There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 289 comments are related to the topic:
The definitive anti-whip argument
The definitive anti-whip argument
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 289
|
By:
LOL, sir toby. Very good.
|
|
By:
So spotting air shots is the way to spot non-triers? I suppose it must be obvious because they have to use it in such a way that they don't make a swishing sound as otherwise their horse will respond. But we rarely see anyone pulled in for them? Does that mean racing is straight after all? Well fk me, if I was a yank I would say "isn't that the darndest thing you ever came across".
Get a grip and an argument pro-whippers. I mean FFS, if air shots are that easy to spot why would any sane jockey use them and if they're not then why supply them with the tool to fool us? Apply a bit of logic. What's most likely to be a cheats charter? What the cheats want or what the cheats don't want? Would you not rather the jockeys had to be seen pushing out their horses in a close finish rather than letting the non-trying jockey out of jail with his fumbling whip change that causes his horse to lose momentum (while the triers are thrashed)? Birdy song impressions on the other hand, they're easy to spot. No whips needed. Hope this all helps. |
|
By:
I'm so not a fan of cut and pasting somebodys post,but feck just cant debate like a grown up when his trying to be serious.
So spotting air shots is the way to spot non-triers? Its obvious to anybody i wasn't suggesting this was the only way,but just an example. I suppose it must be obvious because they have to use it in such a way that they don't make a swishing sound as otherwise their horse will respond. You cant have the swishing noise arguement for you in one post and against you in another -its churlish. But we rarely see anyone pulled in for them? Does that mean racing is straight after all? Well fk me, if I was a yank I would say "isn't that the darndest thing you ever came across". I thought the use of air shots was used by the prosecution against jockeys charged with non trying - but i do like you use of the word darndest -its a word that needs to get out more imo. Get a grip and an argument pro-whippers. I mean FFS, if air shots are that easy to spot why would any sane jockey use them and if they're not then why supply them with the tool to fool us? Apply a bit of logic. What's most likely to be a cheats charter? What the cheats want or what the cheats don't want? Would you not rather the jockeys had to be seen pushing out their horses in a close finish rather than letting the non-trying jockey out of jail with his fumbling whip change that causes his horse to lose momentum (while the triers are thrashed)? That whole paragraph just shows your lack of riding knowledge,and a perhaps freudian excuse to allways introduce the words thrash or thrashed. Birdy song impressions on the other hand, they're easy to spot. No whips needed. Answers on a postcard for what that means. Hope this all helps. All it helps is illustrating your win at all costs entrenched arguement,autocratic,not open to any view but your own,and over zealous when debating. |
|
By:
Feck stop being a clown ffs.
1)The 'airshots' point was to prove that he WASN'T trying to win. 2)Hence using the whip DOES improve the horses performance. 3)That tells you that both jockeys and stewards believe the whip gets more from a horse than hands and heels. 4)Therefore removing the whip means that the majority of racehorses will NOT be running to their full potential. 5) How will you know, without the whip, whether or not a horse is running to its full potential? DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT THAT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT? |
|
By:
I am in favour of jockeys trying to get the most of their mounts but using whatever means the jocks think is necessary.If that means 10 sripes then so be it.
If, however a jockey is deemed to have been severely harsh on a horse, he should face a lengthy ban. No whips in racing is utterly ridiculous, and i for one have ceased punting on British racing till this is sorted. If its not sorted the death knell for our racing beckons. |
|
By:
Stripes
|
|
By:
5) How will you know, without the whip, whether or not a horse is running to its full potential?
rather disengenious brigust...... ..everyone knows that even before this rule that 75% of horses in any given race are not going to run to their "full potential". |
|
By:
The only way to ensure the gambled horse receives the same amount of whipping as the others is to ban the whip. The whip is a "cheats charter"
I think you'll find most cheats will not hit, hardly push, drop it in, put it wide ec rather than hit it. Cheating by winning at all costs with over use of the whip is in minority to the other way round as above. What this whip rule does is make it even easier as the jockey has more reasons to not resort to the whip. |
|
By:
Get a grip and an argument pro-whippers
Do you actually read anybody else's posts eejit ? Nearly all the posts apart from your own are powerful and well reasoned arguments against the new whip rule Read and learn.You are exposing yourself as an ignoramus |
|
By:
Disingenuos = giving a false appearance of frankness
I resent that Egner. What you are inferring is a completely different argument and, although having nothing to do with this debate, is a significant reason why the whip should used. How often and with what force is the point. |
|
By:
Its obvious to anybody i wasn't suggesting air shots is the only way.
