Something posted by silvergreaser on another thread backs up Gerry's post.

Below is an excerpt from Monty Roberts book, full article check link

http://www.montyroberts.com/book-excerpts/the-whip-in-racing/


You so often hear the statement, “We need the whips for safety’s sake,” but, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth, because far more accidents are caused by whips than are ever averted by whips. In fact, if a jockey felt the need for a whip to guide the horse, why not use a spongy, Nerf whip so that no pain could be produced?

In a recent conversation with Trevor Denman (a race announcer at the Santa Anita race track), he said to me that he felt it would be a good idea if every time there was a disqualification, the newspaper should read that, “the horse ducked from the whip and interfered with the progress of another horse and was thus disqualified.” Trevor suggested that an extremely high percentage of disqualifications were caused by using the whip. Further, he said that if the bettors could understand that, they would be less apt to insist that jockeys use the whips to verify that they are trying.

Aside from whether it is effective or not, let us examine for a moment how we stand with the rest of the world on this issue. Nearly all the racing countries of the world are dealing with the issue of the whip in ways that suggest it will soon be obsolete. I believe Great Britain is down to five strikes now, while Sweden has restricted the use of the whip severely, and, I think, only in front of the girth. In Germany, it is interesting to note that all two-year-olds are ridden only with a soft Nerf whip, which is handed to the jockey as he leaves the weighing room. The United States is virtually the only country to fail to act on what has become an important issue to race fans the world over.

The third facet, and possibly the most important, is in the area of public perception. We, in racing, need to be pro-active. We need to realize that many potential race fans abhor the use of the whip and are turned off by our sport. What if we had whipless racing? Someone would be first, someone would be last and someone would be in the middle, exactly as it is with the whips. As for finding the genetic aptitude for racing, would you not prefer the winning horse to run out of a natural desire, rather than running from pain? And, wouldn’t we be more acceptable to our audience?

lol feck ,yes an american talking about public perception,so its ok to pump the horses full of drugs as long as the "public perception" is ok - if you are going to bring up Americans to champion your cause you best go to your imaginary beach and bury your head in the sands.

'Feck'you took my 'steward's' comment completely out of context. If the BHA do not believe they can cut the mustard they should be changed.

And obvioulsy Monty Roberts isn't a punter. Without horseracing, and by that point I mean punters, this bloke wouldn't have been heard of.

If all of the jockeys and trainers were 'straight' any rule they brought in would have to do but they are not. Or at least not perceived to be staight. Next time a hot favourite gets beaten and was administered only one hit the jockey can claim he wasn't counting. What can the stewards do then? Punish him for NOT hitting the horse?

For the integrity of betting the whip ensures ALL of the jockeys are seen to be trying. That is why there was a furore over the McKeown thing with airshots.

Three examples GG. A vote on the matter would have been more appropriate rather than a slap dash decision

Feck - One more mention of 2 horses on the sand.........

I am afraid racing has come a long way since then - there are now far more with a vested interest than to men/women on horseback racing along the beach. Dated analogy that needs updating.

gman500
!
There are many more than three examples (as you well know). And as for a vote - who would you give it to? Like it or not, the BHA is the right organisation to make the decision (based on inputs from ALL interested / relevant parties) - it's to their eternal shame however, that they've completely b0ll0xed the decision; they should have banned the use of the whip altogether.

Scoff at Roberts all you like but his point about the whip causing far more accidents than it prevents holds plenty of water.
Jockeys are banging on about the need for the whip for safety purposes, yes it has it use for safety I'd put it on a par with a rudder on a aircraft to steer the horse, but when a jockey takes one hand off the rein to whip the animal he is now in effect in less control of the horse underneath him, how many times have we seen horses veering badly away from the whip only for the jockey having to put the whip down and grab back full control of the rein to correct the horse?.

GG taken from the document...

" We also recognise – and this is
underpinned by our public opinion research – that there are a wide range
of views on the acceptability of such
whip use."

Public opinion reseach!!! WHAT THE **** has this got to do with the racing industry?

Majority of the public no little to about horse racing. But see a horse being whipped and excuse the pun "get on their high horse" about it with no real evidence behind it. They naively seem to think the whip effects the horse in the same way it would effect a human, which is categorically wrong.

Zebadei spot on again

If all of the jockeys and trainers were 'straight' any rule they brought in would have to do but they are not. Or at least not perceived to be staight. Next time a hot favourite gets beaten and was administered only one hit the jockey can claim he wasn't counting. What can the stewards do then? Punish him for NOT hitting the horse?

brigust, do you think I should sue for all the times my horse got 6 slaps and was beaten in the photo by the gamble (15 slaps)?



lol feck ,yes an american talking about public perception,so its ok to pump the horses full of drugs as long as the "public perception" is ok - if you are going to bring up Americans to champion your cause you best go to your imaginary beach and bury your head in the sands.

We're talking about one person here zebadei and I'd imagine he'd be against drug use as well.

Silver that is purely hypothetical. What proof has MR got. None.

Had that been correct the BHA would have banned the whip but if there is serious incident the blame will be directed straight at them. Quite rightly.

What is wrong with this rule is that it is unfair.

When Ruby Walsh goes out to ride in a minor, mid week race against, for example, Felix De Giles he is already at a massive disadvantage. If either transgress the rules Walsh would lose a small fortune in riding fees and possible winners whereas Felix wouldn't. That is basically unfair before you start.

Similarly Ruby may be riding at Cheltenham when a ban would be in place whereas Felix may be riding at Fontwell or at best riding some unfancied mounts. Again Ruby could lose a fortune.

So, apart from losing one of the best jockey's, the outcome would be unfair. It just doesn't add up.

Another point is say Ruby is riding Denman at Cheltenham. The horse can be an indifferent jumper. Coming to the 3rd last, the horse is getting tired but still the likely winner does Ruby ask it up, or let it make it's own mind up? He's knows he will need the whip further on, lets it make its own mind up, ploughs through it, breaks his leg and mullers Ruby.

Who is to blame? For me the BHA. Ridiculous rule. Cheat's charter and bloo dy dangerous.

John_Cherry 11 Oct 11 01:05 
John Francome agrees that the whip could be banned w/o the sport suffering.
Hopefully that'll put an end to 'have you ridden a horse' arguments.
Francome being one of the finest jocks ever.
Tip, I heard someone say that its the sound of the whip hitting flesh that cajoles
more effort out of the horse.
Why not get the jockey clacking some castanets in the horse's earhole?

Better still why not just hit his boot??

"However, whilst acknowledging that too many whip
offences currently occur, the Review Group does
not consider that the use of the whip in general
compromises the welfare of horses during a race"

Have you actually read the review document GG or Feck?

Are you a vegetarian feck?

gman, even if you could prove beyond all doubt that the whip didn't hurt horses in any way I'd still want it banned because having some using it more than others is the cheats charter pro-whippers keep ranting on about.

zebadei, yes but wtf has that got to do with the argument I'm putting forward?

IT IS LIKE THE HUNTING BAN ALL OVER AGAIN. THE MINORITY SPOILING IT FOR THE MAJORITY.

LOL. zebadei's pal gman = one of the countryside alliance.

lol i see feck - you are a vegetarian,and presumably youve allways had a feeling of guilt betting on animals,which is manifested in this ban the whip campaign.