scudamore ban on soll, ffs i getting done every which way possible

Man up ffs.

life is over

was Charlie banned too?

Agree with kenbo, though the rules are a joke really.

Don't think so IS,, but not 100%.

The Stewards held an enquiry into the use of the whip by Tom Scudamore, the rider of the winner, SOLL, from approaching the second last. Having heard his evidence and viewed recordings of the race, they found him in breach of Schedule (B)6 Part 2 in that he used his whip above the permitted level . The Stewards suspended Scudamore for 7 days as follows: Saturday 16, Sunday 17, Monday 18, Tuesday 19, Wednesday 20, Thursday 21, Friday 22 January 2016. Under Rule (B)54 the Stewards also fined the rider £1,150.

and so he should be

Part of the game now, fine's & suspension's are de rigueur !

No respect for the horse, very much like his father .Look at, me not the horse.

Interview me and iam all about horse welfare .Cheat and liar.

For clarification, when I said the rules are a joke I didn't mean Scudamore shouldn't be punished. I meant that until they start dishing out punishments to the horse (which isn't to blame, of course) then jockeys will continue to flout the regulations, especially when it's for a decent pot.

Exactly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imo when the Scuds/Pipes depart the game ,the better it will be .History does not lie.

Look what he ( Big old Scu) is doing with the stable he is involved with,Laughable really.

The last time I saw Big Scu being interviewed on the Morning Line, he seemed brahms & liszt !   

You cant change History .

Big old Scu seams to think hiding away near kinross he can do what he wants with horses.How wrong can he be.

Caught Lucy hook line and sinker

For anyone interested Scu on Desert Island Discs .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0093qjy

You can imagine the difficulty selling the game to the uninitiated. The conversation may go something like this:

Fan - So. The idea of the game is you beat the horse to win the race.
Potential fan - I see. So everybody wacks hell out of their horse.
Fan - Well not quite. Some do wack the hell out of it and some stick to the rules on how many times you can beat the horse.
Potential fan - Ah. So there are rules.
Fan - Well yes but not everybody complies.
Potential fan - I can see that could be a problem. Still I suppose if they disqualify the horse when the rider cheats that will help keep a lid on things.
Fan - Err. Well they actually ban the jockey for a few days.
Potential fan - But won't that mean where you have an expensive race a jockey will flog a horse nearly to death to win, get a nice earner and then have a few days off?
Fan - Pretty much.
Potential fan - So how do you know who is going to flog their horse and when and who will stick to the rules?
Fan - You don't.
Potential fan - But won't that mean if I bet then even if I pick the best horse in the race that a jockey who cheats may cause his horse to beat the best horse if that jockey sticks to the rules?
Fan - Basically.
Potential fan - I think I'll stick to some other "sport" thanks.

^ Touch's on interval training !

in todays race equivalent of beating up an old age pensioner  in the park

Not the greatest analogy, but, take your point !

some want to get a grip..the rules are a joke..jockeys are horsemen, if they hit the horse 15 times ..so be it..they have vets there to see if the horse is marked..if so..fine the jockey and ban him..this is what happens all over the world..only us in our stupid country could listen to the animal rights crowd and fall for this nonsense..the whips today are childsplay for these horses the 8 strike rule is a joke..

heard that argument this morning from fitzy if there that light and a horse cant feel them,even more reason to get rid considering the ridiculous situation where getting where jocks riding within the rules are losing punters money in photo finishes, laughable in any other sport

Nonsense. It is as much about fairness for racing enthusiasts. If one jockey wacks his horse 50 times and another 5 and the former wins by a neck then punters would have every right to be appalled.

Totally right 1st timer. They haven't a leg to stand on. It's either a licence for uncontrollable beasts to muller horses or if these nonsensical people making the opposite argument are right and they have no effect then no need to have them. You can't make an argument that they have little to no effect and yet see some jockeys flogging horses because clearly they think the whip has an affect.

This is the 21st century for goodness sake.

its not about how many times a horse is hit..the rule is stupid, some horse don't need the stick ..others do, as for getting rid of the whip well dream on.

Not a universally popular view I'm sure but take the whip off people like McCoy and Johnson and they wouldn't have stood a chance against proper jockeys.

wonder how far we are from connections of a horse at chelt,aintree,etc beaten in a photo by a jockey flouting the rules,launching an appeal against the result

Why do some horses need the stick Tony. What effect does it have on them?

Imagine it's the Olympics and they are on the last lap of the 10000 metres and everyone knows Mo is going to win. Then someone sets fire to the seconds ar5e. Does Mo still win?

total bull eo..why are we the only country to have the rule ffs..Ireland and france have no 8 strikes your out crap?..have you seen or held a whip?..i have ..half ton of animal will laugh at it ..im sorry you don't have a clue.

