Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Are 10 'love taps' as bad as, say for example, just 5 of what Spencer dished out to Cape Blanco?
Are 15 'love taps' as bad as 8 hefty whacks by McCoy?
The new rules are encouraging jockeys to make sure every strike counts and to use more force.
Surely this is why, if the whip is to remain, stewards should be left to decide whether or not how the whip was used warrants a suspension.
Are 15 'love taps' as bad as 8 hefty whacks by McCoy?
The new rules are encouraging jockeys to make sure every strike counts and to use more force.
Surely this is why, if the whip is to remain, stewards should be left to decide whether or not how the whip was used warrants a suspension.
Show More
Since they have an unerring knack of fecking things up George, the less discretion in the hands of stewards the better. The only sensible way forward is to ban the whip altogether. That way no jockey could ever get banned for trying too hard. It would also make very little difference to the way results pan out (imo); would there have been different outcomes in any of the races at Ascot yesterday if whips had been banned?
Gerry, imo you couldn't be more wrong. The results of races would be changed immensely if there were no whips. It would happen more over jumps and on soft ground on the flat so ascot yesterday is not a great example tho I'd still be far from certain all the results would have been the same. George's point is a very good one imo.
But it is also the case that if the same race on the flat was run again with whips again, it is very likely a different result would arise.
Gerry, probably not. However, I believe some horses need a few smacks (within reason) to get the most out of them - and isn't that what Flat racing should be about - horses being encouraged to run to the full extent of their abilities? Especially in Group 1 races where most winners will be going on to stud.
As for yesterday at Ascot, I thought Fame And Glory's race was deprived of a great finish because jockeys in behind were clearly conscious about using the whip. Especially SDS on Colour Vision. Under the old rules he would have been encouraging that horse with the whip from over 2f out - as it was, he did what he could under hands and heels (save for a smack about 2f out) and when he did after the horse with the whip, the horse got the message and finished off strongly.
Horses don't come pre-programmed to race, and not all of them race on the bridle and will put it all in under hands and heels. Some of them need a few smacks toget the message.
Under the current rules there is nothing worse than watching a jockey scared to give his mount a few slaps 2 or 3 furlongs out for fear breaking the rules.
As for yesterday at Ascot, I thought Fame And Glory's race was deprived of a great finish because jockeys in behind were clearly conscious about using the whip. Especially SDS on Colour Vision. Under the old rules he would have been encouraging that horse with the whip from over 2f out - as it was, he did what he could under hands and heels (save for a smack about 2f out) and when he did after the horse with the whip, the horse got the message and finished off strongly.
Horses don't come pre-programmed to race, and not all of them race on the bridle and will put it all in under hands and heels. Some of them need a few smacks toget the message.
Under the current rules there is nothing worse than watching a jockey scared to give his mount a few slaps 2 or 3 furlongs out for fear breaking the rules.
Correct Swardean.
IMO no whips would mean no one had an advantage over another (e.g. gambles being hit twice as much with more force as others) and the form would soon settle down.
IMO no whips would mean no one had an advantage over another (e.g. gambles being hit twice as much with more force as others) and the form would soon settle down.
George
I understand your points but if it's only about getting horses to run to the full extent of their abilities why not fill 'em full of drugs to prevent bleeding and pain too then?
I understand your points but if it's only about getting horses to run to the full extent of their abilities why not fill 'em full of drugs to prevent bleeding and pain too then?
Would Giant's Causeway have won the races he did without the whip?
Did he lose his form as a result of being hit with the whip?
The point being he wasn't ungenuine but he had to be told using a whip what his job was. He might not have responded so generously under hands and heels.
Did he lose his form as a result of being hit with the whip?
The point being he wasn't ungenuine but he had to be told using a whip what his job was. He might not have responded so generously under hands and heels.
I think GC would have won without the whip George - the horses in behind him weren't being given 'easies'.
Gerry, I suppose at Group 1 level because it is better for the breed that the horses who are genuine enough, and sound enough to respond to maximum pressure, are the ones who go on to stud.
