Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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.
Show More
zebadei, are you still having that breakdown? Either way, you're spoiling a good thread.
Feck N.Eejit likes throwing his toys out of the pram when someone has a different opinion to his
just kidding. back to the thread. anybody thought of any ways of making money from this new whip rule?
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.
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.
ima_mazed, apologies I am not sure how you quote on here.
The rugby analogy doesn't really hold water on a few counts.
We are not comparing like with like - a human hitting an animal. You can't have rugby without tackling but it has already been proven that it is not necessary to hit a horse with a whip to have a horse race. The one thing is essential the other isn't. Add to that you can avoid being tackled the horse clearly has no choice in the matter.
The rugby analogy doesn't really hold water on a few counts.
We are not comparing like with like - a human hitting an animal. You can't have rugby without tackling but it has already been proven that it is not necessary to hit a horse with a whip to have a horse race. The one thing is essential the other isn't. Add to that you can avoid being tackled the horse clearly has no choice in the matter.
Feck, just in response to your suggestion 3 pages ago where you said that presumably i would like to see spurs brought back as they would lead to faster race times. Au contraire mon ami - spurs were done away with (I assume) because they caused physical harm to the horse. Weals etc. I applaud the abolition of spurs, as I applaud the development of the air-cushioned whip - both innovations improved equine welfare. Jim Boyle on ATR just now said "since they brought in the air-cushioned whip, I've not had a horse come back to me with even a mark on it"
With the modern whip we had reached a pretty good place where a horse can be hit without suffering physical injury, yet still encouraged to go on and give its best. Indeed many jockeys say that it is more the noise of the whip making impact that acts as a stimulus, rather than the actual feel of it. So in limiting the number of whip strokes we have not improved equine welfare, yet we have downgraded the level of performance achieved by horses and riders in the race and lost the confidence of those who punt on and love the sport. That's why this new rule is a big mistake (not to mention the massive problems it will cause to actually enforce it)
With the modern whip we had reached a pretty good place where a horse can be hit without suffering physical injury, yet still encouraged to go on and give its best. Indeed many jockeys say that it is more the noise of the whip making impact that acts as a stimulus, rather than the actual feel of it. So in limiting the number of whip strokes we have not improved equine welfare, yet we have downgraded the level of performance achieved by horses and riders in the race and lost the confidence of those who punt on and love the sport. That's why this new rule is a big mistake (not to mention the massive problems it will cause to actually enforce it)
You appear to be saying a horse has to be marked to feel pain?
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.
Does anyone know how and by whom 'punters' are being represented in the "long-running saga of the Levy"?
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.
Does anyone know how and by whom 'punters' are being represented in the "long-running saga of the Levy"?
The BHA were offering a sort of punters forum to a selected bunch from the racing forum, but that seems to have gone west as well.
Racing really does hate its customers
Racing really does hate its customers
g_10, if you had a pack of wolves run alongside the horses but separated from them by a glass screen the horses wouldn't be touched at all. They'd probably even run faster than they currently do. It would hardly be acceptable though as it's only too obvious they'd be running faster because they were being put in a state of fear and panic. Physical pain isn't the only kind of pain. Even if "swishers" cause no pain that doesn't help me when the horse I've bet hears less swishes than the gambled horse does.
People say banning the whip altogether would be a cheater's charter. If that was the case it would've been banned long ago at the request of the cheating kvnts inside racing.
PS Do you believe that if two horses are close together and only one of the jockeys is whipping (with whip between the horses) both horses will respond the same to the "swish"?
People say banning the whip altogether would be a cheater's charter. If that was the case it would've been banned long ago at the request of the cheating kvnts inside racing.
PS Do you believe that if two horses are close together and only one of the jockeys is whipping (with whip between the horses) both horses will respond the same to the "swish"?
Cheers zilzal. Haven't seen anything from whoever represents 'punters'. Like you say, probably gone West.
Feck I've been waiting in the pub for you to buy me a drink. And all the time you are on the forum and still talking rubbish.
