differentdrum 10 Oct 11 21:06 
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'.

By the same token if you ran up to someone in the street and brought them down with a rugby tackle you would probably be in a  spot of bother but do so on a rugby pitch and you should be OK.

Context, time and place.

I think you will find equine fatalities in the National happened long before the whip was used. These largely resulted because the going was too fast not because any horses were beaten up.

And, Feck, what is wrong with your argument is that the vast majority are being penalised because of a tiny minority. The BHA should be harder on the tiny minority and make it not worth anyone's while beating up a horse to win. They should penalise everyone including the owner and the tainer, not just the jockey because a) he/she is usually riding to instructions and b) he/she is unlikely to have backed it.

The BHA has got this massively wrong and we have only had 3 days. In my opinion it is a cheat's charter.

Feck these unrealistic analogies are getting very tiresome your argument has completely run out of sensible real life examples. Give it up FFS

Don't you mean logical edge zeb. It's not easy to educate people who are completely illogical and have no counter argument whatsoever (apart from "we don't like it").

You are being a bit silly now feck,more or less most posts on this thread have been coherent with some reasoning,i respect your view but just differ from it,i feel no need or desire to ascribe any broad unrepresentative statements about your views posted.

Two more of the same from the countryside alliance.

...dressing

Natalia Gemalova just got a 7 day ban. She's had 5 rides in the last couple of months so the ban itself won't cost her much. While I'm not saying that's what happened here, we're going to see gambles having the life thrashed out of them by jockeys who won't be affected that much by a ban. We've regularly seen gambled horses being thrashed but the difference now is their rivals will be at even more of a disadvantage because of the new rules. The only way to have a level playing field is to ban the whip altogether.

Im Glad Fecks realised that the BHA have made a horlicks of this

It wont look good on telly at the Festival when there will be jocks making sure every belt means summat after the last

Natalia Gemalova just got a 7 day ban. She's had 5 rides in the last couple of months so the ban itself won't cost her much.




Feck, I thought I heard her say she gets 5-6 rides a week on ATR? I maybe picked that up wrong.

But one things for sure, your total ban rule would be far better than this farce. (even though I'm sure it would put some jocks on an already uneven playing field, given the current crop are mostly hopeless)

6 foxes zeb.

Yes.

I see that explains a few things,but what about pets in the home,have you a dog,cat,hamster?

zebadei, are you still having that breakdown? Either way, you're spoiling a good thread.

doesn't suffer fools gladly?

Apologies if this has been printed /discussed previously. But the following article is the most sensible one I've read on the whole whip issue:-


WHIP RULES SIGNAL WORRYING TIMES
By Nic Doggett

The British Horseracing Authority started to review the use of the whip in November 2010, but the issue gained further prominence following the 2011 John Smith's Grand National when winning rider Jason Maguire hit his mount Ballabriggs 15 times after the final fence, six more than was allowed under the rules.

Six months later, on Monday October 10, following research conducted by a Review Group headed by Andrew Merriam, the BHA implemented new rules which state that a horse can now be struck no more than seven times in flat races, eight times in jumps race, and no more than five times after the final obstacle/in the final furlong.

That afternoon, two jockeys received bans.

Kieren Fox was banned for 15 days for hitting his mount Orthodox Lad 11 times, whilst Richard Hughes, so nearly last-year's Champion Jockey, picked up a five day suspension for hitting Swift Blade six times in the final furlong.

Orthodox Lad won by a short-head, Swift Blade finished third.

As well as their bans, both jockeys lost their riding fees of £106.55, and in Fox's case, a share of the winner's prize money worth nearly £165.

Neither jockey, under the new legislations, will be allowed to be reimbursed by the horse's owner or trainer.

Hughes claimed that he was merely trying to correct his horse, to stop it from hanging and becoming a risk to others, and appeared bemused at the BHA's lack of flexibility.

To them it was a case of six hits was six hits, and accordingly a ban was imposed.

Like two teenagers dashing behind the bike-sheds, the implemention of these new legislations, just five days before the inaugural Champions Day at Ascot, appears rushed, naïve and flirting with danger.

The long-running saga of the Levy, which has dogged racing for the last 24 months, is evidence that the sport continues to be placed in peril by warring factions.

Each party - owners, trainers, jockeys, bookmakers, the BHA and punters - has consistently failed to work together to help horseracing not just cement its position in the British consciousness, but move forward in the way that any successful business should.

