Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
This is sure to be unpopular based on the number of people getting behind Hughes on here but I actually feel very strongly about this and feel the other side of the story should be heard.
Regardless of whether you, your dog, or Richard Hughes feels the new whip rules are stupid, they are the SAME rules for everyone. Richard Hughes fell foul of them earlier in the week, and then he did so again on Thursday. He was punished appropriately according to the new guidelines, which, again, are the same for everyone.
The man is loved by many and despised by a few as a result of his riding style, but it seems odd to me that one of the so-called 'horsemen' of his generation seems to be having such difficulty adhering to the new policy of not hitting a horse more than seven times and no more than five in the final furlong. Before people start losing it when reading this, I want to point out that I agree the punishment for his crime seems excessive. But the BHA announced earlier on Thursday that they would be reviewing the situation and conversing with the Jockeys about potential alterations. For the time being, the rules are there and he broke them. Twice.
Is it that hard to know when you have entered the final furlong and/or to count the number of times while riding a race? I'm sure it is harder than it seems, especially when it is a new rule and you have to do something you have never done before. But new rules come into every major sport on the planet from time to time and the ability to count under pressure is not something other sportsmen complain about. I'm quite certain that NBA and NFL stars must count the seconds on the shot clock without looking at it as they try to set up a championship-winning play. It's just that this is a new thing and it will take time for jockeys to get used to it.
What really frustrates me is the way in which punters, racing fans, and now jockeys are reacting to the first change the BHA have made in a long time that has actually been sanctioned for the long-term benefit of the sport. This is a welfare issue, and a deeper set one of public perception. It has not been introduced to make life harder for connections just so that men in suits can have something 'useful' to do (for a change). James Willoughby, a man that has made something of a living by introducing a modicum of science to the racing game was quoted this evening as saying there is scientific proof that the whip does not bring about any welfare issues (in other words, horses don't feel it). Whatever you think of me or my views, as someone with almost 20 years working with horses, plus a Masters degree in Biology, I can tell you that this is simply wrong. Overuse (or excessive force) of the whip has been a very real welfare issue that many have tried to dismiss over the past few years. Whether these new rules are the definitive answer or not, the BHA have done the right thing in trying to tackle the problem.
So, returning to Richard Hughes. Yes he was frustrated, and understandably so, but he is a senior jockey at the top end of the game. He is a genuinely nice guy, who will more often than not speak to the press and to the general man at the track when engaged in conversation. He is therefore an ambassador for this sport, and to effectively blackmail its rulers for his errors and in so doing basically sanction a mutiny just two days before Ascot's showpiece end-of-season championship event is just wrong. Plain and simple. It is not an acceptable way to behave - it sends the message to young jockeys that they can do as they please when they have the power as an established star, and whether or not it was his intention, it will apply pressure for other senior jockeys to do the same. As an aside, it is totally unprofessional to have given up his remaining rides yesterday - do you think the owners of those horses were happy with that decision? Or the punters who backed them earlier in the day? I'm quite sure they wanted him in the plate regardless of whether he felt he could give them the best of rides.
Want to stress once and for all that my personal opinions regarding the whip rule form only a minor element of my unhappiness with the way Hughes has acted. As I said initially, he was at fault twice this week and has been punished twice as a result. The authorities have not said they will not listen to reasoned arguments about how improvements can be made to the new system. This was just too big a step to take from someone who should have known better.
Regardless of whether you, your dog, or Richard Hughes feels the new whip rules are stupid, they are the SAME rules for everyone. Richard Hughes fell foul of them earlier in the week, and then he did so again on Thursday. He was punished appropriately according to the new guidelines, which, again, are the same for everyone.
The man is loved by many and despised by a few as a result of his riding style, but it seems odd to me that one of the so-called 'horsemen' of his generation seems to be having such difficulty adhering to the new policy of not hitting a horse more than seven times and no more than five in the final furlong. Before people start losing it when reading this, I want to point out that I agree the punishment for his crime seems excessive. But the BHA announced earlier on Thursday that they would be reviewing the situation and conversing with the Jockeys about potential alterations. For the time being, the rules are there and he broke them. Twice.
Is it that hard to know when you have entered the final furlong and/or to count the number of times while riding a race? I'm sure it is harder than it seems, especially when it is a new rule and you have to do something you have never done before. But new rules come into every major sport on the planet from time to time and the ability to count under pressure is not something other sportsmen complain about. I'm quite certain that NBA and NFL stars must count the seconds on the shot clock without looking at it as they try to set up a championship-winning play. It's just that this is a new thing and it will take time for jockeys to get used to it.
What really frustrates me is the way in which punters, racing fans, and now jockeys are reacting to the first change the BHA have made in a long time that has actually been sanctioned for the long-term benefit of the sport. This is a welfare issue, and a deeper set one of public perception. It has not been introduced to make life harder for connections just so that men in suits can have something 'useful' to do (for a change). James Willoughby, a man that has made something of a living by introducing a modicum of science to the racing game was quoted this evening as saying there is scientific proof that the whip does not bring about any welfare issues (in other words, horses don't feel it). Whatever you think of me or my views, as someone with almost 20 years working with horses, plus a Masters degree in Biology, I can tell you that this is simply wrong. Overuse (or excessive force) of the whip has been a very real welfare issue that many have tried to dismiss over the past few years. Whether these new rules are the definitive answer or not, the BHA have done the right thing in trying to tackle the problem.
So, returning to Richard Hughes. Yes he was frustrated, and understandably so, but he is a senior jockey at the top end of the game. He is a genuinely nice guy, who will more often than not speak to the press and to the general man at the track when engaged in conversation. He is therefore an ambassador for this sport, and to effectively blackmail its rulers for his errors and in so doing basically sanction a mutiny just two days before Ascot's showpiece end-of-season championship event is just wrong. Plain and simple. It is not an acceptable way to behave - it sends the message to young jockeys that they can do as they please when they have the power as an established star, and whether or not it was his intention, it will apply pressure for other senior jockeys to do the same. As an aside, it is totally unprofessional to have given up his remaining rides yesterday - do you think the owners of those horses were happy with that decision? Or the punters who backed them earlier in the day? I'm quite sure they wanted him in the plate regardless of whether he felt he could give them the best of rides.
