grand National
whipping. Jumps 'racing' is a war of attrition. Flat racing has to suffer the consequencies of a public perception brought on by the other code. The rules for jumps and flat should be considered separately since the two codes are chalk and cheese. |
|
By:
Feckin omits or does not know that horses have individual traits,brains and thoughts,no two are the same.hth[;)]
|
|
By:
it's only horse racing. If some horses can't run w/o being whipped then they don't make the racecourse.
the laziness will be bred out of them in the long run why shouldn't a horse who is 'willing' to run be rewarded against a lazy horse? |
|
By:
What guidelines do other racing countries have??
|
|
By:
theres plenty of feckers whip their missus and get a great response i'm led to believe. Why is it cruel
|
|
By:
Guidelines are diff in other countries but it doesn't mean we shouldn't get our own house in order.
|
|
By:
This is all about public perception, or so we are told. Take the National, the course has been made easier to appease the public without making the slightest difference to horses dying in the race
|
|
By:
John, is the house not in order because races are not being run properly, horses are being hurt, what? What you really meant to say is no other country that has racing has 'no of hits' guidlines approaching the new UK ones.
|
|
By:
Perhaps they need to make it even easier?
|
|
By:
Why not take away the fences then, NH racing is probably doomed
|
|
By:
They might start with realising that some drainage systems are TOO good and the method of watering all the time just kills the roots in the ground
They might also have a clue that you can jump smaller fences at a greater pace |
|
By:
would the new whip rules make you less likely to send a mare to montjeu?
|
|
By:
I'm waiting for the first ride where the jockey counted seven and he had only used up six and the one he left behind might have got the horse home instead of a sh hd defeat......
They might as well let Chapman and McCririck have a 10 round mud wrestling bout in place of the national, winner has his way. A democratic solution. |
|
By:
My point of view is that whip guidelines are a waste of time.
You allow a horse to whipped as many times as you like or not at all. The former is a no go because this is only a sport at the end of the day and we are humane supposedly. No. of hits is a waste of time.It's to appease people who don't think jocks are trying and won't accept it until they see force. Jockeys who break the whip rules get a horse to win and jockeys who don't break the rules get penalised by not winning the race. Only solution is ban the whip altogether. Feck is bang right imo. |