Sorry brigus, people who have lost the argument are laying siege to my house 
Feck,the wolves have more common than you,they would suss it out after 10 metres.The glass is only 50m long and 2m high.hth[;)]
But they're chasing a hare their side rscaughtboy. hth. [;)]
Exactly Feck,gets them up to the speed required to clear the glass and land on the neck of the lead horse.[;)]
Should just be banned . Absolutely no need for it these days . Use it for corrective measures , but not for thrashing a horse
Try threshing a horse in hell,impossible,bad enough trying to do wheat after a lot of rain.hth[smiley:crazy][;)]
Actually,just try thrashing a horse in hell.Not a hope with all that heat and crowds of ex jocks,trainers and police officers from the met and merseyside.[:(][:(][;)]
in hell
12 Oct 11 21:45
Joined:
29 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 15,289 | Blogger: in hell's blog
Should just be banned . Absolutely no need for it these days . Use it for corrective measures , but not for thrashing a horse
The irony of that post beggars belief....
12 Oct 11 21:45
Joined:
29 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 15,289 | Blogger: in hell's blog
Should just be banned . Absolutely no need for it these days . Use it for corrective measures , but not for thrashing a horse
The irony of that post beggars belief....
Differentdrum - not saying a horse must be marked to feel pain. My point is that whipping a racehorse to the point where it sustains a visible weal or other scar/injury is unacceptable. And the development of the modern foam whip has as good as eliminated such injuries. This is of course a good thing.
As for the question of 'pain' that is difficult. The word 'pain' itself is pretty vague, encompassing a wide spectrum of sensation. Anything from a twinge to excruciating agony could come under the 'pain' heading.
I have no knowledge of animal or equine physiology apart from bits and pieces i've read in relation to horseracing. That excellent Nic Doggett article posted above mentioned the studies undertaken to investigate whether horses feel physical pain or mental distress caused by the whip during racing. These were inconclusive, i.e. there was no clear evidence that horses did, or did not, feel pain or distress during racing as a result of whip use.
But it seems to me that horses must feel some degree of pain during racing. Human athletes must go through the 'pain barrier' to achieve faster times. And horses must feel the whip when they are hit (jockeys say the sound of the whipcrack also has an effect on them, but obviously they feel the blow too). Intuition tells us that horses must feel a sensation that we would call pain.
I would argue that there is nothing wrong or immoral with horses feeling a degree of pain during racing, either through being hit with a (modern) whip, or just by operating at the limits of their physical capacities when racing.
In fact, i'd say you can't truly have Sport without a degree of pain or sacrifice being suffered by the participants, be they human or equine. Jockeys starve themselves to make weights and risk life and limb on the track, Daley Thompson trained on Xmas Day, rugby and NFL players endure endless bonecrunching tackles. The endurance of pain and refusal to submit to it in order to perform is rightly applauded in all sport and horses should not and can not be exempt. This is the essence of sport.
Of course we can't apply identical arguments to humans and animals as there is the question of free will vs coercion - human sportsmen know what they are letting themselves in for and compete of their own volition. But it is clearly wrong to say that thoroughbreds only race through coercion. These animals are built, bred, evolved, and exist to race fast. Today's racehorse descends from hundreds of generations of horses that were selected to breed on account of their ability, aptitude, and willingness to race. And to respond to the rider's urgings and instructions, which were always communicated in part via the whip. (Ask backers of the Hannon filly, Memory, whether horses can be forced to race).
It is unfair to say that horses who travel on the bridle and don't need the whip are 'genuine', whilst those who require stoking up with the whip are 'lazy' and 'ungenuine'. The whip is not necessarily for coercion, but communication; it is the rider's means of telling some horses when the time has come for serious work, to tell them when to race.
The current rule is a farce and I have much more sympathy with the argument that the whip should be completely banned than with a rule that says 7 hits good, 8 hits bad. But if we lose the whip from horseracing it is barely sport any more. Look at those godawful hands and heels races for amateur riders, with the weak pushing and slowmotion finishes. That ain't sport, it's a dress rehearsal, there's no sense that anything really matters. Sport has to be played as if it's life and death, without crossing the line into brutality, and we have to keep the whip, and ditch the hit quota.
As for the question of 'pain' that is difficult. The word 'pain' itself is pretty vague, encompassing a wide spectrum of sensation. Anything from a twinge to excruciating agony could come under the 'pain' heading.
I have no knowledge of animal or equine physiology apart from bits and pieces i've read in relation to horseracing. That excellent Nic Doggett article posted above mentioned the studies undertaken to investigate whether horses feel physical pain or mental distress caused by the whip during racing. These were inconclusive, i.e. there was no clear evidence that horses did, or did not, feel pain or distress during racing as a result of whip use.