Want to stress once and for all that my personal opinions regarding the whip rule form only a minor element of my unhappiness with the way Hughes has acted. As I said initially, he was at fault twice this week and has been punished twice as a result. The authorities have not said they will not listen to reasoned arguments about how improvements can be made to the new system. This was just too big a step to take from someone who should have known better.
Show More
no living creature is born for physical abuse,owners and jockys and trainers say they love their horses but do they realy? when the moneys down the horse becomes like a tool same as the whip.the bha are on losing battle to keep the owners happy , when modern society is outgrowing a old farm like activity only enjoyed by the few.lets get real and be onest to ourselfs do we need horseracing?
eh.. there is a total strokes limit so they do have to review the whole race.
Without getting into the rights and wrongs of the whip issue, I think Richard will be alright. He was emotional one time at Wolver, saying he'd never ride there again, but he has.
It ain't an easy life being a jockey ( check out the thread about AP's private life).
Anyway,shouldn't more time and energy be spent on dealing with a more important problem, i.e. the unlicensed laying of NON-TRIERS, which, according to this forum ( of sharper brains), is where the BIG money on btfr is.
I can't see the number of whip strokes being much of a factor in that murky business. In fact, I'd say that some of the jockeys whose names are regularly up here for " pulling" and "not riding out" are often to be seen "giving it their all" like some demented Michael Jackson when it suits certain players on the Exchange.
It ain't an easy life being a jockey ( check out the thread about AP's private life).
Anyway,shouldn't more time and energy be spent on dealing with a more important problem, i.e. the unlicensed laying of NON-TRIERS, which, according to this forum ( of sharper brains), is where the BIG money on btfr is.
I can't see the number of whip strokes being much of a factor in that murky business. In fact, I'd say that some of the jockeys whose names are regularly up here for " pulling" and "not riding out" are often to be seen "giving it their all" like some demented Michael Jackson when it suits certain players on the Exchange.
no we can watch cartoon races giving us a guarantueed 1 % strike rate 
^^^ this is why fiddling with race riding is a slippery slope. 'farm like activity' u couldnt make these people up.
Good points Roger, if they're finding it hard to ride against instinct why is it more difficult on obviously backed horses than drifters. Says a lot about whats been going on when let free reign, I think the whip restrictions are a step in the right direction towards less crooked racing.
Richard Hughes is booked to ride Myrtles Warbler later today!
How whats to stop a rider giving up and saying i thought i had gone over the limit is it possible to know the truth in what their saying ? this will lead to more jiggery pokery they have just made it so much easier its laughable.
Whats going to happen to the horses who don't respond to a push and a shove i have seen plenty ? just shoot them in the head then.
Whichever way you look at this the BHA has handled it appallingly. To introduce the rules now is baffling but if they felt they had to (introduce them now) then have a trial period, bring jocks in that have broken the rules and say 'You do realise that from such and such a date you would have been banned etc'. This would have made them think and eased the transition. For an organisation that is obsessed with PR the BHA need to go back to school and get people who know what they are on about!
The back pass rule is a decent analogy but it wasn't introduced in the last months of the season and the goalkeepers don't get sent off, banned for 5 matches and fined if they pick the ball up - if they did there would have been hell to pay!
The back pass rule is a decent analogy but it wasn't introduced in the last months of the season and the goalkeepers don't get sent off, banned for 5 matches and fined if they pick the ball up - if they did there would have been hell to pay!
same as what happens to horses who respond negatively to being whipped
My understanding:
- There was no "trial period" with warnings. Even two weeks would have been enough to put it in perspective for everyone. Jockey's who have whipped a horse more than 5 times will get their rhythm and there is no need to count (some jockey's interviewed said they rarely hit the horse more than five anyways).
- The time doesn't fit the crime (my feelings on it). Perhaps 'the ban' could be into categories (i.e. if you are banned in an eight furlong, you are banned from races 10 furlongs or less.
- Question: A jockey has hit his horse 5 times in the final furlong. His horse starts to drift dangerously into two other horses. Does he tap (thus whip) his horse to wake it up on the steer or let the interference/contact take place?
Ultimately, it will change racing. It will be interesting to see how the timings go on the races.
- There was no "trial period" with warnings. Even two weeks would have been enough to put it in perspective for everyone. Jockey's who have whipped a horse more than 5 times will get their rhythm and there is no need to count (some jockey's interviewed said they rarely hit the horse more than five anyways).
- The time doesn't fit the crime (my feelings on it). Perhaps 'the ban' could be into categories (i.e. if you are banned in an eight furlong, you are banned from races 10 furlongs or less.
- Question: A jockey has hit his horse 5 times in the final furlong. His horse starts to drift dangerously into two other horses. Does he tap (thus whip) his horse to wake it up on the steer or let the interference/contact take place?
Ultimately, it will change racing. It will be interesting to see how the timings go on the races.
Shoot Hughes in the head and end the debate, mardy tw*t!
In NH there have been instances where jockeys have used five cracks of the whip just to get their mount going at the start!!!
One major **** up by the BHB here.
What was needed was a bedding in period of say 8 weeks, where if you broke the rules you were shown the video talked through what you did wrong, no fine, no penalty....Once the 8 weeks were up, the penalties kick in.....Gives the jocks chance to get used to the rules without costing them "as they learn"
What was needed was a bedding in period of say 8 weeks, where if you broke the rules you were shown the video talked through what you did wrong, no fine, no penalty....Once the 8 weeks were up, the penalties kick in.....Gives the jocks chance to get used to the rules without costing them "as they learn"
Hughes is spot on (and i hate the guy), to do his job properly he needs all the tools available to him.... Imagine if builders were only allowed to use trowels on every other brick. BHA has made a total fool of themselves.
to obvious valueman - better to get everyone excited and invite in all the whip banners and cruelty loonies to start shouting from the rafters....
Oct 14, 2011 -- 9:46AM, VALUEMAN wrote:One major **** up by the BHB here.What was needed was a bedding in period of say 8 weeks, where if you broke the rules you were shown the video talked through what you did wrong, no fine, no penalty....Once the 8 weeks were up, the penalties kick in.....Gives the jocks chance to get used to the rules without costing them "as they learn"
how would that work, being shown a video would hardly be a deterrant for a gambled on horse while their opponents stick to the rules for no gain
thanks grendel. The current whip rules have narrowed the gap between the jockey who doesn't hit his horse and the one who thrashes it as much as he/she can under the previous whip rules. So in that aspect it has helped narrow the gap between trying and non-trying.