At a lower level, to ensure horses aren't running with injuries and risking breaking down, thus endangering the jockey and others too in the race.
At a lower level, to ensure horses aren't running with injuries and risking breaking down, thus endangering the jockey and others too in the race.
GEORGE.B Joined: 14 Jul 04
Replies: 6291 16 Oct 11 15:36
Would Giant's Causeway have won the races he did without the whip?
"Objection, your honour. Irrelevance"
Without whips back then, or even under todays regs, by definition his opposition would not have been coerced as much to close on him.
Replies: 6291 16 Oct 11 15:36
Would Giant's Causeway have won the races he did without the whip?
"Objection, your honour. Irrelevance"
Without whips back then, or even under todays regs, by definition his opposition would not have been coerced as much to close on him.
Whatever, the bottom line is there is NO welfare issue with the whip. And 6 smacks won't do a horse any more harm than 10, so long as it is used correctly.
If they are going to ban the whip on grounds of perception then how long before they get round to banning jump racing where there are welfare issues with horses risking their lives? No horse is likely to die from being encouraged with an air-cushioned whip.
It's not just about the whip, it's about standing up and defending both codes of the sport. If they know there is no welfare issue with the whip then they should be prepared to go to court and defend its use if necessary.
If they are going to ban the whip on grounds of perception then how long before they get round to banning jump racing where there are welfare issues with horses risking their lives? No horse is likely to die from being encouraged with an air-cushioned whip.
It's not just about the whip, it's about standing up and defending both codes of the sport. If they know there is no welfare issue with the whip then they should be prepared to go to court and defend its use if necessary.
I spoke to a jockey a couple of days ago, and he dropped his hands once he'd used up his quota of smacks. He said if he could have given it one more he would have won.
This game is about gambling, and thats the fact of the matter. We dont like seeing horses abused, but the game is in danger of falling down the plughole. Lets just go back to the old rules.
This game is about gambling, and thats the fact of the matter. We dont like seeing horses abused, but the game is in danger of falling down the plughole. Lets just go back to the old rules.
Blackrock 16 Oct 11 16:06
I spoke to a jockey a couple of days ago, and he dropped his hands once he'd used up his quota of smacks. He said if he could have given it one more he would have won.
It didn't occur to him that he could have carried on pushing and shoving and kidding and cajoling then - none of which are against the rules! Stick his name up and I'll ask the BHA to investigate under the non-trier rules!
I spoke to a jockey a couple of days ago, and he dropped his hands once he'd used up his quota of smacks. He said if he could have given it one more he would have won.
It didn't occur to him that he could have carried on pushing and shoving and kidding and cajoling then - none of which are against the rules! Stick his name up and I'll ask the BHA to investigate under the non-trier rules!
GEORGE, you are right, anyone who supports or works in this sport/industry need st take on board just what the BHA have done. They have given the whip more airtime on TV than the racing. Who are they trying to please? The punters, the crowds at York or Chester? If it is the animal rights people then you are opening the door to the sport finishing. Why don't the trainers and jockeys see this?
Steamship
I seem to recall saying that they should ban the whip altogether once or twice in the last couple of weeks! No whip would mean that no one could possibly be banned or fined for trying too hard.
I seem to recall saying that they should ban the whip altogether once or twice in the last couple of weeks! No whip would mean that no one could possibly be banned or fined for trying too hard.
I can't understand how anyone who thinks a sport is cruel could have any interest in that sport besides getting it banned. If I thought something was cruel I certainly wouldn't be a supporter of it.
I don't want it banned. I'm saying if I thought it was cruel the only interest I'd have in that sport would be to get it banned. I thought that was fairly clear from my post but apparently not.
Gerry, RE: your point about the stewards - then perhaps now is the time to have a couple of centrally based, professional teams of stewards whose sole job is to deal with whip offences. To look at frequency and force, and in the case of high profile races, to ban jockeys from future big race days.
So for example, a rule breach in the Oaks or Derby - jockey misses some or all of Royal Ascot.
So for example, a rule breach in the Oaks or Derby - jockey misses some or all of Royal Ascot.