But it seems to me that horses must feel some degree of pain during racing. Human athletes must go through the 'pain barrier' to achieve faster times. And horses must feel the whip when they are hit (jockeys say the sound of the whipcrack also has an effect on them, but obviously they feel the blow too). Intuition tells us that horses must feel a sensation that we would call pain.
I would argue that there is nothing wrong or immoral with horses feeling a degree of pain during racing, either through being hit with a (modern) whip, or just by operating at the limits of their physical capacities when racing.
In fact, i'd say you can't truly have Sport without a degree of pain or sacrifice being suffered by the participants, be they human or equine. Jockeys starve themselves to make weights and risk life and limb on the track, Daley Thompson trained on Xmas Day, rugby and NFL players endure endless bonecrunching tackles. The endurance of pain and refusal to submit to it in order to perform is rightly applauded in all sport and horses should not and can not be exempt. This is the essence of sport.
Of course we can't apply identical arguments to humans and animals as there is the question of free will vs coercion - human sportsmen know what they are letting themselves in for and compete of their own volition. But it is clearly wrong to say that thoroughbreds only race through coercion. These animals are built, bred, evolved, and exist to race fast. Today's racehorse descends from hundreds of generations of horses that were selected to breed on account of their ability, aptitude, and willingness to race. And to respond to the rider's urgings and instructions, which were always communicated in part via the whip. (Ask backers of the Hannon filly, Memory, whether horses can be forced to race).
It is unfair to say that horses who travel on the bridle and don't need the whip are 'genuine', whilst those who require stoking up with the whip are 'lazy' and 'ungenuine'. The whip is not necessarily for coercion, but communication; it is the rider's means of telling some horses when the time has come for serious work, to tell them when to race.
The current rule is a farce and I have much more sympathy with the argument that the whip should be completely banned than with a rule that says 7 hits good, 8 hits bad. But if we lose the whip from horseracing it is barely sport any more. Look at those godawful hands and heels races for amateur riders, with the weak pushing and slowmotion finishes. That ain't sport, it's a dress rehearsal, there's no sense that anything really matters. Sport has to be played as if it's life and death, without crossing the line into brutality, and we have to keep the whip, and ditch the hit quota.
See how you all feel in a years time when jockeys have an understanding of 1-7.[:)]
Most horses will not need more than 5 cracks in the final furlong.
Most decent jockeys will not require the stick more than 5 cracks in the final furlong.
Lazy horses
Switched off horses
Horses getting tired
Horses were jockeys have left it too late/or boxed in
Horses which are hanging
Horses which are idling
They should need no more than 7/8 cracks of the whip in total. Everybody is overreacting to this change.
As a punter i am happy for my horse only to be allowed to be hit 5 times in the last furlong, as long as the jockey is kicking and pushing. Of course it will change our perception when trying to find an angle on a race, but this just adds another challenge to our calculations.
Most horses will not need more than 5 cracks in the final furlong.
Most decent jockeys will not require the stick more than 5 cracks in the final furlong.
Lazy horses
Switched off horses
Horses getting tired
Horses were jockeys have left it too late/or boxed in
Horses which are hanging
Horses which are idling
They should need no more than 7/8 cracks of the whip in total. Everybody is overreacting to this change.
As a punter i am happy for my horse only to be allowed to be hit 5 times in the last furlong, as long as the jockey is kicking and pushing. Of course it will change our perception when trying to find an angle on a race, but this just adds another challenge to our calculations.
Just to add.
The real issue is the severity of the punishments for the jockeys losing their wages for 2 weeks with the ludicrous bans.
The real issue is the severity of the punishments for the jockeys losing their wages for 2 weeks with the ludicrous bans.
From a betting point of view i'm looking at it as new opportunities[;)]and i agree the relevance on flat racing regarding the new rules is minimal with the use of the whip and the necessity to be used more than 8 times is probably right.As for the nh boys think there's a going to be a lot of milage in that one.
Angel, Giggilo
Yeah in theory, in a short flat race, 7 cracks should be about ample for the majority of rides.
But day 1 of the new rule showed it to be unworkable in practice. The horse ridden by Kieren Fox was heavily punted and he happily saw fit to 'cheat' by giving it 11 smacks while the other jocks stuck to their limit. He was so far over the limit that it was clearly a conscious decision to flout the rule; he cannot have lost count. Thus he got an unfair advantage and even the 15-day ban he got was not enough of a deterrent to prevent him from totally ignoring the new rule.