The state horseracing is in now though in the UK makes betting before the off even more of a lottery now.
The state horseracing is in now though in the UK makes betting before the off even more of a lottery now.
Roger de Bris 09.27 has it spot on imo.
The new regime makes the variable vigour applied by the same jockey to different rides more apparent that ever. An unintended consequence maybe but a desirable one.
That's what they don't like.
The new regime makes the variable vigour applied by the same jockey to different rides more apparent that ever. An unintended consequence maybe but a desirable one.
That's what they don't like.
Which is what Roger has now said while I was typing!
If you think all racing is bent Roger the only solution is banning laying horses. A horse can be stopped from winning whether theres a whip or not, if there is nothing to be directly gained from this..
Grendal...There is decent amongst the jocks, 8 weeks only, do you think a 5 day ban would stop a jock breaking the rules if he is getting a brown envolope full of reddies from an owner?
No, I would be in favour of disqualification if exceeded an upper limit.
Thats bonkers Grendel and flies in face of you and many others views that the whip is some great way of stopping not triers. What better lay would there be than a winner you can ride to win and make lose by hitting it too many times.
You can't make or not make rules just to satisfy the in-running markets
Suggesting the current whip rules are good because the previous ones were wrong is not a reasonable arguement imo.
The current rules suggest that the bha has little or no confidence in the stewards and a pandering to the non racing community.
Far better to have a professional panel of race readers who judge all the races than individual stewards.Much more grown up for a panel to decide wether a horse was "thrashed" to win a race than a steward saying to a jockey "i'm aware the 2yo shied away from the shadow of the stands and you only tapped him,but i'm afraid that one over the limit so 5 day ban and no fee/prizemoney.
Horse riding is not about arithmatic,we are talking about interpretation,8 taps to keep your horse alert is a ban ,seven mighty wacks is ok - its just too silly for words.
The current rules suggest that the bha has little or no confidence in the stewards and a pandering to the non racing community.
Far better to have a professional panel of race readers who judge all the races than individual stewards.Much more grown up for a panel to decide wether a horse was "thrashed" to win a race than a steward saying to a jockey "i'm aware the 2yo shied away from the shadow of the stands and you only tapped him,but i'm afraid that one over the limit so 5 day ban and no fee/prizemoney.
Horse riding is not about arithmatic,we are talking about interpretation,8 taps to keep your horse alert is a ban ,seven mighty wacks is ok - its just too silly for words.
Don't like the new rule and don't see that anything needed fixing - just pandering to the Daily Mail, but imo automatic disqualification should be brought in.
In the big Group 1 races the real value is not so much the prize money but the black type and prestige that a horse can take to the breeding sheds - so just banning the jockey and taking away his fee and winning percentage is not going to matter. If a horse wins after a jockey has hit it 20 times (like Dettori on Rewilding) how are the connections of the runner up, whose jockey abided by the rules going to feel to be denied a Group 1 win.
I can see carnage at tomorrows Champions Day - jockeys banned in every race.
In the big Group 1 races the real value is not so much the prize money but the black type and prestige that a horse can take to the breeding sheds - so just banning the jockey and taking away his fee and winning percentage is not going to matter. If a horse wins after a jockey has hit it 20 times (like Dettori on Rewilding) how are the connections of the runner up, whose jockey abided by the rules going to feel to be denied a Group 1 win.
I can see carnage at tomorrows Champions Day - jockeys banned in every race.
Take McCoys ride on Wichita Linesman at Cheltenham a couple of years ago - hailed as one of the greatest rides of all time by all and sundry. I don't know how many times he hit it but I'm pretty sure he would have fallen foul of the new rules. Without the whip he'd probably have been pulled up after a circuit
Correct,unclepuncle - tomorrow is going to be a disaster.
agreed unclepuncle, from here on there are only 2 logical conclusions, total whip ban or disqualification of offending winners
If you disqualify horses for transgression of the rules (however minor), betting on horseracing would collapse.
Roger you are talking complete rubbish. RH is not jockey who rides 'gambled on' horses. He works for Richard Hannon where the vast majority of his rides come and RH is as straight as there is. If any horse RH rides for RH shortens or drifts it is only because the price was wrong in the first place.
It is strange that so many on here think a horse shortening is because it is gambled on. Almost every time it is because the person who priced it up priced it up wrong.
Of course there are gambles and horses laid out to win races but that is nor Hannon's 'modus operandi'.
It is strange that so many on here think a horse shortening is because it is gambled on. Almost every time it is because the person who priced it up priced it up wrong.
Of course there are gambles and horses laid out to win races but that is nor Hannon's 'modus operandi'.
What's wrong and will never get the public onside is the name of it "The Whip Rule" it needs to be changed
yer ma, grendel is not well, Allan Jarvis, was crying at Salisbury, said,'the winner should be diqualifid, because Harry Bentley broke the rules', he had the 2nd, , "surprize surpize", AJ, has never broke the rules, i'm still baffled, as to why he lost his training licence for was it 5 years ?, and he would be the firist to start screaming from the roof tops, if his horse lost a race for a whip offence, and as far as that eget, grenel, is concerned "eget", Jocks/Trainers/Owners, having there horse layed, would have a field day, in running or not, it would be a killer, 10 clear over the last, and one more slap, and Bobs your CASH, i have all ready commented on Allan Jarvis and Honest Joe, alias, Ferdie Murphy, a pair of Hypocrites.
exactly steaky,(would be interesting how long the in running markets would last in such a scenario). 1.01 7 reminders 1000 for 8 reminders, that extra reminder in the last 10 yds .
all that would happen zeb is in-running would become first past the post in seperate markets
Sorry Grendel if the horse is fav and I lay it before the and it wins but gets 8 hits (as agreed) then is that not easier & less risky than taking a pull, getting behind etc.
Some horses which are difficult rides are going to struggle to get a jockey .
There is no doubt that "the whip" has galvanised some horses into winning in the past. Presumably that type of horse will no longer have a place in racing. I wonder how this is going to affect Cheltenham and the National 
Imagine disqualifying the horse... would be a layers dream... Instructions to a jockey - if you are a couple of clear and have used your 7 whips hit it one more time so you lose the race and we can all cash in laying at 1.01.
