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.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 48
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
I think GC would have won without the whip George - the horses in behind him weren't being given 'easies'.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
The whip rule is not right because it is incorrect.
|
|
By:
What should they do then Gerry?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Why would you ban it?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Its OK Steam, the misunderstanding is as much my fault.
|
|
By:
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'? |
|
By:
Spot on Jezebel. When they banned bare fist fights this lot would've complained that gloves would breed boxers unable to take a doing.
|
|
By:
It must be wonderful to know everything Mr Eejit, even people's views on a subject that isn't being discussed.
|
|
By:
Is the analogy lost on you Stephen?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
You're also paranoid as it wasn't even you that made the point Jezabel was replying to.
|
|
By:
'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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
No worries stevie. Hope it helps.
|
|
By:
As I stated earlier knowing everything must be wonderful. Again thank you Sir.
|
|
By:
As I stated earlier knowing everything must be wonderful.
I don't know about that stevie. |
|
By:
Unbiased- I agree I bred a horse and lost it as a yearling, we need to educate people about the sport and animals.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
*encouraging
|