We had a laughable situation where 10 jocks in a race were following one set of rules and the 11th was brazenly ignoring them, and yet the result had to be allowed to stand. And that situation is set to be repeated every time a horse is heavily punted by connections. "Don't worry jock, you hit it as many times as it takes to win, you will be fully compensated via brown envelope readies. Cheers". The jock may lose his riding fee and share of prize money (a paltry £165 in Fox's case) but it is impossible to prevent the profits of a successful gamble being shared with a jock in cash or gifts.
You simply cannot have the 7-hits rule without also disqualifying a horse for excessive hits, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Yet that is the (foreseeable) situation we find ourselves in since Monday. I despair
Yeah in theory, in a short flat race, 7 cracks should be about ample for the majority of rides.
But day 1 of the new rule showed it to be unworkable in practice. The horse ridden by Kieren Fox was heavily punted and he happily saw fit to 'cheat' by giving it 11 smacks while the other jocks stuck to their limit. He was so far over the limit that it was clearly a conscious decision to flout the rule; he cannot have lost count. Thus he got an unfair advantage and even the 15-day ban he got was not enough of a deterrent to prevent him from totally ignoring the new rule.
We had a laughable situation where 10 jocks in a race were following one set of rules and the 11th was brazenly ignoring them, and yet the result had to be allowed to stand. And that situation is set to be repeated every time a horse is heavily punted by connections. "Don't worry jock, you hit it as many times as it takes to win, you will be fully compensated via brown envelope readies. Cheers". The jock may lose his riding fee and share of prize money (a paltry £165 in Fox's case) but it is impossible to prevent the profits of a successful gamble being shared with a jock in cash or gifts.
You simply cannot have the 7-hits rule without also disqualifying a horse for excessive hits, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Yet that is the (foreseeable) situation we find ourselves in since Monday. I despair
Some good posts here, imo.
I thought g-_10 presented his case very well. There is one thing I disagree with him on: he talks about racing as "sport", whereas I have never thought that it is.
Imo, it's some sort of cross between farming ( inc the all-important breeding industry, etc) and show-business.
OK, even the olympic games are now big-business with all the accompanying corruption and dirty-dealing, but, to my old eyes, horseracing is more akin to the circus than to "sport".
Perhaps, "sport" has more than one definition, though. Certainly, racing is closely linked to hunting historically. But then we all were one time.
Times and society change and I, for one, have no idea where it will all lead. It ain't the game I used to love, but I'm sure I'm well past my sell-by date.
I thought g-_10 presented his case very well. There is one thing I disagree with him on: he talks about racing as "sport", whereas I have never thought that it is.
Imo, it's some sort of cross between farming ( inc the all-important breeding industry, etc) and show-business.
OK, even the olympic games are now big-business with all the accompanying corruption and dirty-dealing, but, to my old eyes, horseracing is more akin to the circus than to "sport".
Perhaps, "sport" has more than one definition, though. Certainly, racing is closely linked to hunting historically. But then we all were one time.
Times and society change and I, for one, have no idea where it will all lead. It ain't the game I used to love, but I'm sure I'm well past my sell-by date.
As James Willoughby said last week, horses don't come pre-programmed to race, some need to be persuaded and that is why the whip is essential
I think the biggest potential problem of the new rules / god forbid a total whip ban, is a detrimental effect to betting turnover. How many of us are turned off by hands-and-heels races? How many will be turned away from the sport when they see jockeys cannot get the most out of a horse (within reason)?
Perhaps the first step should have been to bring in the new harsher penalties with a stern warning to jockeys that they risk losing the whip all together if they don't comply.
Imo, the sport is being ruined as a spectacle if horses cannot be pushed (within reason) to their full capabilities (and I'm not talking about abusing horses - I think it is agreed there is no welfare issue so long as the whip is used correctly).
Also, persuading the horse with the whip at the end of a Flat race is not the same as persuading a horse out on its feet at the end of 3 mile chase in heavy ground. So perhaps allowances should be made for this?
I think the biggest potential problem of the new rules / god forbid a total whip ban, is a detrimental effect to betting turnover. How many of us are turned off by hands-and-heels races? How many will be turned away from the sport when they see jockeys cannot get the most out of a horse (within reason)?
Perhaps the first step should have been to bring in the new harsher penalties with a stern warning to jockeys that they risk losing the whip all together if they don't comply.