'It is strange that so many on here think a horse shortening is because it is gambled on. Almost every time it is because the person who priced it up priced it up wrong. '
Not really pertinent to this thread but i agree that this is a major blindspot for a lot on here and leads to them believing the game is more corrupt than it is.
Not really pertinent to this thread but i agree that this is a major blindspot for a lot on here and leads to them believing the game is more corrupt than it is.
why are some on here so concerned about the 1.01 in-running thieves, their welfare should not come into this equation
I'm worried by these new rules. Does this mean jockeys will have to put their horses in a position to win earlier? will they be able to keep less up their sleeves? only 5 strikes in the last 10/12 secs! next thing they won't be allowed to bunch up on the rails and be "unlucky"
As i keep saying, Racing is judged by the General Public on one race a year, so apply stricter rules to the race only. it just wasnt the whip as the beebs overhead shots showed dead horses and the media had a field day so the RSPCA had to react and now we've got ourselves into a fine mess
Anaglogs.Thats been half the battle, that fat Basta*d Mac The Mouth, continually screaming ban the Whip, "to get noticed outside the little horse racing box,for his benifit, he is not a horse lover, as he demonstrighted, as a pundit on a race night game, i walked in on one, during the interval, they were showing clips of so called funny incidents on the racecourse, jockeys getting dumped, ect, but they also showed a horse running loose at Doncaster, with a blind fold on, it ran through the rails onto the golf course, and back onto the course, crashing through the rails, and crashed through the rails on the stand side slippig up on the road, and blind fold came off, during this period (lasted about 15 mins), Animal lover, The Bastr*d McCririck, was howling with laughter and roared evey time it crashed through the rail, when the horse slipped up and slid along the ground,he let a the biggist roar of sicking laughter, FACT.100% FACT. and it is not a Whip, as that is derogertay and is used by the likes of The Basta*d, its nothing more than a persuader these days.
Whilst I agree it was unprofessional to let owners down for the rest of the card, I am 100% behind Hughes. At least he has had the gumption to do something instead of just moaning. Of course he wouldnt have done it if he was still in the race for the Jockeys Championship, and was most aggrieved about missing the Breeders Cup, but so what?
The rules are an absolute farce and seriously put the sport we love in jeopardy. The best way to make the BHA see this, is by people actually making a stand, and not just blowing hot air.
The rules are an absolute farce and seriously put the sport we love in jeopardy. The best way to make the BHA see this, is by people actually making a stand, and not just blowing hot air.
am a great admirer of Richard Hughes and a lot of sympathy with his action last night, though obviously done in heat of moment.
Roger makes some good points about the use of the whip that Hughsie made on 2 different Hannon horses, Available and More than Words. If you were a backer of the first and a layer of the second, you would have difficulty thinking that it was the same jockey who administered no use of the whip to one with a race behind her and over the limit on a presumably green 2yo having its first appearance. One drifted in the market (and a heavily backed horse won the race), one was backed. It would appear that the market determined the no of hits administered by the jockey?
Was also perturbed by Hughsie's comment after he led home a Hannon 1-2 (Operettist beat Traveller's Tales)at Salisbury in a photo finish on Monday. Neither rider used the whip in the final furlong as they raced clear of the pack. When prompted by Lydia, Hughsie replied "there was no need for either rider to hit their horses, they were both trained by Richard Hannon....."
I wonder what the backers of the second thought of that throwaway remark? Maybe the second would have responded for a tap of the whip and won? Goes contrary to Brigust's (who speaks a lot of sense) comments about the modus operandi of the Hannon yard which has a surprising number of long priced second strings win races. Maybe Hughsie was on the one the yard had backed that day at Salisbury, and the rider of the second was under instructions not to beat his stablemate and hence why that rider did not have recourse to use of the whip? Did the market determine the number of whip strikes again?
Roger makes some good points about the use of the whip that Hughsie made on 2 different Hannon horses, Available and More than Words. If you were a backer of the first and a layer of the second, you would have difficulty thinking that it was the same jockey who administered no use of the whip to one with a race behind her and over the limit on a presumably green 2yo having its first appearance. One drifted in the market (and a heavily backed horse won the race), one was backed. It would appear that the market determined the no of hits administered by the jockey?
Was also perturbed by Hughsie's comment after he led home a Hannon 1-2 (Operettist beat Traveller's Tales)at Salisbury in a photo finish on Monday. Neither rider used the whip in the final furlong as they raced clear of the pack. When prompted by Lydia, Hughsie replied "there was no need for either rider to hit their horses, they were both trained by Richard Hannon....."
I wonder what the backers of the second thought of that throwaway remark? Maybe the second would have responded for a tap of the whip and won? Goes contrary to Brigust's (who speaks a lot of sense) comments about the modus operandi of the Hannon yard which has a surprising number of long priced second strings win races. Maybe Hughsie was on the one the yard had backed that day at Salisbury, and the rider of the second was under instructions not to beat his stablemate and hence why that rider did not have recourse to use of the whip? Did the market determine the number of whip strikes again?
With all due respect to Brigust, I think he is being a touch naive.
I haven't seen the races you refer to Pedro but I will.
The Hughsie comment was because Hughsie and Moore both knew the winner was by far the best horse, and won very easily, so beating up the 2nd would have been pointless and counterproductive. Had the 2nd been from another yard questions may have been asked as to why the jockey never hit the horse. Don't read into it more than there is.
The Hughsie comment was because Hughsie and Moore both knew the winner was by far the best horse, and won very easily, so beating up the 2nd would have been pointless and counterproductive. Had the 2nd been from another yard questions may have been asked as to why the jockey never hit the horse. Don't read into it more than there is.
Won't Richard be heading off soon to ride in his usual winter haunt, India, or is that a different jockey?
McCoy's ride on Mini Sensation at Exeter a few years ago was even more amazing than Wichita , would have got 10 years for that now , new rules are moronic , simple as that.
Some form of justification is conventional BobSivier. Why are they "moronic"? Why aren't the jockeys who break them moronic?
There are 3 quite separate issues.
1. Are the new rules correct? Probably not but worth a try and then review them. I don't think that the final furlong bit makes any sense.
2. Are the penalties correct? Perhaps a bit harsh but the riders ignored the weak penalties that were there before. I have known a few jockeys over the years and most of them enjoy breaking the rules (and the driving laws) if they can get away with it. They are risk takers by nature and few of them will take any notice of reasoned argument.
