Soumillon spot-on

Jockeys strike nailed on

Dfinately
While I probably agree with a ban, but jesus its cost him £50k

i agree, he has every right to be angry

either that or a red hot poker up thier jacksy

FECN JOKE RULES , THAT LAD IS PROPER HORSE MAN

Puts his case very well and very eloquently, very peeved and entitled to be!

where does the 50 grand go? back to the sponsor?

who pockets the money

should take his case to sports arbitration court, no way would they allow a "fine" of that amount

70k isnt it ?

I'm on 20% of it. My brainwave.

Didn't read the rules, tough shi t.

Should give it to tracks like Redcar !

£50K fine?!
absolutely disgusting IMO

Somewhat disproportionate penalty ....for a non-crime !

What was the point of the last one?

he wants to drive on the right hand side of the road too, go on sheep keep bleating

Clueless rules by the clueless BHA that mob are more deluded than the Aussies and SYT

get a life u prick ^

To Celtic Son.
If he'd been beaten an inch and whipped it 4 times you'd be bleating the other way. Fact.

Are we all saying on this thread that the horse wouldn't have won without the last slap? Ridiculous.

Not at all, if they all play by the rules then we are all fine.

celtic, you clearly didnt listen to soumillons interview. he said he didnt see the furlong pole so he thought he was giving the horse its 5th closehome.

Have you ever drifted over 30mph in a 30 zone?

Make the rules simple then. Seven hits in the race. End of.

Goodbye Shergar Cup.

the furlong markers need to be in a cube shape. so both viewers and jocks can see the distances clearly

Let's say it was his fifth, watch the race and tell me that slap was needed.

How would you possible see the furlong pole in a big field at full tilt you can't you'd have to guess.  Sorry Mr Owner we missed out because I thought I had no Mr Whippy's left as I couldn't work out if I had one left so sorry we got beat in the photo.

That plank Boysie called him Christopher

Are we agreed that he committed the crime? If so then the owners and trainer have benefited by this. There is something called the proceeds of crime act, that allows the police to grab the cash and proceeds that someone has made from an act of crime. I strongly suggest that the police look in to this!

salmon

and a painted line across the track at the furlong pole

Celtic Son,

Your making an idiot of yourself if you are seriously backing these rules.

celtic, tell me this. would you do the minimum possible if you were riding for a win pot of 700k or would you ride out to be sure?

Goodbye Shergar Cup.

well that's 1 good thing to come out of these new rules then.....

they need to sort this out asap, before it starts overshadowing every decent day's racing

Silk st John has nailed it on the head.

I would suggest the BHA amend the rule and backdate it to last Monday thus making fines and bans of the last week Null and Void

that way they could calm the storm and at least come out of the situation without looking the total planks that they are.

That's the problem Reve, we need an attitude change from your response. Basically we all want to see our horses battered in the name of a win. If, as they say, the whip doesn't hurt, what's the problem.

The punishment may not fit the crime, that is a joke.

How many horses have been hurt physically or emotionally by the whip in the last year Celtic?

legal challenge, wd Christophe

top man christophe, what a sense of humour!

3DUCKEGGS
15 Oct 11 17:23 Joined: 18 Oct 01 | Topic/replies: 1,231 | Blogger: 3DUCKEGGS's blog
How many horses have been hurt physically or emotionally by the whip in the last year Celtic?
Rate reply:
| report

Exactly, so why is using a whip such a big deal? By rights, one shouldn't be carried at all using the argument.

No Celtic.
We dont all want to see our horses battered. Either ban the whip (which unfortunately would see many great horses not give anywhere near there best, but be easy to implement); or make it crystal clear (i.e. 5/6/7 hits). Not counting to seven would then not be an excuse.

It s getting to the stage where the whole lot is getting embarrassing.. no wonder the  younger generation perfer other sports.

Silk_St_John
15 Oct 11 17:25 Joined: 24 Jul 03 | Topic/replies: 7 | Blogger: Silk_St_John's blog
No Celtic.
We dont all want to see our horses battered. Either ban the whip (which unfortunately would see many great horses not give anywhere near there best, but be easy to implement); or make it crystal clear (i.e. 5/6/7 hits). Not counting to seven would then not be an excuse.

That makes no sense, whips are said to make difference so I say again, what's the issue. Also, you mention about some great horses would not have given their best. Well that ain't fair either, as basically on that logic they've been beaten up to get a win.

celtic, its the noise that provides the encouragement. your debating about something you dont know about

if he was a punter we'd all be saying he was pocket talking, did he know the rules?, did he say anything publically before the race?

he said he knew the rules, the problem was he couldnt see the furlong pole

Celtic
Why do you follow horse racing if for years you believe horses have been getting beaten.
Also, my original point asks for clarity, not condeming the jockey for a strike 2 strides before the furlong pole: I quote..