Sorry stevie I was asking Gerry. During last years NH season it seemed like every week there were a number of deaths even more noticeable to me due to the lack of racing, at times I have questioned my love of this sport and how I feel about the deaths. Not once have I worried about the whip.
Its OK Steam, the misunderstanding is as much my fault.
Or you could argue that it is better for the breed that the horses who are genuine enough, and willing enough, to win without the jockey having to resort to 'maximum pressure' to force it out of them, are the ones who go on to stud.
Surely better to breed the trait of 'willingness' into the breed than 'laziness'?
Surely better to breed the trait of 'willingness' into the breed than 'laziness'?
Spot on Jezebel. When they banned bare fist fights this lot would've complained that gloves would breed boxers unable to take a doing.
It must be wonderful to know everything Mr Eejit, even people's views on a subject that isn't being discussed.
Certainly is Sir. I am big enough and ugly enough to speak up for myself thank you. No need to put words in my mouth.
You're also paranoid as it wasn't even you that made the point Jezabel was replying to.
'Is the analogy lost on you Stephen'. Is Jezabel called Stephen? So sorry. My therapist has been trying to diagnose me for years now. Paranoia is the answer. Thank you so much Sir.
Steamship,there has always been a number of deaths in racing.If they happen in close time,many start making a noise,then there may not be any for months,balancing out.
The important factor being that connections care very much about their horses,something the media and public find hard to understand.
The important factor being that connections care very much about their horses,something the media and public find hard to understand.
As I stated earlier knowing everything must be wonderful. Again thank you Sir.
As I stated earlier knowing everything must be wonderful.
I don't know about that stevie.
I don't know about that stevie.
Unbiased- I agree I bred a horse and lost it as a yearling, we need to educate people about the sport and animals.
I sincerely hope the pressure of having all that knowledge isn't becoming a burden Mr Eejit as you have been a magnificent help to me Sir.
Jezebel, surely 'willingness' is responding to the whip? Striking a horse with a whip does not guarantee a willing response - and some horses will 'curl up' when struck.
It's not a question of some horses being lazy, they don't come pre-programmed to race, and therefore some need the whip to encorage them to run to the full extent of their ability.
The whip has been used for donkey years because it is the most efficient and effective device for encouaging a horse to quicken / keep it going forward.
It's not a question of some horses being lazy, they don't come pre-programmed to race, and therefore some need the whip to encorage them to run to the full extent of their ability.
The whip has been used for donkey years because it is the most efficient and effective device for encouaging a horse to quicken / keep it going forward.
To be fair, unbiased, it's not that difficult to see why the casual viewer/racegoer/newspaper reader/non-specialist reporter might find it hard to accept the regard that connections hold their horses in. (Before I go on, please understand that I don't agree that their perception is correct, and I work in racing so I have a vested interest in us getting our house in order.)
Just take a step back for a moment, and think in a 'devil's advocate' kind of way how aspects of the sport must come across to the media/public, sometimes direct from the mouths of those very 'connections':
1 - the language; how often do you hear a (often plummy-voiced 'toff' type) say e.g. "he's been a great servant to the yard". To the rest of the world, the concept of 'servants' is out-dated, class-ridden, with echoes of exploitation.
2 - the throughput of horses; once a horse stops winning or an owner gets tired of his/her involvement, the horse is sold, often by public auction. The general public probably think of animals in terms of their pets, and couldn't ever imagine selling their dog or cat, who is a 'family friend'. They don't understand that in the racing world, auctions are the premier way of selling - they probably think of dodgy second-hand car auctions.
3 - the use of the whip; again, the general public wouldn't dream of hitting their pet multiple times with a stick. Beating with a stick is cruelty, the sort of thing you'd be reported to the RSPCA for. They don't understand that it's air cushioned, regulated etc etc.
And yes, in a perfect world we'd be left to get on with our sport and wouldn't have to take the sensibilities of those who have no interest in racing into account. But we live in the modern world with its global media and like it or not, racing only continues to exist with the implicit 'permission' of the general public. If you don't believe me, just ask a Master of Foxhounds.
