There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
22 Oct 11
19:01
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
the same people who are arguing for a return to the present day old rules would be calling for a return to the no whip days. (NAP).
Suppose we both own a horse, we race each other regularly along the beach for a grand and neutral spectators come along and bet with each other. After each race we try to agree weights to add in an attempt to level things out for the next race. No whips are used. Now, would there or would there not be a result in each race? Suppose now we both decide to carry whips. There's several things that can happen
1) Neither of them respond to the whip.
2) The two horses respond in different degrees to the whip which hands one of us an advantage.
3) They respond the same to the whip. This hands whichever one of us is prepared to be the cruelest an advantage.
In case 1 the whip is pointless.
In case 2 all that will happen is the weights will be jiggled to account for the whip advantage so what was the point of introducing it in the first place?
In case 3 we would have to introduce whip guidelines so no one could gain an advantage through cruelty. Interpreting these guidelines isn't exactly easy, so what will we do? a) Just ignore whipping with respect to the result, b) employ a drunk to administer the guidelines for each race or c) just not bother with whips at all.
Surely both us would see that introducing whips caused problems while the only thing it introduced was a cruelty aspect? And WTF would the neutral observers want it introduced? In what way would it help their betting?
If anybody sees a flaw in the above logic feel free to spell it out for me. I've heard all the cr@p about the whip being needed to keep the horse straight (if that's true let it be used only to straighten the horse as in hands'n'heels races, but more often than not it's the whip that horses veer away from). As things stand, you don't see non-triers being whipped unless you include airshots or the token slap once all chance has gone. When the money's down though, jockeys are only too willing to break the guidelines and will often even use the whip to ensure their horse takes their nearest challenger's ground. Banning it would not only remove an aid to cheating but would make for more consistent form and improve racing's image.
Suppose we both own a horse, we race each other regularly along the beach for a grand and neutral spectators come along and bet with each other. After each race we try to agree weights to add in an attempt to level things out for the next race. No whips are used. Now, would there or would there not be a result in each race? Suppose now we both decide to carry whips. There's several things that can happen
1) Neither of them respond to the whip.
2) The two horses respond in different degrees to the whip which hands one of us an advantage.
3) They respond the same to the whip. This hands whichever one of us is prepared to be the cruelest an advantage.
In case 1 the whip is pointless.
In case 2 all that will happen is the weights will be jiggled to account for the whip advantage so what was the point of introducing it in the first place?
In case 3 we would have to introduce whip guidelines so no one could gain an advantage through cruelty. Interpreting these guidelines isn't exactly easy, so what will we do? a) Just ignore whipping with respect to the result, b) employ a drunk to administer the guidelines for each race or c) just not bother with whips at all.
Surely both us would see that introducing whips caused problems while the only thing it introduced was a cruelty aspect? And WTF would the neutral observers want it introduced? In what way would it help their betting?
If anybody sees a flaw in the above logic feel free to spell it out for me. I've heard all the cr@p about the whip being needed to keep the horse straight (if that's true let it be used only to straighten the horse as in hands'n'heels races, but more often than not it's the whip that horses veer away from). As things stand, you don't see non-triers being whipped unless you include airshots or the token slap once all chance has gone. When the money's down though, jockeys are only too willing to break the guidelines and will often even use the whip to ensure their horse takes their nearest challenger's ground. Banning it would not only remove an aid to cheating but would make for more consistent form and improve racing's image.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 24
|
By:
if my aunty had b@lls...
|
|
By:
Aunt Balls and Uncle spring to mind. If the Banks had only hadn't lent to people with the mathematical skills of a Duck Billed Platypus and paid people to sit on their arse knocking out sprogs we might not be totally skint
 |
|
By:
Jeez, this is becoming obsessive.
|
|
By:
If the financial sector fraud could be reversed you would council against it?
|
|
By:
You're right "bolty", you're becoming a bit obsessive.
|
|
By:
I have come to the conclusion that half the country struggle with Shoelaces unless there is a information programme Feck
|
|
By:
Yes I must be . It must be me that's spent the last 10 days on every thread on this sbject
|
|
By:
No, that's probably anaglogs or zilzal.
|
|
By:
No it's definetly you. After all this has been your major obsession fot the last 5 years. You must have been delighted when it became a major issue.
|
|
By:
How MANY times are you going to post that Feck - it's completely irrelevant.
|
|
By:
eejit
The BHA review group has said it is not a horse welfare issue The World Horse Welfare organisation also say that the whip does not hurt So if the whip doesnt hurt and the horses welfare is not being compromised why do you think the whip is cruel ? |
|
By:
It's no obsession of mine rsole. When the issue's been raised I've commented just as Anaglogs, zilzal and yourself do. I've probably posted less on the subject than they have.
bilbo, because you don't have an answer to it does not make it irrelevant. ranader, were the recent doings meted out by Spencer and Dettori not cruel? |
|
By:
Not cruel at all.
The whip is not cruel If that is the basis of ur argument then you have no argument in my view |
|
By:
FNE....you certainly live up to your name.
You have never ridden a horse and you believe you know more than trainers/jockeys with years of experience. Trust me the rules will be changed even more in the coming weeks....if not a strike WILL happen....end of. |
|
By:
mmmmmmmmm.. I can't remember opening a thread on the subjact.
How many have you started over the years ? 5 ? 25 ? 50 ? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
WTF
Less than 5. ranader, that's not the basis of my argument. Read the opening post. bigfat, you're a funny guy. BTW, I have ridden a racehorse. |
|
By:
Impressive reply.
Goodnight. |
|
By:
Sleep tight bolty.
|
|
By:
FNE.....Ok how many races did you win?
Riding round a field does not count  |
|
By:
whoever has started bugg ering about with the rules, should lose their jobs- if hughes and walsh are seething there is something definitely wrong going on - its bringing disrepute to the sport and making it a laughing stock...yet again - it will be the end for racing unless someone who knows about the game gets put in charge.... Sir AP step up to the plate please....
|
|
By:
TBFB
As Kevin Darley keeps proving, riding a winner or even having been champion jockey is no guarantee that you'll have anything meaningful to say. |
|
By:
GG...KD was never the man for the job....he's a wimp!!
|
|
By:
ruby hughes-ap know more about horses minds than most will ever know-use that experience-and you will get closer to the truth- people who think they know- know nothing
|