Time was you could thrash a horse over the line without fear of punishment. Now you can only hit them a few times with what is apparently no firmer than a feather duster. Your 'dream on' assertion seems awfully bold in light of that.

So you prefer the French Rules of Racing to the British version, Tony?

you could argue that because the whips are so much lighter jocks are using them harder,higher and longer to get the same effect the old one,s got,i aint really bothered one way or another about the rules,but you cant carry on having jockeys breaking the rules and picking up the pot

Imagine going back to connections saying "Another 2 slaps and we'd have won but I didn't want a ban", Good luck riding for them again.
The rules are a farce.

some horse need the whip for encouragement, or laziness..the whip does not hurt them, some are only moaning cos its there pocket talking..the rules is wrong simple, jockeys are horsemen who love horses..until the day a jockey comes out and says I don't need the whip..then people who don't do the job should stop talking crap

I never said I prefare the French rules?..i said the French and irish don't have a 8 strike rule?

some jocks love horses no more than froome loves his bike or hamilton loves his car,in the past irish jockeys have covered half the stands with claret,you aint telling me they loved horses

tony57    02 Jan 16 17:33 
I never said I prefare the French rules?..i said the French and irish don't have a 8 strike rule?

I realise that. The French are a lot quicker to DQ horses than the British are. Do we just cherry-pick which of their rules we approve of?

I see you're no more logical than you ever were tony and continue to refuse to address inconvenient questions. So I'll ask another way:

If a horse is lazy and need encouragement from the whip by what mechanism is this encouragement given?

If the whip has no effect and doesn't hurt the animal then why beat it?

Watching the race, it was always likely that Scu would get up after the last. He was already staying on and closing the gap before the last fence.
The first and second put six lengths between them and the third, who jumped the last in front of the winner.

No amount of whipping would have won it for the second. We don't know whether the winner would have got up with fewer strokes. Or without any strokes at all after the last.
The horse had already responded after hits between the last two fences. He just kept hitting him after the last to try and make make sure he didn't pack it in.

Until they start taking the full prize money off them, then they will keep cheating on a totally unforceable rule

Deutch had seven whacks after the last and still the horse couldn't go any faster..........

so you can understand eo..a jockey hits the horse with the whip..the action of the jockey also the noise of the whip and the slap..encourages the horse?..half a ton of animal..with today's whips..i know its hard for someone who has never held a whip to see how light they are..but we are talking about professional horse people some riding since nappies..who love horses  you speak as if they intentionally hurt horses...? did a vet complain today that a horse was marked?..no..how many vets do throughout the year?..minimal..so therefore the whip does not hurt a horse  fact.

as before eo..I can show you were your wrong..on another forum you poo pood my complaints about posts being deleted yet weeks later were in the same situation yourself..i was right then as I am now..

Only solution other than my first post, is either the whip goes or the rule goes

1st time poster - yes they may appeal, but only to the same body who make the rules, so how do you think any appeal will change the result?

are you saying 3 day eventers,making their horses jump solid poles,banks water jumps etc,drive their horses to the point of exhaustion over 3 days ,dont love their horses, and if horses dont feel the whip,etc why do trainers always come on tv saying they dont want to sour horses,endure them to hard races etc

Jockey breaks the rule .....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Horse loses the race.

again the rule is wrong, it should never be the case that a horse wins the race but a jockey gives it 2 more than the loser, and the loser is given the race..its fascicle! there was no problem before this daft rule, racing rulers brought shame on themselves caving in to idiots who no nothing about the game or horses..

1st time poster, you argue about doing away with the whip, how would you correct a horse then?

Ask it nicely ?

Sorry I'm not convinced tony but you can easily settle it. Get someone you know to give you a few wacks on your bare ar5e cheeks with the whip and stick it up on you tube.

read the post i dont give a shoite either way but if pro,s like fitzy say its that light it makes no difference,whats the point of having these arguments, debates at the end of every race,you heard kelly this morning a grade 1 winner saying she,d never ever break the rules and other jocks saying the ends justifiy the means

as most bookies pay double results if stewards threw a few out and connections were losing on their cut of 100 grand plus and most punters didnt ,i,d think the jockeys would learn to count pretty quickely

Can you elaborate what you mean by correct koi?

It's called jockeyship. Beyond that I'm sure there are plenty of us who want to see the most resilient and gutsy horse win the race because it wants to win or it has the assistance of a great horse man/woman. Isn't the whole point of horse breeding to improve the breed? Surely getting rid of the whip is a very good way of doing so? The most determined and best horse win the best races. The dodge pots who need flogging to put the effort in don't and the breeding lines move towards the courageous ones.

Jockey breaks the rule .....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Horse loses the race.

I agree with that 11kv.

I don't think that excessive use of the whip wins many races.
You often see a horse getting a belting and still losing, but if the winner gets a belting they say he won because of the whip.