Did I say you said it was the only way? Your implication though was that it would be difficult to spot non-triers without the whip. You cant have the swishing noise arguement for you in one post and against you in another -its churlish. Churlish? And there was me thinking I was being sarcastically ironic. I thought the use of air shots was used by the prosecution against jockeys charged with non trying Yip, and you could engrave their names and addresses on an ant's balls but maybe you think the races concerned were the only ones that contained non-triers and so the method is foolproof. That whole paragraph just shows your lack of riding knowledge,and a perhaps freudian excuse to allways introduce the words thrash or thrashed. That whole answer just shows your lack of riding knowledge,and the fact you can't debate like a grown up. Ditto for the fact you can't work out what birdy song impersonations are. All it helps is illustrating your win at all costs entrenched arguement,autocratic,not open to any view but your own,and over zealous when debating. "all costs" doesn't come into it when the opposition is so poor. brigust, you're deteriorating fast. Your post isn't even deserving of a reply but egner's gave you one. 3DUCKEGGS, if it was that easy maybe we should be advocating a MINIMUM number of hits with horses disqualified from running for 42 days and the jockey banned for failing to comply. ranadar, you sound like a bit of a crowd pleasing crawler to me. |
|
By:
I repeat, what's most likely to be a cheats charter? What the cheats want or what the cheats don't want?
|
|
By:
ranadar, you sound like a bit of a crowd pleasing crawler to me.
 Judging by the abuse I get on here I dont think so Continually repeating a nonsensical question does not make it any more valid btw HTH |
|
By:
jockeys sitting still on horses travelling well then hanging and confused even to swap whip hand is not good for the game! and anyone who tells ya different is talking b o l l o c ks. I feel this a dangerous time for punters to have a bet,and feel punters will soon get sick and tired of watching unlucky hard held,late on the scene sorts. i for one will stop betting on the horses till this situation is resolved.
|
|
By:
lol feck -your off on one again - where do i find all the cheats saying we want the whip?
in the paper? on the internet ? Uranus ? a scene from the wizard of ozz? Sadly no,just in the world according to feck. You are funny,but deluded would be an understatement,if youve ever been married then its odds on youve been divorced imo. |
|
By:
'....i'm not betting any more on he horses until this is sorted out....'
ridiculous.Some of us make a living from this game. I for one will carry on. Its all hot air.Change was inevitable - the first inclination is to resist it - but acceptance will follow. |
|
By:
zebadei, please debate like an adult. WITF has my eating habits, sexuality, marital status, attitude to pets etc. etc. got to do with this? If you are unable to do so please continue your breakdown elsewhere. In answer to your question, racing insiders are in the main pro-whip.
|
|
By:
Feck- Egner never answered the question he just made a statement all of his own. Which, if you want to know, was complete b a ll s anyway.
As far as your argument is concerned, I'm finished. I don't think anyone has made any progress and you just keep repeating the same rubbish. So, as they say on Dragon's Den - I'm Out!! |
|
By:
This appears to going nowhere because the pro-whip brigade only appear to think you are trying if you whip a horse. If that is the case it is not worth arguing. Presumably, if we stopped hitting horses then nobody would be trying?
|
|
By:
lol feck What racing insiders? Do you mean like mechanics are best asked how to fix cars type of insiders .Your thrice over divorced status is a further indication of how difficult it must be discussing anything with you.