3. Is Richard Hughes out of order in handing in his license and inconveniencing his owners, trainer, ante post punters etc. for Champions day mounts? Definitely yes.
1. Are the new rules correct? Probably not but worth a try and then review them. I don't think that the final furlong bit makes any sense.
2. Are the penalties correct? Perhaps a bit harsh but the riders ignored the weak penalties that were there before. I have known a few jockeys over the years and most of them enjoy breaking the rules (and the driving laws) if they can get away with it. They are risk takers by nature and few of them will take any notice of reasoned argument.
3. Is Richard Hughes out of order in handing in his license and inconveniencing his owners, trainer, ante post punters etc. for Champions day mounts? Definitely yes.
In the opinion of many race followers this new rule is wrong. The whip is not cruel to horses and this is accepted by the expert who studied this. The decision is to appease "public opinion" but it seems the opinion came from survey(s) carried out by companies that do this. I don't know who they asked or quite what the questions were. The BHA has screwed up on this one and will have to think of a way to get out of it whilst keeping some dignity. It is like the one false start disqualification in athletics - a mistake and this rule will have to be abolished.
The rule is wrong. If you seriously believe that then you must stand up and fight it.
"he is a senior jockey at the top end of the game."
Who better to stand up to it than a senior?
"who will more often than not speak to the press and to the general man at the track"
Perfect the press already speak to the guy and he has had lots of media attention.
"effectively blackmail its rulers for his errors"
No this is not about him getting a ban for use of the whip this is about the errors of the BHA in bringing the ban in in the first place.
"basically sanction a mutiny just two days before Ascot's showpiece end-of-season championship event"
Good let Ascot go down completely. Let the BHA look so stupid they all have to resign or get sacked. Let this turn bad on them. They brought in this rule and they must be accountable for it.
"- it sends the message to young jockeys that they can do as they please when they have the power as an established star,"
When the "rulers of racing" become unaccountable something has gone wrong. It shows that they can be made accountable. The rule is wrong. The "rulers" have screwed up. Do not protect these people, it is their mistake.
"it is totally unprofessional to have given up his remaining rides yesterday"
When you reach the line in the sand, that is when you should act. He stated he was not doing his owners justice and could not ride the horses to their maximum potential. He would not ride them for that reason. This is not unprofessional, quite the opposite.
"do you think the owners of those horses were happy with that decision? Or the punters who backed them earlier in the day? I'm quite sure they wanted him in the plate regardless of whether he felt he could give them the best of rides."
The rule is wrong. The BHA is banning jockeys on the basis of a rule that is wrong. Do they worry about the owners, jockeys and punters? Seems not, they worry about their new rule and covering up their mistakes.
The rule is wrong. If you seriously believe that then you must stand up and fight it.
"he is a senior jockey at the top end of the game."
Who better to stand up to it than a senior?
"who will more often than not speak to the press and to the general man at the track"
Perfect the press already speak to the guy and he has had lots of media attention.
"effectively blackmail its rulers for his errors"
No this is not about him getting a ban for use of the whip this is about the errors of the BHA in bringing the ban in in the first place.
"basically sanction a mutiny just two days before Ascot's showpiece end-of-season championship event"
Good let Ascot go down completely. Let the BHA look so stupid they all have to resign or get sacked. Let this turn bad on them. They brought in this rule and they must be accountable for it.
"- it sends the message to young jockeys that they can do as they please when they have the power as an established star,"
When the "rulers of racing" become unaccountable something has gone wrong. It shows that they can be made accountable. The rule is wrong. The "rulers" have screwed up. Do not protect these people, it is their mistake.
"it is totally unprofessional to have given up his remaining rides yesterday"
When you reach the line in the sand, that is when you should act. He stated he was not doing his owners justice and could not ride the horses to their maximum potential. He would not ride them for that reason. This is not unprofessional, quite the opposite.
"do you think the owners of those horses were happy with that decision? Or the punters who backed them earlier in the day? I'm quite sure they wanted him in the plate regardless of whether he felt he could give them the best of rides."
The rule is wrong. The BHA is banning jockeys on the basis of a rule that is wrong. Do they worry about the owners, jockeys and punters? Seems not, they worry about their new rule and covering up their mistakes.
I for one think one of two things should happen tomorrow.
Either
1) all the Jockeys strike at Ascot until more sensible and thought through rules are instated
or
2) all jockey's should ignore the new whip rules and accrue bans until no more racing can take place because the no jockeys are legible to ride.
Either way - BHA has egg on its face and this whole debarcle gets sorted out now.
Either
1) all the Jockeys strike at Ascot until more sensible and thought through rules are instated
or
2) all jockey's should ignore the new whip rules and accrue bans until no more racing can take place because the no jockeys are legible to ride.
Either way - BHA has egg on its face and this whole debarcle gets sorted out now.
Thanks for mentioning that Wichita Lineman ride. Ever considered he found himself so far back purely because he didn't jump or travel for McCoy? The horse travelled a good deal better when he was ridden by Timmy Murphy.
Brigust, hardly know anyone with inside info, but have certainly been aware of a few Hannon plots over the years where they've lined up a handicap touch or in one case, put in a fancied runner (morning fav, but drifted) with form into a maiden, only for it to be tailed off and well beaten by a heavily gambled (10/1 into 3/1) winner where the "outside" jock beat the carp out of it to win.
I think your view that the Hannon yard is not a gambling yard is a little misguided. Plenty of their horses make draconian improvement often defying the form book.... and are heavily backed at the same time
I think your view that the Hannon yard is not a gambling yard is a little misguided. Plenty of their horses make draconian improvement often defying the form book.... and are heavily backed at the same time
pedro and roger have it right I think. Well explained. ( New rules will make arranging outcomes a bit more difficult poss?)
should have pointed out that the 10/1 into 3/1 winner was a stablemate, with the stable jock on the morning fav
totally gree with opening post,just like recent yellow flag incident where jockeys either dont know or think they know better than rules....lets all start driving through red lights "if we think its alright"....
further to comments about the prices of his rides....how ridiculous...so if youve backed a longshot you dont expext the jockey to try just as hard??? well if thats the case we might s well all give up gambling...surely everone is supposed to be doing their best...
but the problem is that authorites often put down traffic lights where they aren't needed..... let alone allow said lights to turn red.....
The British have been pandering to all save the whale groups for years now..........horse racing gets it now.........lets hope it doesn't go down the the route of your greyhound racing.