Just take a step back for a moment, and think in a 'devil's advocate' kind of way how aspects of the sport must come across to the media/public, sometimes direct from the mouths of those very 'connections':
1 - the language; how often do you hear a (often plummy-voiced 'toff' type) say e.g. "he's been a great servant to the yard". To the rest of the world, the concept of 'servants' is out-dated, class-ridden, with echoes of exploitation.
2 - the throughput of horses; once a horse stops winning or an owner gets tired of his/her involvement, the horse is sold, often by public auction. The general public probably think of animals in terms of their pets, and couldn't ever imagine selling their dog or cat, who is a 'family friend'. They don't understand that in the racing world, auctions are the premier way of selling - they probably think of dodgy second-hand car auctions.
3 - the use of the whip; again, the general public wouldn't dream of hitting their pet multiple times with a stick. Beating with a stick is cruelty, the sort of thing you'd be reported to the RSPCA for. They don't understand that it's air cushioned, regulated etc etc.
And yes, in a perfect world we'd be left to get on with our sport and wouldn't have to take the sensibilities of those who have no interest in racing into account. But we live in the modern world with its global media and like it or not, racing only continues to exist with the implicit 'permission' of the general public. If you don't believe me, just ask a Master of Foxhounds.
Jezebel, the same people wouldn't ask their pets to risk breaking their necks jumping 5 ft fences at 30 miles an hour, carrying weights of about 11 stone.
So shall we ban jump racing too?
So shall we ban jump racing too?
Technically, the most effective way of making a horse go forward is use of the leg and seat aids - that's why the whip is needed so rarely (comparable with racing) in showjumping, eventing etc. Jockeys resort to the whip in racing because they're perched over the withers with their seat out of the saddle and their stirrups too short to apply effective leg aids.
I quite agree that not every horse responds to the whip in the same way. For any pro-whip supporters, I would have thought that's a dangerous little argument to get into. If you can't say for certain that hitting X horse with a whip will produce the same behavioural response as hitting Y horse with a whip, then you certainly can't guarantee that 'level playing field' that punters and jockeys are always demanding...
I quite agree that not every horse responds to the whip in the same way. For any pro-whip supporters, I would have thought that's a dangerous little argument to get into. If you can't say for certain that hitting X horse with a whip will produce the same behavioural response as hitting Y horse with a whip, then you certainly can't guarantee that 'level playing field' that punters and jockeys are always demanding...
Steamship - I've yet to read one argument for retaining the whip that cannot be countered with a better argument for getting rid of it. I've also yet to find anyone who can take issue with the fact that if jockeys do not carry whips then they cannot conceivably be punished for trying too hard - something that the sudden plethora of jockey lovers on here will surely support?
Jezebel, it's a tough, high risk sport, with jockeys and horses risking life and limb (particularly over jumps, obviously). Even without the whip, the sport can be hard on horses.
As I've said, it's not just about the whip, but the whip is the thin edge of the wedge - next it will be jump racing, then it be racing 2YOs, etc. You have to defend the sport for what it is.
If we back down over the whip when it is proven there is no welfare issue, where will it all end?
Do we keep appeasing whoever may be opposed to the sport until there is nothing left?
As I've said, it's not just about the whip, but the whip is the thin edge of the wedge - next it will be jump racing, then it be racing 2YOs, etc. You have to defend the sport for what it is.
If we back down over the whip when it is proven there is no welfare issue, where will it all end?
Do we keep appeasing whoever may be opposed to the sport until there is nothing left?
George
Don't you think it's easier to argue a case for retaining something that's natural? Horses run and horses jump - all horse racing does is to harness and in some respects, help make safe, that natural tendency.
Whipping a horse is not a natural thing; you don't see horses manufacturing some means of self-flagellation in the wild (at least I've never seen Dartmoor ponies doing it!)
Imo a total whip ban is not the thin end of the wedge. Instead it's something that enables 'racing' to get way ahead of any arguments for banning the sport altogether.