Imo, the sport is being ruined as a spectacle if horses cannot be pushed (within reason) to their full capabilities (and I'm not talking about abusing horses - I think it is agreed there is no welfare issue so long as the whip is used correctly).
Also, persuading the horse with the whip at the end of a Flat race is not the same as persuading a horse out on its feet at the end of 3 mile chase in heavy ground. So perhaps allowances should be made for this?
g_10, wrt gambles being whipped more than other horses, nothing has changed except the excess of lashes will probably be less and the jockey is likely to get a longer ban. The connections may well slip him his share of the prize money in cash but I doubt they'll be getting enough on to compensate him for 15 days of missed rides. Of course, that won't apply where the jockey would miss few rides anyway or in the likes of races where the black type makes the difference between defeat and victory massive in terms of money.
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".
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 this whip rule is simply crazy.
Instead of the BHA trying to teach jockeys how to ride they should have sent all of the stewards to seminars to show them what is, and is not, acceptable. Then, when a jockey abuses a horse in a race he gets 5 days and no money. The jockeys can then get on with the job they are employed to do.
None of this ridiculous furore would have even happened.
Instead of the BHA trying to teach jockeys how to ride they should have sent all of the stewards to seminars to show them what is, and is not, acceptable. Then, when a jockey abuses a horse in a race he gets 5 days and no money. The jockeys can then get on with the job they are employed to do.
None of this ridiculous furore would have even happened.
No feck, having no whip would be a cheats charter - to argue otherwise is just dogmatic blinkered foolishness.
no whip - punters would turn off in droves.
Its all very well feck standing on his orange box in his sack cloth and ashes promoting a vegetarian,non meat eating,pets not allowed, plastic shoe wearing society,but tbh,what on earth is somebody like him go to do with those involved in Horse racing.
As far as i can see its more the dogmatic argueing about how the sport should or should not be run that turns him on,than the sport itself.
The sad thing - if ever misguided fanatics like feck and big mac ever got their way,undoubtably more horses would suffer.
Lets hope that those who love the sport and horses and are directly involved, stand firm against misguided fanatics like feck and those in the media courting the non-racing public opinion.
no whip - punters would turn off in droves.
Its all very well feck standing on his orange box in his sack cloth and ashes promoting a vegetarian,non meat eating,pets not allowed, plastic shoe wearing society,but tbh,what on earth is somebody like him go to do with those involved in Horse racing.
As far as i can see its more the dogmatic argueing about how the sport should or should not be run that turns him on,than the sport itself.
The sad thing - if ever misguided fanatics like feck and big mac ever got their way,undoubtably more horses would suffer.
Lets hope that those who love the sport and horses and are directly involved, stand firm against misguided fanatics like feck and those in the media courting the non-racing public opinion.
Yes Feck! If you really are a horse lover get yourself off to Dover and lay in the road to prevent live horses being transported abroad for meat. Now that would be a 'real' cause to support.
If having no whip was a cheats charter the cheats would've requested a long time ago (or do you all now believe Deano's "UK racing is the straightest racing in the world" statement ).
As I said before, you pro-whippers have failed to put up any coherent argument and that's why balloons like zebadei and his countryside alliance pals have continually attempted to stray from the real issues by portraying me as some sort of tree-hugging fanatic. If I was that much of a fanatic I wouldn't be betting on horse racing in the first place. My turnover is such that I probably "donate" more to cheating insiders than zebadei and his pals turnover so why in the hell would I want the whip banned if I thought those rules would result in an increased donation?
).As I said before, you pro-whippers have failed to put up any coherent argument and that's why balloons like zebadei and his countryside alliance pals have continually attempted to stray from the real issues by portraying me as some sort of tree-hugging fanatic. If I was that much of a fanatic I wouldn't be betting on horse racing in the first place. My turnover is such that I probably "donate" more to cheating insiders than zebadei and his pals turnover so why in the hell would I want the whip banned if I thought those rules would result in an increased donation?
Just for anybody who cares - and i doubt any do - to suggest i have anything to do with the countryside alliance would be like me suggesting that feck was banging waitresses two at a time whilst eating a roast chicken wearing thigh length leather boots with his german shepherd mounting the only gay in the villages pet poodle.
As for his turnover claims - "put it away dear,you'll scare the children"
Facts, please show more understanding towards zebadei. He's a very upset "horse lover" who fears horse racing could become corrupt if use of the whip is restricted in any way.
lol - now now feck,don't waive you hadbag at me,plastic or otherwise.