1stpost
Does everyone agree the need for traffic lights?
Answer- Y
Does everyone agree to the whip ban
Answer - N
I think you have you argument ripped to shreds.
Does everyone agree the need for traffic lights?
Answer- Y
Does everyone agree to the whip ban
Answer - N
I think you have you argument ripped to shreds.
gman50:laugh:]
i think you want to get out a little bit more sonny....try standing next to a set of lights and see how many cars jump them witking 5 minutes...i think you could learn something...then try understanding why muppet hughes cant abide by the rules like everyone else
i think you want to get out a little bit more sonny....try standing next to a set of lights and see how many cars jump them witking 5 minutes...i think you could learn something...then try understanding why muppet hughes cant abide by the rules like everyone else
Your analogy is completely misguided.
You are putting another humans wellbeing at risk when you jump a set of traffic lights...
When whipping a horse more than the prescribed (number plucked out of thin air) you are doing nothing of the sort (provided you are a jockey that can keep his/her balance). If this is effecting your income.... which in Hughes's case it is he has the right to disobey the rules and strike.
Pedro how about some names then? I have first hand experience of the Hannon yard and know RH is not a gambler and nor are the vast majority of his owners. A large number of horses improve for one reason or another and you seem to be thinking it is only because of skullduggery. And you think I am naive.
A Clive Brittain horse won at Kempton yesterday after being well beaten first time its price contracted and it won. I suppose you think it was a gamble ffs. Had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the other runners were priced up shorter than they should be and were not backed accordingly. The market forces will generally sort things out. And the reason a lot of things happen nearer the off is because the prices bookies put up are not taken so they push things out. By doing this they have to shorten the longer priced runners. It's called bookmaking ffs.
A Clive Brittain horse won at Kempton yesterday after being well beaten first time its price contracted and it won. I suppose you think it was a gamble ffs. Had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the other runners were priced up shorter than they should be and were not backed accordingly. The market forces will generally sort things out. And the reason a lot of things happen nearer the off is because the prices bookies put up are not taken so they push things out. By doing this they have to shorten the longer priced runners. It's called bookmaking ffs.
The main point of reference is the HUGE disparity in effort between the ride on Available and the ride on More Than Words, wheras all the form leading up to both races suggested Available should have been given the stronger ride.
The betting markets are more often than not, a guide to what will happen.
The betting markets are more often than not, a guide to what will happen.
six gun 14 Oct 11 11:31
The decision is to appease "public opinion" but it seems the opinion came from survey(s) carried out by companies that do this. I don't know who they asked or quite what the questions were.
Once they went down this 'public' route the end result was inevitable.
Presumably the question was 'Do you like seeing horses hit with a whip' to which anyone would say 'no'
Then a follow up question along the lines of 'would you be more inclined to go racing if there was a strict limit on the number of times a jockey can use his whip' to which the answer will be 'yes'.
Result - the BHA bring in the new whip rule which will ultimately have no positive benefit to horse welfare and which won't in reality bring any extra people through the turnstiles. A total waste of time and money.
It seems that all the governing bodies of british sports are incompetent. The FA, RFU, LTA etc couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery. I remember Will Carling saying the RFU was run by 57 old farts, quite what that makes racings leaders I'm not sure.
The decision is to appease "public opinion" but it seems the opinion came from survey(s) carried out by companies that do this. I don't know who they asked or quite what the questions were.
Once they went down this 'public' route the end result was inevitable.
Presumably the question was 'Do you like seeing horses hit with a whip' to which anyone would say 'no'
Then a follow up question along the lines of 'would you be more inclined to go racing if there was a strict limit on the number of times a jockey can use his whip' to which the answer will be 'yes'.
Result - the BHA bring in the new whip rule which will ultimately have no positive benefit to horse welfare and which won't in reality bring any extra people through the turnstiles. A total waste of time and money.
It seems that all the governing bodies of british sports are incompetent. The FA, RFU, LTA etc couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery. I remember Will Carling saying the RFU was run by 57 old farts, quite what that makes racings leaders I'm not sure.
indeed the 'leading question' principal is well established.
So why would the BHA (or whoever) have this agenda from the outset? We agree that public opinion was marshalled in a partial way, so as to back up a pre-existing agenda.
why do 'they'really want this?
So why would the BHA (or whoever) have this agenda from the outset? We agree that public opinion was marshalled in a partial way, so as to back up a pre-existing agenda.
why do 'they'really want this?
brigust, whilst can accept a once raced animal showing considerable improvement, to take a recent example, last night Hannon won with Regal Gold - beaten 14+, 11+ and 19+ lengths - wins on nursery debut joint fav having gone off 20/1, 14/1 and 14/1 previous starts.
Given a much stronger ride last night compared to any of it's recent maidens. Clearly the stable money was down yesterday on a trier whereas those who backed it on previous occasions were effectively defrauded of any run for their money.
Not singling out Richard Hannon at all, virtually every trainer plays this handicap game. But to suggest that the Hannon yard do not line up their targets and that the stable money is not directed accordingly is incorrect. It is well known that Hughsie frequents a certain golf club where plenty are privy to inside information.
I am not suggesting this is skulduggery, nor that Richard senior is a gambler, nor the majority of his owners. But to think that others are not taking advantage of knowledge about when the stable runners are expected to "perform" would be considered naive by many, your word (and that of another poster), not mine
To the earlier post about traffic lights. There are thousands of traffic light installations in this country that need digging up - absolutely no need for them at all. Their existence does not suggest the law is correct, but merely that the law/rules may, or may not, be an ass.
Given a much stronger ride last night compared to any of it's recent maidens. Clearly the stable money was down yesterday on a trier whereas those who backed it on previous occasions were effectively defrauded of any run for their money.
Not singling out Richard Hannon at all, virtually every trainer plays this handicap game. But to suggest that the Hannon yard do not line up their targets and that the stable money is not directed accordingly is incorrect. It is well known that Hughsie frequents a certain golf club where plenty are privy to inside information.
I am not suggesting this is skulduggery, nor that Richard senior is a gambler, nor the majority of his owners. But to think that others are not taking advantage of knowledge about when the stable runners are expected to "perform" would be considered naive by many, your word (and that of another poster), not mine
To the earlier post about traffic lights. There are thousands of traffic light installations in this country that need digging up - absolutely no need for them at all. Their existence does not suggest the law is correct, but merely that the law/rules may, or may not, be an ass.
why cant some one develop a whip that id used too forcfully will break and be useless?