Don't you think it's easier to argue a case for retaining something that's natural? Horses run and horses jump - all horse racing does is to harness and in some respects, help make safe, that natural tendency.
Whipping a horse is not a natural thing; you don't see horses manufacturing some means of self-flagellation in the wild (at least I've never seen Dartmoor ponies doing it!)
Imo a total whip ban is not the thin end of the wedge. Instead it's something that enables 'racing' to get way ahead of any arguments for banning the sport altogether.
George, I suppose I can find compelling (to me, anyway :) ) arguments in defence of jump racing, 2yo racing, racing in general...but I find it increasingly harder to defend use of the whip for 'encouragement' (I don't dispute carrying it for safety/correction) when without it, every race would still have a winner. It might not be the same winner as it would have been with the whip - which could be said of the majority of races anyway, re-run them again at the same conditions and there's no guarantee the same horse would win* - but the fundamental nature of racing, i.e. running one or more horses against each other so see which one passes the post first - would be unchanged.
I should add that I'm not opposed to the whip because I think it hurts horses - I agree that it mostly doesn't, unless the animal is particularly thin-skinned - but because I can't see the benefit in expending so much effort in fighting to retain something that is so obviously and visibly emotive, when racing could still continue without it; and also as said when there is no objective or scientific evidence that it actually does what everyone assumes it does i.e. make every horse run faster.
*Frankel's races excepted, obviously. ;)
I should add that I'm not opposed to the whip because I think it hurts horses - I agree that it mostly doesn't, unless the animal is particularly thin-skinned - but because I can't see the benefit in expending so much effort in fighting to retain something that is so obviously and visibly emotive, when racing could still continue without it; and also as said when there is no objective or scientific evidence that it actually does what everyone assumes it does i.e. make every horse run faster.
*Frankel's races excepted, obviously. ;)
Gerry, fair enough, but I'm not sure a horse would want to risk breaking its neck trying to jump Beecher's Brook (or it's equivalent) out in the wild!
Because of what happened in this year's race, next year's Grand National is obviously going to come under immense scrutiny. God forbid, but if any horses are killed there are going to be calls for the race (/ jump racing?) to be banned with the death(s) are all over the news.
To ensure 'racing' gets way ahead of all the potential bad publicity and any arguments for banning the sport altogether, should we call the National off now?
Because of what happened in this year's race, next year's Grand National is obviously going to come under immense scrutiny. God forbid, but if any horses are killed there are going to be calls for the race (/ jump racing?) to be banned with the death(s) are all over the news.
To ensure 'racing' gets way ahead of all the potential bad publicity and any arguments for banning the sport altogether, should we call the National off now?
I posted the other day,and had my fax read out on radio 5 live,that the problem lies with the word WHIP,as it conjures up a flailing leaving weal marks.
The media and public don't know the result of a few smacks with the CUSHION WHIP,theynimagine the above,like when people,and some still are,get flailed,leaving them very sore for days after.Nothing like that happens with the whip on horses.
However it desperately needs renaming,and quickly.
Add to that the game needs new leadership pdq.It's in a terrible mess,squabbles,and more and more squabbles,not the way to go.Plus a punter's voice.All having a say,all singing together,make it great again.Can be done.
The media and public don't know the result of a few smacks with the CUSHION WHIP,theynimagine the above,like when people,and some still are,get flailed,leaving them very sore for days after.Nothing like that happens with the whip on horses.
However it desperately needs renaming,and quickly.
Add to that the game needs new leadership pdq.It's in a terrible mess,squabbles,and more and more squabbles,not the way to go.Plus a punter's voice.All having a say,all singing together,make it great again.Can be done.
I think this thread has brought out the best in posters,reasoned arguments without the insults.I think the new rules are ludicrous but i am from the old school so accept something has to be done,jockeys are scared now and don`t know what to do.Gerry Gallbladders idea of banning the whips altogether has some merit so they could ban them for a fortnight and see what happens,if in these races horses are running out of control they can say it just doesn`t work but if it does work.....we have nothing to lose.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539