Interesting thread featuring an old problem that always leads to controvery.

I won't comment about the race in question, and, indeed, I freely admit that I don't really understand the so-called whip rules nowadays. There doesn't seem much consistency from any quarter, with the possible exception of Richard Hills when he was riding for those arabs.

In all, I think the trainer Berry has come up with possibly the best idea for sorting out the current mess; and ET has been more logical than Tony.
Either the whip is essential and effective or it isn't. There are enough imponderables in the racing game without us or rulers having to guess whether a horse is "lazy" or not. No man can know what a horse is feeling at a particular time, imo.

Tony keeps getting emotional about the lightness of the modern whip and seems to think no other would know about this. I'd wonder did he ever attend Ballinasloe Fair in the old days and see how we used to cosh 'em all the time? Don't forget I'm chatting about a thick hazel or sally stick at least an inch and a half thick.

There are several ould lads who don't seem to think this beating was necessary; they seemed to be able to catch half wild horses without too much stick or which the odd clout across the nose to slow them down if bolting.

Any who believes jockeys are kind horse-lovers is not living in the same world as me; the amount of kicking and punching that goes on ( used to go on, perhaps) would surprise them and shock many.

I don't know the rights and wrong of it all, but a good lacing with a bit of that blue plastic pipe DOES hurt, regardless of what the "sharper brains" of folk on the btfr forum might say.

In the racing game, 'tis the results that matter. It is a business, and so is the gambling industry.
Consistency would make our game more attractive, imo.