That way it can be used to encourage the horse, if the whip snaps the stewards can look into the situation and hand out the required punishment.
As for hughes dont get me started on him. ****
That way it can be used to encourage the horse, if the whip snaps the stewards can look into the situation and hand out the required punishment.
As for hughes dont get me started on him. ****
You are doing it again Pedro. You think that a price is only dictated by the stables. It isn't.
Yesterday's race was a classic example. The winner ran in three better races and was well beaten by better horses. It was weighed accordingly and just beat a similarly weighted rival. The race was terrible last night. The reason it started the price it did was because no-one with any sense would put their hard earned cash on any of the other runners.
You are suggesting RH knew it was a 56 rated animal. Ran it in 3 races it couldn't win. The handicapper alloted it 56 and RH rubbed his hands thinking this is something he could go to war with. He has over a hundred horses ffs and has far more important things to think about than winning a Class 6 nursery on the AW. Get a grip.
I'm not saying some stables 'prepare' horses to gamble on, they do. But RH just hasn't either the inclination or the time to even think about it. And I put Hughsie in the same bracket.
Roger keeps bleating on about Available. I have watched the race and looked at the form. If you backed that then I feel sorry for you. The race it was 3rd in is unknown and the only form from it is terrible. It forced or assisted the pace but is just not very good.
Plus it was the only filly against colts.
Plus it wears a cross noseband and is a very free running sort.
RH is not about to start knocking about a filly with tearway tendencies.
If that is how you read races Roger I wouldn't be swapping Bf accounts with you any time soon.
Yesterday's race was a classic example. The winner ran in three better races and was well beaten by better horses. It was weighed accordingly and just beat a similarly weighted rival. The race was terrible last night. The reason it started the price it did was because no-one with any sense would put their hard earned cash on any of the other runners.
You are suggesting RH knew it was a 56 rated animal. Ran it in 3 races it couldn't win. The handicapper alloted it 56 and RH rubbed his hands thinking this is something he could go to war with. He has over a hundred horses ffs and has far more important things to think about than winning a Class 6 nursery on the AW. Get a grip.
I'm not saying some stables 'prepare' horses to gamble on, they do. But RH just hasn't either the inclination or the time to even think about it. And I put Hughsie in the same bracket.
Roger keeps bleating on about Available. I have watched the race and looked at the form. If you backed that then I feel sorry for you. The race it was 3rd in is unknown and the only form from it is terrible. It forced or assisted the pace but is just not very good.
Plus it was the only filly against colts.
Plus it wears a cross noseband and is a very free running sort.
RH is not about to start knocking about a filly with tearway tendencies.
If that is how you read races Roger I wouldn't be swapping Bf accounts with you any time soon.
it's right, that has to be . Why does anyone have trouble imagining that this is what goes on.
Brigust, respect your views, but are you suggesting that Regal Gold ran to just the same level of form that it has done on three previous occasions?
Like Roger, I am a follower of speed figures, and the Leicester race that Available ran in was one of the fastest 2yo maidens ever run at that track in the last 10 years. So to some observers, that race hardly falls into the "unknown" bracket. Very possible that Available didn't appreciate being turned out quickly (though not many of Hannon's horses suffer from that problem) or maybe didn't like the polytrack.
Whatever, it ran a desperate speed figure on Wednesday and was a completely different horse to the one that ran at Leicester - so certainly see where Roger is coming from.
Like Roger, I am a follower of speed figures, and the Leicester race that Available ran in was one of the fastest 2yo maidens ever run at that track in the last 10 years. So to some observers, that race hardly falls into the "unknown" bracket. Very possible that Available didn't appreciate being turned out quickly (though not many of Hannon's horses suffer from that problem) or maybe didn't like the polytrack.
Whatever, it ran a desperate speed figure on Wednesday and was a completely different horse to the one that ran at Leicester - so certainly see where Roger is coming from.
If "legend" Hughes can't count to five or seven, it wouldn't take much to invent a whip with a sensor on connected to a wireless earpiece that could count for him.
Just as drivers should only concentrate on the road so should Jocks only concentrate on the race in question without having to think of how many times you should use the whip.
All those in favour of this multi tasking think about how you would feel if a doc was doing the staff rota when you were under the knife
"Sorry sir, it would appear that i have lopped one of your bollox off in error"
All those in favour of this multi tasking think about how you would feel if a doc was doing the staff rota when you were under the knife
"Sorry sir, it would appear that i have lopped one of your bollox off in error"
Whatever sport,'arm round the shoulder' or 'kick up the arse',without the ability to do that is like taking your legs away.
A horseman will always need a tool of his trade.Period.
A horseman will always need a tool of his trade.Period.
tomdeane
14 Oct 11 05:53
.....was quoted this evening as saying there is scientific proof that the whip does not bring about any welfare issues (in other words, horses don't feel it). Whatever you think of me or my views, as someone with almost 20 years working with horses, plus a Masters degree in Biology, I can tell you that this is simply wrong.
Why is that simply wrong, what work do you do with horses?
These animals are not elderly aunts, have you ever tried to move a horse or cow or any other large animal? did you ever smack it on the bum? did it give any indications that it had experienced pain? have you ever seen how an injured or ill horse who is in pain behaves?
14 Oct 11 05:53
.....was quoted this evening as saying there is scientific proof that the whip does not bring about any welfare issues (in other words, horses don't feel it). Whatever you think of me or my views, as someone with almost 20 years working with horses, plus a Masters degree in Biology, I can tell you that this is simply wrong.
Why is that simply wrong, what work do you do with horses?
These animals are not elderly aunts, have you ever tried to move a horse or cow or any other large animal? did you ever smack it on the bum? did it give any indications that it had experienced pain? have you ever seen how an injured or ill horse who is in pain behaves?
"tearaway tendencies" heard it all now...
as you have connections with the Hannon stable brigust, you are biased in your opinions of Richard Hughes. I have no connections with any stables and no inside information. I treat all rides as if they were ridden by the same jockey. I know when a jockey has not taken all possible measures to achieve the best possible placing.
If you are right and the horse had no chance at Kempton and simply ran the same race as it did at Leicester, and that's as good as it is, explain the Racing Post Rating drop of 25lbs, from 72 to 47. In the Kempton race it was actually beaten by a horse rated 47.