20 Jan 05
| Topic/replies: 1,082 | Blogger: Celtic Son's blog

What was the point of the last one?

rename it " the cushiony foam stick " .

I presume by your name Celtic Sun that you've been backing horses for years, take it you weren't too unhappy with the whip being used on horses you'd backed that won you money beforehand?

He just needs 1.3k on no9 in the next at Kelso.

If he couldnt see it, then I suggest we place a hurdle at the 1f pole

i'm sure every jockey would be happy with 7 strikes per race as previously suggested, and zilzal's idea would be an excellent way to undo some damage. hopefully they will make changes quickly, and impliment them even quicker

That's pathetic Reve. Your attitude confirms you as a betting shop punter, not one that is interested in fair play for every one, as you haven't given a proper answer.

If you think Soumillon needed to hit him that sixth time, you are the type of person who'd like them hit 50 times in the final furlong. There was no reason at all for that last smack.

stewarts rise
Date Joined:     22 Apr 04
Add contact | Send message
15 Oct 11 17:33 Joined: 22 Apr 04 | Topic/replies: 3,158 | Blogger: stewarts rise's blog
I presume by your name Celtic Sun that you've been backing horses for years, take it you weren't too unhappy with the whip being used on horses you'd backed that won you money beforehand?

That's totally irrelevant, the rules are there for here and now. I back in horse racing and what a jockey did before wasn't my deal. Now we have rules, jockeys are getting it all wrong and now kicking off.

youre clueless. im not a betting shop punter and if you think im in any way offended then youre mistaken. you know more than christophe soumillon, richard hughes, jamie spencer, ruby walsh and so many more. good man

its obvious you didnt listen to the interview either if your dismissing what im saying the reason for him going over the limit was. its no wonder your rambling on like a clueless muppet[;)]

They cant take 40k off Christophe and then alter the rules again,even slightly.

Celtic
Twice earlier you stated:
'watch the race and tell me that slap was needed.'

and 'That makes no sense, whips are said to make difference so I say again, what's the issue. Also, you mention about some great horses would not have given their best. Well that ain't fair either, as basically on that logic they've been beaten up to get a win. '
but your last post states:
'That's totally irrelevant'
so what exactly is your problem?

silk, he wont listen because hes right and we are wrong, hes a pro punter and we are beting shop common folk[smiley:crazy]

That's easy to explain, old rules were old rules, if it was used last week too many times, it was within the rules? Now we have rules, apply them.

I know my place.

Reve.
He played the horse welfare card, then stated:
'That's totally irrelevant, the rules are there for here and now. I back in horse racing and what a jockey did before wasn't my deal. Now we have rules, jockeys are getting it all wrong and now kicking off.'

It's bollocks. End of thread.

How many horses have been hurt physically or emotionally by the whip in the last year Celtic?
Rate reply:
| report

Exactly, so why is using a whip such a big deal? By rights, one shouldn't be carried at all using the argument.

Because if you ask any jockey they will tell you it can improve a horses performance, safety and win races.

3ducks, i wouldnt bother. hes pc brigade...

Indeed.

How people can follow racing and agree with this rule is beyond me. If hitting a horse 7 times is cruel then hitting it once is cruel. The whole industry can be seen as cruel, so I have no problem with those who hate it and want it banned but those who follow racing and think the whip is cruel then have a closer look at the bigger picture.

My views aren't based on horse welfare as we've all been told by jockeys and alike the whips don't hurt, so we believe them. I can't make that any more clear.

Watch the Champion Stakes and you tell me with all honesty whether the last smack was needed. I would suggest that smack was through habit not because the horse needed it. If that is the case, jockey gets no sympathy. The Godolphin apprentice got castigated on RUK the other day for doing the same, so why is it so different for Christophe?

Summed it up very well, Steamship.

So why do you agree with it if its not based on animal welfare? Whether the last smack was needed or not I dont care he is the professional he knows what he is doing.

If you thought a sport was cruel, would you follow it? I know I certainly wouldn't.

So why do you contradict yourself? 'horses being beaten' etc.

The issue is the strike 2 strides after the furlong pole.

Also if whips don't hurt as you state below, why have I backed loads of horses (stormez, persian punch) who have been'beaten' to win 'your words'  when you state it doesn't hurt!