Watch Lester Piggott throw away the Arc De Triomphe on Niginsky here. He'd got it in the bag before he hit the horse. Watch the horse swerve away from the whip and throw the race away.
It's the not so mighty Lester Piggott here if you look closely.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=niginsky+in+the+acr+de+triomph&view=detail&mid=CB331DC731F6A72CC720CB331DC731F6A72CC720&FORM=VIRE1

in contrast look at the rat a tat tat he gives the minstrel, LOL

Scudamore playing the victim after the race. Can he not count or did he not know the rules? The BHA should warn the jockeys the bans are going UP if they persist.

Yes 1tp, it's arguable how balanced Piggott could have been there on the Minstrel with his arm going like a fiddlers elbow.

He always looked like getting up anyway without the thrashing.

Interesting take on the issue from John Berry's blog

I don't really have any views on the use of the whip.  It isn't an issue at all as far as welfare goes, and if you don't like the way a jockey rides, then you don't use him.  That's it really.  I don't actually know what the whip rules are, and have no interest in finding out: they don't apply to trainers, so I don't need to know them.  The majority of times when I've watched a race and hear afterwards that one of the jockeys has received a whip ban, it's usually the case that I've watched the race without having been aware that any offence was being committed.  But what does concern me is whip rules (or, as a general principle of law-making, any rules) which aren't enforced: as soon as one writes whip rules, one is giving a message to the general public that the whip has been misused any time that the rules have been broken.  So continually to allow this message to be given is very irresponsible.  If we are going to do that (and it seems that we are) then we would be better just not to have any whip rules, because then they can't be broken.
Why this has come up now is that the King George was a rare occasion when I think that the winner would not have won had the jockey abided by the rules - and it was also a rare occasion when I watched a race and felt that the whip was not being used correctly.  (Although what disappointed me was probably not the reason for the bans which both jockeys received: I was disappointed to see them both ride into the last fence with only one hand on the reins).  Anyway, the stewards obviously felt that something was wrong, witness Paddy Brennan receiving an 11-day ban and a £4,200 fine, and Ruby Walsh receiving a two-day ban.  The former's punishment clearly suggested that he had broken the rules to a major degree - and my reading of the race (during the bulk of which he had ridden superbly) was that Cue Card would not have won had Paddy used his whip more sparingly.  Under the circumstances, it makes no sense at all that the horse was allowed to keep the race, both from the point of view of fairness and from the point of view of sending the wrong message to the man on the Clapham omnibus, ie telling him two things, namely that (a) the whip was misused and (b) it doesn't really matter.  If we are going to tell him that it doesn't really matter, then we would be better not to have brought the matter up in the first place.
Anyway, disqualification obviously presents major problems.  Firstly it would really piss punters off, and secondly it opens the door to potential integrity breaches.  At present, there are only two ways in which a jockey can guarantee that his mount won't win: throwing himself off and 'forgetting' to weigh in.  Both are problematic.  Throwing oneself off a galloping horse is very hard to do (and even harder to do without it being obvious that one has done it deliberately) while forgetting to weigh in can be very difficult if the trainer walks back into the weighing room with you to make sure that you don't forget. But if breaking the whip rules carries automatic disqualification - well, that makes guaranteeing that a horse won't win a piece of cake: all one would have to do would be something which I haven't been able to do but which I assume all jockeys have already done (ie learn what the whip rules actually say), and then break them.
So disqualification is tricky.  So here's the solution.  If a jockey breaks the whip rules, then his mount is not disqualified, but the prize money (to owner, trainer, jockey and stable staff) is withheld.  The horse is still the winner of the race, the trophy is still presented to and kept by his owner, and punters who have backed him get paid - but the prize money is not paid.  Instead, the prize money is given to the first horse across the line whose jockey hasn't broken the whip rules (or could be divided equally among every horse in the race whose jockey did not break the rules).  At present, the more valuable race, the less significant the deterrent to breaking the rules; under 'my' system, the more valuable race, the more significant the deterrent to breaking them.  You can guarantee under this plan that any jockey unwilling to ride within the rules would receive fairly short shrift from the owners, trainers and staff whose horses he/she rides.
I really can't see a downside - particularly with the prize money instead going to the teams who had obeyed the rules, because that would once in while produce a nice bonus for abiding by the rules, and would take away the grievance of having lost out financially because one's jockey had kept within the rules while another had transgressed.  There's no better way of ensuring that the rules are adhered to than making sure that owners and trainers insist that they aren't broken on their horses - and this would be the best way of bringing that about.  (And, by the way, please don't trot out the old chestnut of it being unfair for connections to suffer for their jockey's mistake - that's just a fact of life, an everyday occurrence already.  It's a given that when one is training and racing horses one receives the benefit and credit for one's employees - including one's jockeys - doing the job well, and one suffers for one's employees' mistakes.  That happens all the time anyway, both within the races and in the preparation for them).