The facts are the horse ran a perfectly acceptable race at Leicester and had ZERO "tearaway tendencies" as you call them, and ran all the way to the line.
Defending Richard Hughes and saying that he was right not to use his stick, merely makes Dane O'Neill out to not having a clue what he was doing at Leicester....
Available was a lot more keen at Kempton, and was actually a length and a half down on the 2nd & 3rd heading into the final furlong, and responded to hands and heels pressure to finish 1/2 length behind these two.
Your argument that Richard Hughes doesn't hit horses, that race keen in the early part of their races, approaching the finish, is quite frankly b********.
as you have connections with the Hannon stable brigust, you are biased in your opinions of Richard Hughes. I have no connections with any stables and no inside information. I treat all rides as if they were ridden by the same jockey. I know when a jockey has not taken all possible measures to achieve the best possible placing.
If you are right and the horse had no chance at Kempton and simply ran the same race as it did at Leicester, and that's as good as it is, explain the Racing Post Rating drop of 25lbs, from 72 to 47. In the Kempton race it was actually beaten by a horse rated 47.
The facts are the horse ran a perfectly acceptable race at Leicester and had ZERO "tearaway tendencies" as you call them, and ran all the way to the line.
Defending Richard Hughes and saying that he was right not to use his stick, merely makes Dane O'Neill out to not having a clue what he was doing at Leicester....
Available was a lot more keen at Kempton, and was actually a length and a half down on the 2nd & 3rd heading into the final furlong, and responded to hands and heels pressure to finish 1/2 length behind these two.
Your argument that Richard Hughes doesn't hit horses, that race keen in the early part of their races, approaching the finish, is quite frankly b********.
hughes can't do justice for his owners....well how about this approach richard.....
you say to your owners that you won't be as effective on their horses than you used to be...and then you ASK THEM if they would still like you to ride their horses....you know, i bet they would say yes.....his actions for whatever reason has damaged his owners more than the new rules have.
you say to your owners that you won't be as effective on their horses than you used to be...and then you ASK THEM if they would still like you to ride their horses....you know, i bet they would say yes.....his actions for whatever reason has damaged his owners more than the new rules have.
^^^this is right. They are arranging things. some just can't admit such an awful idea. (Too much faith in human nature?)
This might mean jockey's being more selective on who they ride.
But the scrutiny on their performance is going to bombard them from every direction.
But the scrutiny on their performance is going to bombard them from every direction.
Roger. The Available race. The 47 rated horse beat a 66 rated horse in its previous race plus this time it was wearing cheekpieces for the first time. Plus in its previous race it led 3 out and weakened one out over 7 furlongs. This was 6 furlongs.
Plus the Hannon horse, a filly, was running only 8 days after the Leicester run.
The clues are there Roger. If you back horses like that you need help. And if you think RH should beat it up to possibly, and I say again possibly, achieve 3rd place, you need certifyng.
Plus the Hannon horse, a filly, was running only 8 days after the Leicester run.
The clues are there Roger. If you back horses like that you need help. And if you think RH should beat it up to possibly, and I say again possibly, achieve 3rd place, you need certifyng.
using his stick once is beating a horse up...
you've changed your story now. You said, and I quote:
"The race it was 3rd in is unknown and the only form from it is terrible. It forced or assisted the pace but is just not very good.
now you say the horse underperformed because it was a filly and ran 8 days later.
you are contradicting yourself.
You can guarantee 100% if the owner of that horse had said to Richard Hughes before the race, Richard, make sure it's not out of the first two, that's exactly what would have happened, and you would have seen a TOTALLY different final furlong from horse and jockey. And therein lies the problem with Richard Hughes, he decides when and when not to give his all, and on too many occasions for my liking it's when not.
you've changed your story now. You said, and I quote:
"The race it was 3rd in is unknown and the only form from it is terrible. It forced or assisted the pace but is just not very good.
now you say the horse underperformed because it was a filly and ran 8 days later.
you are contradicting yourself.
You can guarantee 100% if the owner of that horse had said to Richard Hughes before the race, Richard, make sure it's not out of the first two, that's exactly what would have happened, and you would have seen a TOTALLY different final furlong from horse and jockey. And therein lies the problem with Richard Hughes, he decides when and when not to give his all, and on too many occasions for my liking it's when not.
Roger we will have to agree to disagree OK. I don't know anything about Available except what I have seen and read. I never back these kind of horses. I seldom back fillies against colts especially at short prices. I like to see known form on the surface, definately more than one run and seldom by information alone. Just too many questions to answer for me.
brigust you have had associations with the Hannon stable, and you are a Richard Hughes fan. You will defend him through thick and thin. This is perfectly normal, and I do the exact same with my heroes.
Interesting that Richard Hughes has lost the races in which he has got the bans and in last night's case the winner adhered to the new whip rules and still won the race.
Maybe the floodlights shone on the righteous
Maybe the floodlights shone on the righteous
TomDeane - This is a welfare issue, and a deeper set one of public perception ... James Willoughby ... was quoted this evening as saying there is scientific proof that the whip does not bring about any welfare issues (in other words, horses don't feel it). Whatever you think of me or my views, as someone with almost 20 years working with horses, plus a Masters degree in Biology, I can tell you that this is simply wrong. Overuse (or excessive force) of the whip has been a very real welfare issue that many have tried to dismiss over the past few years. Whether these new rules are the definitive answer or not, the BHA have done the right thing in trying to tackle the problem.
Tom I always really enjoy your posts and typically agree with many. I half agree with you here, insofar as the problem is one of public perception (completely for me; partially for you). You may have elaborated further elsewhere, but if so, I have missed it. Can you please go into more detail about why you think the whip presents a welfare issue (presumably you mean as it was used under the old rules, where 'overuse' was more prevelant).
I found this piece quite interesting on te same subject -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/oct/18/jockeys-whip-didnt-hurt
Tom I always really enjoy your posts and typically agree with many. I half agree with you here, insofar as the problem is one of public perception (completely for me; partially for you). You may have elaborated further elsewhere, but if so, I have missed it. Can you please go into more detail about why you think the whip presents a welfare issue (presumably you mean as it was used under the old rules, where 'overuse' was more prevelant).
I found this piece quite interesting on te same subject -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/oct/18/jockeys-whip-didnt-hurt
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539