Glad you can still laugh in your current condition zebadei.
If having no whip was a cheats charter the cheats would've requested a long time ago (or do you all now believe Deano's "UK racing is the straightest racing in the world" statement ).
Don't suppose you'd like to respond to something to do with the subject we're debating, such as the point above?
).Don't suppose you'd like to respond to something to do with the subject we're debating, such as the point above?
Youve allways made me laugh feck,i like reading your posts, i like tommy coopers jokes - just because you are an oddball does not mean we should sit you in the corner - you are what many would say is one among many of the tradition of British Ecentrics.
Any tips for todays racing - i'm curious now i know your a big punter?
Any tips for todays racing - i'm curious now i know your a big punter?
I wasn't insinuating anything about my punting with that remark zeb. I was merely making a guess about yours. Anyway, I'll take that as a "no" to my question.
ok i'll respond to your point -
firstly your habbit of aligning the contary view of somebody who maybe seen as de-valued with those opposing your view is tiresome.
secondly i thought the "air shots" were one of the ways non triers were spotted,so no whips make non tryng so much easier on a number of levels
and finally anybody,anybody who has ever ridden in a race would tell you its easier to hide a horses ability if no whips were allowed.
but i guess you'll tel me Hitler was pro whip,etc etc etc
firstly your habbit of aligning the contary view of somebody who maybe seen as de-valued with those opposing your view is tiresome.
secondly i thought the "air shots" were one of the ways non triers were spotted,so no whips make non tryng so much easier on a number of levels
and finally anybody,anybody who has ever ridden in a race would tell you its easier to hide a horses ability if no whips were allowed.
but i guess you'll tel me Hitler was pro whip,etc etc etc
Feck, are you still banging on?
Look, the only way you can tell whether or not a horse is running to it's FULL potential is by using the whip. That is why there was such an uproar about the McKeown 'airshots'.
For that reason alone to ensure cheats don't prosper 'all' horses must be ridden on their merits. Something you will never know if whips are banned.
I know you may say whips are not used in Sweden but you cannot 'lay' horses in Sweden. Therefore the cheats cannot prosper the way they could in the UK if whips were banned. And I am sure that is the reason the BHA never banned it's use or even trialed it.
Look, the only way you can tell whether or not a horse is running to it's FULL potential is by using the whip. That is why there was such an uproar about the McKeown 'airshots'.
For that reason alone to ensure cheats don't prosper 'all' horses must be ridden on their merits. Something you will never know if whips are banned.
I know you may say whips are not used in Sweden but you cannot 'lay' horses in Sweden. Therefore the cheats cannot prosper the way they could in the UK if whips were banned. And I am sure that is the reason the BHA never banned it's use or even trialed it.
Personally I think kicking a horse and vgorous pushing during a race is rather cruel ansd the BHA should be looking to ban this too
Jockeys should be allowed to shout 'PLease go faster' during the race to enclourage their mounts to win but thats not very nice either really
In the ideal world jockeys would just climb aboard and sit motionless and just see which one gets home first.
Jockeys should be allowed to shout 'PLease go faster' during the race to enclourage their mounts to win but thats not very nice either really
In the ideal world jockeys would just climb aboard and sit motionless and just see which one gets home first.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I repeat, what's most likely to be a cheats charter? What the cheats want or what the cheats don't want?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
'....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.
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.
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.
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!!
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!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
you are funny,but its a bit to close to One flew over the Cuckoos nest for my liking.
gd lk laddie.
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.
You certainly sound more than a bit manic zeb. Good luck.
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"?
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"?
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.
GIVE IT UP FECK - YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE AN UTTER FOOL OF YOURSELF WITH YOUR CONTINUAL PATHETIC FANTASY ANALOGIES
GIVE IT UP FECK - YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE AN UTTER FOOL OF YOURSELF WITH YOUR CONTINUAL PATHETIC FANTASY ANALOGIES
GIVE IT UP FECK - YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE AN UTTER FOOL OF YOURSELF WITH YOUR CONTINUAL PATHETIC FANTASY ANALOGIES
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
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
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
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
In my view neither situation is a 'cheats charter'
Tell the rest of them ranader because that's their main argument.