Didn't the stewards make McCoy take lessons on how to use the whip properly in his early days before he rode for Pipey ?

Very interesting comment from that blog bobbyjo. I agree. Somethig else he raises which someone with race riding experience could perhaps comment on is this issue of taking a hand of the reins approaching a fence. I'd have thought the singular most important thing to do in those last few strides is to get the horse balanced in order to traverse the obstacle.

On a similar theme something I noticed which Cooper did between three out and two out is he seemed to move the reins around from one side of Don Cossack to the other rather vigorously. Hard to describe if you didn't see it but it was a bit like walking down the isle in Tesco and ramming your trolley from side to side knocking over other shoppers. I would have thought a more logical thing to do would be to drive the horse in a straight line to the fence get it balanced and try to jump cleanly. I don't know if it was coincidental but after doing this the horse fell.

Eeternaloptimist 02 Jan 16 18:54
Can you elaborate what you mean by correct koi?

Do they carry whips in "hands and heels" races... why do you think that is?

Correct?
Koi means straighten them up surely?

Of course thats what i meant, it was to 1st time poster post about getting rid of the whip altogether...

it would be impossible to race ride without a whip.

wellsaid koi,
   and I said before unless your out there riding in a race to say jockeys should not hit a horse more than 8 times in a race is non starter..the rest of the world laugh at us..look how the anti crowd have destroyed the grand national?..its now a ordinary 4 m handicap for a lot of money..all to appease people who wont go racing and don't understand the sport.same with the whip..

As I backed Vautour last week and Aachen yesterday should I now be feeling aggrieved ?

I'd imagine it is for safety reasons koi. The very fact that they do have hands and heels races shows it is perfectly possible to not beat a horse to make it run faster. Horses enjoy racing against each other. They will do so in the wild. I agree with you that a jockey should carry a whip to help prevent injury to themselves, other jockeys or their own or others mounts. That's how I'd like to see things in the future but I appreciate that is just one of many opinions. Removing the ability to flog a horse would be the ultimate test of man and beast in my view.

The problem with whip bans is that they are retrospective, gives the offender free licence.

If they changed the rules so bans were instant, then the jockeys may change their approach. Under current rules you beat the fook out of horses for the entire cheltenham festival which might lead you to missing a monday meeting at plumpton.

The jockeys live in their own little bubble. It needs someone to criticise them in public. Johnny Francs would be the man.

Scudamore "fuming",,, you hit it 14 times YSC.

Rightly or wrongly some horses are lazy by nature. So what do you do with a lazy animal ??

The rule is there to be broken regarding miss use of the whip.  J Moore is a top jock but also a great example of how you can barge your way out trouble and win a group race. 

Rules are there as a guide line nothing more.

The sooner horses start getting chucked out for jockey error and miss use the better.

Sorry meant Ryan Moore ^

When watching c4 yesterday i swear i heard them saying that tom was telling off charlie for hitting his so much after the last.

The answer is simple, the penalties for jockeys breaking the rules need to be more severe.
And the bigger the prize they're racing for the bigger the penalty.

Stand them down for three months at a time, or six or whatever it takes.

Where's the problem? They're too soft on them.

Don't feel sorry for them, just do it.

people argue that counting the number of smacks is wrong/irrelevant and takes away from the real issue of action, severity and giving the horse time to respond, but Scudamore was hitting Soll once every 3 strides on the run-in...surely that's not considered enough time to respond?

re. what do you do with a lazy horse...imo if horse is lazy is irrelevant..just cos it's lazy, doesnt mean you have the right to abuse it to get the best out of it...besides, it's a thin/invisible line between being 'lazy' and simply not wanting to be racing

koi ive told you once stop saying i want the whip banned if they change the rules to say you can whip them till they bleed so be it,my beef is horses losing in close finishes because jocks are breaking the rules because its in their interest to do so,

you could have lost money yesterday because of scu breaking the rules,but you could also lose money on a wet monday at plumpton because youve backed a horse ridden by scu,but he,s beaten in a photo after not using the whip because he,d have been banned from the up coming cheltenham festival,theres no doubt jockeys work out when any bans might take place before racing starts on any given days ,the same way they avoid dodgey novice jumpers etc before big festivals

1st time poster 02 Jan 16 17:16
heard that argument this morning from fitzy if there that light and a horse cant feel them,even more reason to get rid considering the ridiculous situation where getting where jocks riding within the rules are losing punters money in photo finishes, laughable in any other sport

Maybe just the way I read it?

EXACTLY MY POINT BEEN all the controversy after every big race and the pro,s try to tell us they make little difference, so either ban,em or have unlimited strikes

unlimited strikes on a weary horse would show the sport in a very poor light imo

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.