Its like talking to a cross between uncle brin and Esther Ranzen! ok no pets , ok no leather shoes, ok no meat, ok no wifes,and now we have to say ok no whips - fecky,fecky,fecky please, never go into a faulty lift - you are a dangerous individual.  |
|
By:
I'm in the pro-whip brigade and to me the trier / non-trier debate is a diversion. To race ride properly you need a whip imo. Moreover, to ride any highly strung horse you are better to have a whip - there are millions of riders in the UK and the majority will have a whip. Hitting / squeezing / kicking or making noise at a horse are the ways to make it go forward. Hitting (or threatening to hit) is the most effective way. If we only had hands and heels (I could digress into the relative soreness of kicking and bits etc for the cruelty brigade) then racing would significantly - esp. jumps.
|
|
By:
elsewhere I said zeb.
|
|
By:
pmsl - ive got to stop posting feck,i'm laughing too much to concentrate on the nags - please feel free to go and look in a mirror and say "i'da man"
you are funny,but its a bit to close to One flew over the Cuckoos nest for my liking. gd lk laddie. |
|
By:
hundreds of horses are killed every year!
|
|
By:
hundreds of horses are killed every year!
|
|
By:
hundreds of horses are killed every year!
|
|
By:
Correct differentdrum. It also seems the lack of whips is why they're all strung out (even though they're strung out before they would ordinarily be whipped in any case), why you can't come from behind / why you can't be in front (delete according to what riding style your loser just adopted). The fact that the 3 & 5 strokes rule has supposedly caused all this mayhem it makes you wonder how many times these horses were being whacked before these rules came out.
|
|
By:
You certainly sound more than a bit manic zeb. Good luck.
|
|
By:
Just to clarify for those having difficulty
Corruption is endemic within UK horse racing. UK horse racing is, in the main, pro-whip. Why do those indulging in corruption want to keep the whip when racing without whips would supposedly be a "cheats charter"? |
|
By:
wd that is about the most inane comment so far. Horse racing 'insiders' are corrupt and want to keep the whip to maintain the corruption - genius.
|
|
By:
GIVE IT UP FECK - YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE AN UTTER FOOL OF YOURSELF WITH YOUR CONTINUAL PATHETIC FANTASY ANALOGIES
|
|
By:
GIVE IT UP FECK - YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE AN UTTER FOOL OF YOURSELF WITH YOUR CONTINUAL PATHETIC FANTASY ANALOGIES
|
|
By:
GIVE IT UP FECK - YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE AN UTTER FOOL OF YOURSELF WITH YOUR CONTINUAL PATHETIC FANTASY ANALOGIES
|
|
By:
If somebody wants to cheat they will find ways to cheat both with the whip and without the whip
In my view neither situation is a 'cheats charter' Are you seriously suggesting that those within racing who are arguing against the new whip rules are doing so because they wish to maintain what you see as institutionalised corruption within the sport ? Thats just plain mad |
|
By:
jockeys and the pja can't moan
PJA statement regarding the whip review The Professional Jockeys Association today commended the British Horseracing Authority for introducing revised rules regarding the use of the whip that are “concise and easy to understand”. PJA Chief Executive Kevin Darley said: “We have worked closely with the BHA during this important Review for racing and have been consulted throughout. “Jockeys are pleased that the Authority has recognised that the whip is an important tool of the trade and that these changes will ultimately help protect the integrity of the sport. While there are always differences of opinion, the PJA is advising its members to endorse the changes and react positively to them.” 27 th September 2011ow |
|
By:
In my view neither situation is a 'cheats charter'
Tell the rest of them ranader because that's their main argument. |
|
By:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-futility-racehorses-revealed.html
|
|
By:
Thanks for that andy. The pro-whip mob don't recognise science though.
Here's the link for us community classic users http://www.physorg.com/news/ 2011-01-futility-racehorses-revealed.html |
|
By:
Whipping racehorses is pointless and does not make a difference to the outcome of the race, new research from two University of Sydney veterinarians has revealed.
i stopped reading when i seen where the article was written tbh |
|
By:
I'd have stopped at research
|