Tell the rest of them ranader because that's their main argument.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-futility-racehorses-revealed.html
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
Here's the link for us community classic users
http://www.physorg.com/news/
2011-01-futility-racehorses-revealed.html
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
i stopped reading when i seen where the article was written tbh
Aust Racing Board “Doubts Scientific Worth” Of RSPCA Study
However Australian Racing Board chief executive Andrew Harding cautioned: “The approach taken by the researchers was to use race footage, sectional times & placings to carry out a statistical analysis of the effect of whip use on performance. The study was made possible by the cooperation of the racing industry. This cooperation included providing access to footage & technical assistance from the stewards to the researchers. Once we have been provided with a copy of the study, then the Australian Racing Board & its expert advisers will consider its contents.” However Harding emphasised: “We cooperated with the study because we have a good working relationship with the RSPCA & we are committed to doing everything possible to protect the welfare of racehorses. This said, we have never made a secret of the fact that we doubt the scientific worth of applying logistic regression to draw conclusions about the extent of the effect on performance of the use of a padded whip. There are literally myriad variables in every race that will have an effect on the outcome.” Harding also noted: “The ARB believes the extensive reforms it has made to the use of the whip are appropriate & working as they were intended.”
However Australian Racing Board chief executive Andrew Harding cautioned: “The approach taken by the researchers was to use race footage, sectional times & placings to carry out a statistical analysis of the effect of whip use on performance. The study was made possible by the cooperation of the racing industry. This cooperation included providing access to footage & technical assistance from the stewards to the researchers. Once we have been provided with a copy of the study, then the Australian Racing Board & its expert advisers will consider its contents.” However Harding emphasised: “We cooperated with the study because we have a good working relationship with the RSPCA & we are committed to doing everything possible to protect the welfare of racehorses. This said, we have never made a secret of the fact that we doubt the scientific worth of applying logistic regression to draw conclusions about the extent of the effect on performance of the use of a padded whip. There are literally myriad variables in every race that will have an effect on the outcome.” Harding also noted: “The ARB believes the extensive reforms it has made to the use of the whip are appropriate & working as they were intended.”
Feck & Andy will of course have read the research and noted that this study (funded by the RSPCA australia) looked at....wait for it.....5 races and 62 horses in those races. Statistically significant I think you'll agree. And moreover, the conclusion was that whipping did not (overall) increase the velocity of the horse in the final 400m. Well I never, horses not accelerating at the end of a race. They did however conceed that...'we are unsurprised to find that whippings were associated with superior performance and that there was an association between final placing and the number of whip strikes in the final 200 m section'
Feck, do you have a response to what James Willoughby has just said?
There is scientific proof that there is no welfare issue with the whip. By limiting its use, racing authorities are saying that there is ie 7 strikes is preferable to 8, so along the same lines, animal rights groups could argue in court that 0 is better than 6.
For the sake of the pattern / breed - less genuine horses will win Group races as jockeys are restricted in what they can do to motivate horses who require stronger driving.
He also believes there is a potential integrity issue.
For the sake of the pattern / breed - less genuine horses will win Group races as jockeys are restricted in what they can do to motivate horses who require stronger driving.
He also believes there is a potential integrity issue.
On the number of strikes, is he saying there is no welfare issue with infinite strikes because just as animal rights groups can work down to zero they can increment his argument forever. Can't fathom what he means about "less genuine horses". Is he saying ungenuine horses don't react to the whip and it's preferable if they are beaten by a lesser animal that requires the whip? Potential integrity issues? In UK racing? Wow, that's a biggie.
Sounds like the same grasping at straws I've already had a bellyfull of on here.
Sounds like the same grasping at straws I've already had a bellyfull of on here.
Amusing that the arguments against the original post seem to avoid what was posted.
Anybody who knows the difference between a constant and a variable should be able to see that the whip is a variable and creates more variable results.
To ignore that, then post on the thread that whipping isn't cruel, makes some horses go faster, makes some of them run in a straight line etc, then accuse the OP of not listening to their arguments is hilarious
Anybody who knows the difference between a constant and a variable should be able to see that the whip is a variable and creates more variable results.
To ignore that, then post on the thread that whipping isn't cruel, makes some horses go faster, makes some of them run in a straight line etc, then accuse the OP of not listening to their arguments is hilarious
A sane post at last.
Poor Richard Hughes BTW. Wouldn't have happened with no whip.
Poor Richard Hughes BTW. Wouldn't have happened with no whip.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539