It's surprising how so many people on here think JF is silly yet are quick to support him when he says something they agree with.


PETER SCUDAMORE: Why I simply don't agree with John Francome's idea of a whip-free period

By Peter Scudamore

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/racing/article-1248259/PETER-SCUDAMORE-Why-I-simply-dont-agree-John-Francomes-idea-whip-free-period.html#ixzz1aTfJtl9x

Might i ask how far your vegetarianism goes feck,for instance would you wear leather shoes?

It's hypothetical Silver because you have no evidence WITOUT the whip. You are just guessing they wouldn't veer. In fact many who do veer do so against the whip, not from it. What about that then?

Feck you are annoying. You select parts of what I say and twist them to suit you. Most horses are kept straight with the whip and kept going forward with the whip.

The reason the BHA NEVER banned the whip, even for a trial, is because they beleve it is necessary as part of a jockey/riders armoury.

I was refering to the Monty Roberts claim that is wholely untested.

A really super thread, with good arguments pro- and anti-.

My only twopenn'orth - for those that think this is a racing issue only, that non-racing people have no business involving themselves, is ridiculous.

Brigust you seem to be twisting my argument to suit, I never said it has no use as a steering aid showing the horse the whip helps keep him running in a straight line, but when its used as a weapon of force horses will and do often resent it and shy away, they might keep running forward but they sure as hell ain't enjoying it, did you ever notice a horse who has a rail birth will often run an awful lot straighter than those out in the middle of the course?

No I don't greaser. How many times have you seen horses drift OFF the rails against the whip and let something up his/her inside?

I am not twisting anything. You can only have a proper comparison when you have two sides of the argument.

I'm afraid we get a bit of this at Dale Farm ( british nosey neighbour syndrome).

Nothing to do with racing,of course, but just shows the way things are, now that the working classes can read and watch tv. There is no point racing burying its head in the sand and hoping the rest of the world will take no heed and leave us get on with it, because that's not the way things work nowadays.
Hence the interminable "market research" that is deemed essential by such leaders as the folk who right the script for the "Apprentice" and the "Dragons' Den" etc.

People are as gullible as fk and many are missing their weekly fix of NOTW revelations from that other mighty mogul who had to back down when cameron gave him the nod, funny handshake, or whatever.

We're all in this together, and stupid whip laws are a bollix that do more harm than good, imo.

A very interesting thread with some very good posts.

I have many views on this subject, but I'll start with this one....


Earlier, Frankie Dettori, who has supported the new whip rules, had said he had set himself a limit of using the whip only four times to make sure he remained within the limits.

He added: ‘We are doing our best but when you have been riding one way for 25 years, it is not easy to change overnight.’


Pro or against, I think Frankie speaks a lot of sense there.

Stewart when Frankie meets a rival of equal merit by limiting his whip use from 7 to 4 he is giving the other horse and rider an unfair advantage. How can that be right?

And I seem to remember Frankie was banned recently for hitting 24 times. Doesn't add up.

The bare facts are, as Nick Luck said the other night....

Regulator:  Alright Jockeys, we've got some new rules coming in...what do you want from them?

Jockeys:  Clarity

Regulator: How should we achive clarity

Jockeys:  Give us a number

Regulator:  OK, the number's seven.

Jockeys:  Great.  Now we know.



Jockeys:  We've been riding for 25 years and never had to count before and it's really hard to count and ride at the same time and I don't know how many times I've hit my horse so I'll only count up to four to make sure and we don't think it's very fair and no-one's happy and we'll lose our riding fee and percentage and..... 

stewarty, I think I would tbh!  I've got seven strokes...and couting up to seven has always been one of my strong points so, yep, I think if I was 20 yrs younger and 8 stone lighter I could be champion jockey.

On a serious note, why not give in to both sides? When an apprentice loses his claim, he loses his whip?

Stewarty AD told us on another thread it is called mental blindness.

AD = Anaglogs Daughter - I would imagine he was not talking about you in particular but perhaps he knows something you are not telling us!

Anyways, let's not go off track with the point of this thread. I've suggested that an apprentice loses his stick when he loses his claim.

I've also said (yesterday) Fallonn would be top jock for the next five years with no whip. As for R.Hills. (who doesn't give a fvck one way or another) the changes will never effect that waste of space one way or another.

I totally disagree about the whip Egner. When a horse is even walking sideways how are you going to stop it? What new part of your body will you be using? Of course I am assuming you can ride.

When you are sat on top of a horse the reins will not be sufficient to steer them it is just not technically possible. Of course if the jockey's let their stirrups down they may be able to kick them but imagine what that would look like.

When people come out with some of the comments they have recently it does make you think the assylum is now empty.

I reckon those lazy bastuds in the London marathon who walk half the way round would think twice if they felt the warmth of the whip..

most of the bad reaction from inside the industry is from people like Scudamore who would be disappointed if their jock couldn't beat the living sh*t out of one to make sure the money is landed.

What's clap trap about it brigust? We regularly see gambles thrashed home. Jockeys were only too willing to break the old rules to land the money.