The numerical figures involved in our sport are impressive - 5.8 million attendees at race meetings in 2010, the second most attended sport in Great Britain after football - yet the sport seems to be in a consistent state of identity crisis.

Racing For Change has struck out with their initiatives - decimalisation of betting odds fell by the wayside, whilst a free racing month was poorly advertised to those very people that they were trying to attract - and the less said about the patronising search for a female commentator the better.

There is confusion over why these new whip rules have come to fruition: is it for the horse's welfare, is it to reduce the number of whip infringements or is it to attract new people to the sport?

The worry I have is that it is the latter.

The Review Group commissioned independent public opinion research from a leading sports research agency, SMG/YouGov, and found that:

"A large proportion of the population - particularly women and those with no interest in Racing - instinctively disagree with the use of the whip and think current penalties are too lenient."

This has got to be one of the most disturbing sentences of the whole Review - "particularly women and those with no interest in Racing".

It's a bit like asking Andy Fordham what he thinks about the latest line of Jimmy Choos. What's next, Jordan's new policy for solving the Eurozone economic crisis?

Just a page or so later in the manifest, the Review says "The opinion research demonstrates a general lack of understanding amongst the general public with regard to whip use."

So why use that opinion to lead a move to try and change the regulations - for aesthetic purposes - in order to attract more people to the sport, people who are accepted to have no interest in the sport and very little chance of actually becoming regular racegoers?

The sooner that those in charge realise that the way to get more people through the door is to have cheaper admission prices, cheaper food and drink prices, higher quality of racing and less of it, then the sport will actually be able to move forward.

At the moment it is sinking slowly into quicksand.

If the whip review had been solely on the grounds of horse welfare then I could fully accept the findings and the BHA reaction, and I would actually support the banning of the whip completely.

But the evidence is, in the Review Group's own words, that the whip "does not compromise the welfare of horses during a race."

"The whip currently used in British Horseracing is designed not to cause pain when used appropriately. The energy absorbing design of this whip has been adopted by many other Racing Authorities throughout the world since its introduction in Britain."

The numbers support this view - from roughly 100,000 rides during a year, only 20 visible marks, or weals, will occur.

No-one in their right mind wants an animal to suffer for the pleasure of those involved in sport and the new whips, which have undergone serious developments over the years, ensure that this isn't happening.

Obviously there is the consideration of psychological damage as well as physiological impact, but the Review confronts this and the findings are inconclusive.

"There are a number of physiological measures that can be used to assess suffering. These include changes in heart and respiratory rate, signs of activation of the nervous system (for example increases in the level of 'stress hormones' such as adrenaline), and activation of body responses such as natural opioids ('endorphins').

"Clearly all these changes are very similar to those seen as a result of exercise, especially peak exercise, and this in effect confounds attempts to use them to assess welfare during and immediately after a horse race. However, in the context of the clinical assessments carried out by the Veterinary Officers, where a second examination of any horse found to have a weal will take place as the horse comes back to a non-excited state; there have been no horse welfare concerns to date."

The final sentence appears conclusive.

The BHA, according to their Annual Budget Review, have "reduced their running costs since 2008 by nearly £3.7m without any significant reduction in our activities or the quality of service being delivered."

However one cannot help but wonder how the extra workload piled onto the stipendiary stewards will affect the cost of running the BHA in the coming seasons?

Although the number of cameras has increased dramatically, meaning every horse is easier to follow in the race, the actual man hours put into dissecting every ride must increase significantly.

The BHA is funded by money coming into the sport, from racecourse fixture fees, registrations and entry fees, and there must be a knock-on cost effect, not just from analysing rides from a whip perspective but also the issue of non-triers.

As well as this, the new rules state that a jockey cannot be compensated by any party for their loss of income, but at what cost will keeping on top of this come in at?

Watching the racing since Monday, and whilst remembering that one swallow doesn't make a summer, the immediate impression is that analysing form and horse performances will become near impossible.

Although the situation is bound to settle down when jockeys become more familiar with the rules, rides so far have been of varying competence and races have looked absolutely woeful.

Half of the jockeys are almost standing up in their irons after giving their horses the maximum number of smacks, whilst you can see others actually pausing to count how many times they have hit their horse.

What will the stewards do when a horse is allowed to coast home in a National Hunt race from a mile out because the jockey has had to use his whip to encourage his mount over the obstacles?

And on this point, why on earth is a three mile chase deemed almost the same as a five furlong sprint, with only one more hit with the whip allowed despite having to travel nearly five times as far?