Rules is rules

That still doesn't make any sense, I've watched the race loads of times now, the last smack came well inside the final 50 yards when he was clearly in front of SYT. So Christophe saw no 1f pole or rival, did he keep his eyes shut !

i didnt say it was needed celtic,im merely stating that if a big horse is going between you and a sign the size of a football when youre going 40mph then its understandable that hes misjudged where it was and resulting in one whip too many. he thought he had one left so used it just in case. it was worth 700k to win it, plus knock on profits to punters and at stud. he used the whip the last time because he thought he was entitled to and his job depends on winning

answer the questions

Was that last slap required?

Depending on which of your replies you read....

Yes because it doesn't hurt.

No because it contadicts a new, unclear (and farcical) rule.

No because it is against a horses welfare.

PS: I believe it is farcical beacause the implementation, not the principle.

head... brick wall

Madness depriving someone of 50K  for one  extra strike
Maybe  someone can  organise  a whip round for the unfortunate jockey.

Celtic Son
15 Oct 11 17:47 Joined: 20 Jan 05 | Topic/replies: 1,092 | Blogger: Celtic Son's blog
That's easy to explain, old rules were old rules, if it was used last week too many times, it was within the rules? Now we have rules, apply them.

if this happened last week no one would have batted an eye lid you muppet,it's not as if he bashed the horse

revedesivola 15 Oct 11 18:11
head... brick wall




Definitely reve....

Silk_St_John
15 Oct 11 18:11 Joined: 24 Jul 03 | Topic/replies: 13 | Blogger: Silk_St_John's blog
Depending on which of your replies you read....

Yes because it doesn't hurt.

No because it contadicts a new, unclear (and farcical) rule.

No because it is against a horses welfare.

PS: I believe it is farcical beacause the implementation, not the principle.


Yes, because it doesn't hurt? What's the point then, why did he do it? This has a lot to do with jockey habits not just rules.

The rules may well be wrong, probably a total of 7 in a race is the answer or 7 inside the final furlong, and taking the prizemoney away doesn't fit the crime, however, that last smack was not needed, and I suggest it was done through habit not for its 'beneficial' response.

That sort of thing ruins their argument, which might well be correct, although as I said earlier, if the whip has no effect, as jockeys tell us, why are they so annoyed ?

There will always be a need to carry a whip, as places like Worcester and Fontwell have a habit of horses running towards a paddock after their last, but who is lying, do whips affect a horse or not?

Yes they do affect a horse, whether they hurt or not is another matter

I'm not debating anymore because I'm sick and tired of posting your contradictions.
Yes the moon is made of cheese and black is white.
Well done[;)]

spray the grass blue from the furlong pole with vegetable dye

Or have a big arch going across the track with those little beads hanging down (like you have across your back door in summer to keep the wasps out) so the jockeys know when they burst through the beads they have 1 furlong to go.

or increase the penaltys to wiping mc crirricks arse for a month.

had a feeling one of the internationals would get hammered today....unlucky Soumillon. All heart, committment to the game and just got caught up in the emotions of a very high class and valuable race for the horse and connections. shame.

It was weird watching some of the races today...especially Frankie....you could easily see him having a think about how many times he was hitting his mounts. You cant have jockeys riding races where this is all they think about. Some of them would even rather come 2nd than win and get a ban. shocking.

Cant believe they also strip the jockey of all his earnings - This is crazy stuff !
Would definitely back a jockeys strike over that.

Any legal experts on here, could this be brougt to the european courts by  being denigned an income or livelihood

"the last smack came well inside the final 50 yards when he was clearly in front of SYT"

You seem to consider 50 yards as an irrelevant. Yet you're happy to castigate Soumillon for making an error involving an even smaller distance, when he wasn't sure whether he was inside the furlong or not. It's nice and easy to be such a smartarse sat in your armchair at home, but just as on previous threads, your argument here has lacked any kind of consistent logic.

At that stage of a race, a horse can cover upwards of 20 yards in one second. All the while at that speed, the jockey is trying to control a half ton animal, and win a race. I've never ridden a thoroughbred, but I can clearly see it isn't as black and white as you'd like to make out it is from your armchair, or as the BHA would like to make it.

Regardless of your opinion on the whip, I can't believe anyone can support a man being stripped of £50k he has won for trying to be the best he can at his job, and making a mistake. It is absolute madness, and utterly tarnishes the reputation of British racing.

Any jockey could actually strike the horse at the furlong pole. How do the stewards get round that one? Perhaps they should put up photo finish mirrors bang on the 1f pole just to make sure. God knows what will happen if there's 'photo finishes' at the 1f marker.....