Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
From the outset I was not an advocate of rule change knowing full well that no jockey sets out to abuse their horse and those who show excessive exuberance are either pulled in by the stewards or admonished by their peers.
For the BHA to revise these latest rules to now allow a greater number of hits to be administered in the final furlong is, in effect, not only illogical but flies in the face of what I presumed was sound scientific argument put forward by their veterinary experts during the initial review.
If, as has been suggested by certain parties that the whip inflicts 'pain' on the animal then I would have thought that a series of strikes in rapid succession in the final furlong is likely to be more allegedly 'painful' by virtue of the rider's momentum in gathering up to a crescendo of hits before the winning line.
Spread out during the course of a race I would imagine those mid-race strikes to be less severe and certainly allowing time for any alleged 'pain' to subside.
What they now seem to be saying is that the change last week was to minimise 'pain' to the horse during the final furlong but due to further representation by the jockeys they're now happy to revise the rules again so that they can increase the 'pain'.
Surely, the Chief Veterinary Officer must realise that his position is now untenable?
For the BHA to revise these latest rules to now allow a greater number of hits to be administered in the final furlong is, in effect, not only illogical but flies in the face of what I presumed was sound scientific argument put forward by their veterinary experts during the initial review.
If, as has been suggested by certain parties that the whip inflicts 'pain' on the animal then I would have thought that a series of strikes in rapid succession in the final furlong is likely to be more allegedly 'painful' by virtue of the rider's momentum in gathering up to a crescendo of hits before the winning line.
Spread out during the course of a race I would imagine those mid-race strikes to be less severe and certainly allowing time for any alleged 'pain' to subside.
What they now seem to be saying is that the change last week was to minimise 'pain' to the horse during the final furlong but due to further representation by the jockeys they're now happy to revise the rules again so that they can increase the 'pain'.
Surely, the Chief Veterinary Officer must realise that his position is now untenable?
Show More
this is nothing compared to what they have done to horse racing punters, its a pity that doesnt get much coverage from the media
The new cushioned whips must be a good thing.
Some horses used to get very badly marked up.
But at the end of the day, a whip's a whip,
which will obviously still be very painfull.
The jockies don't exactly tap them with it,
do they?
Let's be honest, it must hurt like hell!
Some horses used to get very badly marked up.
But at the end of the day, a whip's a whip,
which will obviously still be very painfull.
The jockies don't exactly tap them with it,
do they?
Let's be honest, it must hurt like hell!
The BHA have done the right thing for the sport. The whip is not a weapon of torture, it is a tool to remind a powerful animal to maintain its gallop in a straight line.
The majority of race horses are well looked after and only have to work for no more than one hour per year. Training on the gallops is exercise and enjoyment.
The majority of race horses are well looked after and only have to work for no more than one hour per year. Training on the gallops is exercise and enjoyment.
LuckyLucan 21 Oct 11 11:37
".... a series of strikes in rapid succession in the final furlong"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You can equally argue that is precisely what the '5 limit' rule could have encouraged.
Anyway - "a series of strikes in rapid succession," ...
would/will STILL incur a transgression of BASIC whip rules - for -
'excessive use (in frequency) - due to not giving the horse time to respond'
Just as it was a transgression of the rules under the '5 limit' - and, more importantly' - was SO prior to all this hullabaloo. -
and will remain So, now.
----------------------------------------------
You've got your logic wrong, Lucan.
".... a series of strikes in rapid succession in the final furlong"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You can equally argue that is precisely what the '5 limit' rule could have encouraged.
Anyway - "a series of strikes in rapid succession," ...
would/will STILL incur a transgression of BASIC whip rules - for -
'excessive use (in frequency) - due to not giving the horse time to respond'
Just as it was a transgression of the rules under the '5 limit' - and, more importantly' - was SO prior to all this hullabaloo. -
and will remain So, now.
----------------------------------------------
You've got your logic wrong, Lucan.
'Hurt like hell' One Footed Pony?
How many times have you seen a horse veering across the course INTO the whip? If it hurt they wouldn't do it.
How many times have you seen a horse veering across the course INTO the whip? If it hurt they wouldn't do it.
'Hurt like hell' One Footed Pony?
How many times have you seen a horse veering across the course INTO the whip? If it hurt they wouldn't do it.
How many times have you seen a horse veering across the course INTO the whip? If it hurt they wouldn't do it.
Jim Crowley hir the Guardian writer Greg Wood over the hands with the whip with full force and didn't feel a thing. So don't talk bollocks 'one footed pony'.
"But at the end of the day, a whip's a whip,
which will obviously still be very painfull."
Where is the logic in this?
The evidence of the BHA professor is the whip is not cruel.
The RSPCA do not say it is cruel.
The journalist got a wack and it did not hurt.
People have it in their heads this is the old fashioned BANNED whip. The "good horse whipping" in literature which was hellish painful.
The cushioned "whip" is not the same.
If it were to be called something else we would divorce it from the old whip which did hurt and did mark the horse.
which will obviously still be very painfull."
Where is the logic in this?
The evidence of the BHA professor is the whip is not cruel.
The RSPCA do not say it is cruel.
The journalist got a wack and it did not hurt.
People have it in their heads this is the old fashioned BANNED whip. The "good horse whipping" in literature which was hellish painful.
The cushioned "whip" is not the same.
If it were to be called something else we would divorce it from the old whip which did hurt and did mark the horse.
I did set out to praise the way horse racing
has progressed. It just came out that way!
Whips are what they are, whatever anyone says.
At least they don't draw blood and thank God
for that!
has progressed. It just came out that way!
Whips are what they are, whatever anyone says.
At least they don't draw blood and thank God
for that!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539