And on a long run-in like at Aintree, where there is 494 yards between the final fence and the winning line, why should jockeys have to follow the same guidelines as those who only have one furlong, or 220 yards?

It's these inconsistencies which give the new legislations a rushed feel, not just the fact that they have been implemented at one of the busiest times of the year, when jockeys are racing for titles, and just five days before a raceday which has been billed as a £3million flag-bearer for British Racing.

There is little doubt that the previous rules were not working, with 0.75 rides per 100 resulting in an infringement of the rules of riding, however showing jockeys just the (metaphorical) stick and not the carrot is not the answer.

Similarly, to say that the best and most willing horses will win the races seems far too simplistic. Horses, like every animal in the world, not just humans, are individuals and as a result each will respond in their own way to different situations.

Should schools merely say to their youngest pupils: "There is the end result, a job and all your dreams, now go and complete x-number years of school without guidance"?

The Review admits that the previous whip rules were unclear, with the maximum number of times a horse could be hit with the whip (15), "set down in the Guide are not required to be strictly applied."

"The overriding theme from those consulted was that the Rules, and their application, did not provide clarity. This view was expressed strongly by the PJA and jockeys."

The grey areas have been the acceptable use of the whip in terms of frequency, giving the horse time to respond and the logistics of where to hit the horse.

Let's concentrate on re-educating the jockeys - as I'm sure the BHA plan to - rather than banning and fining them.

Is that really fair, when the horse is not disqualified?

Crucially, jockeys are supposed to try to win races.

And that is what they have been doing, as the Review explains, there "is an almost perfect correlation between close finishes for placings and the likelihood of a whip offence."

Worryingly leading rider William Buick on Monday said that he would now rather finish second than pick up a ban that would prove costly to him in the future.

It is this attitude, which is perhaps understandable, which will put people off betting on horseracing. Bookmakers love FOBT's. We don't.

Like it or not, punters are as crucial to horseracing (under the current levy system at least) as the horse, trainer or jockey, and it is time that the BHA and other leading figures recognised this, not just in their words, but in their actions.

Anyone who has ever had a bet knows how difficult it can be to find winners; if it was easy then there would be no bookmakers. But will fans of horseracing continue to bet when they are faced with yet another imponderable?

There are 433 professional jockeys. How easy will they find it to make a living?

For those with retainers the job will not get much harder, for they will know that a regular income awaits them almost regardless of their horse's finishing position.

But what about the journeymen jockeys who travel the length and breadth of the country?

Do they risk a ban in order to get ahorse's head in front, or do they stick to the rules and lose the ride next time because an owner or trainer feels they haven't given a horse a good ride.

It's not as simplistic as some believe, that the best horsemen will rise to the top. It will be those who make the best decisions, but in a sport where a split-second moment of indecision can be the difference between winning and losing, how often will the best decision be made?

The last situation that we want is jockeys who are afraid to win.

The question people ask when the subject of horseracing comes into general conversation is often based around whether everyone is trying their hardest to win.

The BHA have made great strides in trying to crack down on cheating in the sport, however they have surely shot themselves in the foot somewhat, with the new ruling opening up new questions over the transparency of the races themselves.

The BHA's mission statement is to provide the most compelling and attractive racing in the world.

This whip review has unfortunately put that aim totally at risk.

However the saying goes that "if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem", so what can be done?

Firstly, I believe that the BHA needs to admit that the rules need tinkering, and this needs to be done quickly.

More consultation with jockeys is an obvious place to start, and the difference between Flat and jumps racing needs to become more pronounced and more realistic.

If jockeys are struggling to work out when they are in the final furlong, then how about a line being drawn across the course in order to rule out any grey area?

Personally I do not believe that there should be a hard and fast limit on the number of times a horse should be hit in a race.

The scientific evidence suggests that the current whip does not hurt a horse and as long as the horse still has energy to give, I do not believe that a jockey should be discouraged from encouraging it to run faster.

If a jockey hits a tired horse - and there are enough stewards with a strong enough equine knowledge to be aware when this is happening - then the penalties should be severe.

But I do not believe that a token gesture to try and encourage new racegoers is something that we in racing should be concentrating on.

Only by getting our own house in order - supporting all levels of the sport, not just those with the financial, media or political clout to have their say - will horseracing become more attractive to those members of the general public, who, at this stage, have little or no interest.

Let's support our own jockeys, horses, owners and punters before anything else.

Agree Facts sums up the farce well.

agreed