|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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... |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. ;) |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|