|
By:
fascinating thread, ban the use of the whip after the last, and in the final furlong of flat races.
|
|
By:
WALOFS.
|
|
By:
The whip will be banned within 10 years. Johnsons offence today would have gone fairly unnoticed however we have had the 4 deaths today and so this is getting added on to reports.
Jockeys will keep breaking the current rule. |
|
By:
I can't say I noticed that Johnson's ride was that bad at all. Watching Pacha Du Polder in the Foxhunters I was shouting at the jockey, 'Push it out!, Use your whip!' and despite her taking no notice of my towering presence over the TV, she still managed to win. Then I found out she'd dislocated her shoulder. One wonders what difference the whip makes...
|
|
By:
The thing is they brought these new whip rules in to appease the animal welfare types. If the jockeys don't care when they break them then there is no point in them. They either go back to the old whip rules or they bring a penalty in that actually means the jockeys and connections are sufficiently penalised.
You can't have a position where you have rules in place so that the BHA can say but look what we are doing for horse welfare with these rules but then have jockeys breaching the rules in the top races because they don't care about the slap on the wrist they get. You are just giving the animal welfare types ammo by agreeing that it shouldn't happen but that making it clear you're not going to actually do anything that will prevent it. |
|
By:
The only thing that would stop it is disqualification and that has precisely no chance of happening.
How would it have worked today, stewards enquiry called ? then a protracted delay whilst the strokes of the whip are counted and the ambiguity with whether one was a proper hit or he was just waving it. And that's before you get onto the grey area of whether that in taking the winner down you've actually denied the rightful horse his win. Who'd have been comfortable with Native River having that taken away from him today ?....not me What about throwing out a Derby winner, with all the breeding implications that entails down the line with Derby winner being omitted from his "page" |
|
By:
What about if it was good ground and it came down to a head bobber and Nico decided to lose track of his whip count as well and you have two jockeys pulverising their mounts with the whip to win the biggest prize in jumps and it becomes the main story about the race on the news. How both jockeys broke the rules to win and all they get is a weeks rest and a 6k fine. Who would be comfortable with that? What would the repercussions of that be?
|
|
By:
And the GC winner is 10 lengths back in 3rd.
It would be good on here, a good few more 999/1 winners going in, the shroodies would be counting the whip strokes to place lay horses at 1.01...carnage all round. |
|
By:
They have to keep the whip of course for correction purposes if it's needed which is a shame as I suspect the race results would be largely unaffected without it with regards to horse encouragement. I'd have thought the message the horse gets from feeling the jockey pushing it along has much the same effect.
|
|
By:
Much the same as they do with hands and heels races where they still carry the whip, why not trial a hands and heels meeting with the pro jocks...it would be interesting to see how it goes.
|
|
By:
I didn't say it should be disqualification. You did. As I've said I think there has to be a penalty for the owners and trainers as well.
This will come to a head at one point though. This rule hasn't been brought in so the best horse can win. It's been brought in to appease the animal welfare lobby. If it doesn't do that and it also potentially affects the outcome of races at times because the penalty is meaningless then they may as well get rid of the rule. You can't have a rule which may affect the outcome of a race and has been brought in so the BHA can be seen to be thinking about animal welfare but then tell jockeys if you break it it doesn't matter and you may be better off if you do. |
|
By:
I don't think it should be dq'd either, I was just saying that that would be only way it would stop it happening.
|
|
By:
duffy you're missing the point completely.
No jockey would break the whip rules knowing full well they'll lose the race. The situations you outlined would be almost impossible. |
|
By:
Brutal ride be very surprised if that doesnt have an effect on the horse though he is v strong.
|
|
By:
Absolutely eric,
Punters support jockeys using the whip, then when the horse's form takes a dip they cry foul. Half the trouble with horses running poorly especially the older ones is that they're fed up with getting a good hiding for doing their best, so when they're asked to improve in a race they're reluctant. Horses remember. |
|
By:
i think it'll be gone in 5 not 10 unless they stop using it in a finish.
Lets have the just used for 'control' , keeping the horse straight or even a reminder to get him moving but stop the thrashing in a finish. Whatever we think it doesn't look on terestial tv , with HD dolby sound whatever to see horses being whipped in this fashion. |
|
By:
IF HORSES WERE DISQ, would they bring VAR in,as said no one mentioned ,notice deckies use of the whip till the stewards announced it ,are we sure if the hiorse was getting disq fromm the gold cup instead of a piffling fine they,d have said anything,will we have beaten owners,trainers counting strokes and objecting, what if 3,even 4 are all whipping away in a tight finish do we throw 4 out and give it to a horse beaten a distance,what if all finishes break the rules is there no winner of thsat brace for this year or do you give it to the one who hit it least, and will it get like golf where punters are counting and phoning in complaining
think we,ll just have to stick to fines |
|
By:
but if you weren't allowed to use it for a finish , perhaps one or two 'wake ups' , then the odd time a jockey got carried away and starting whipping in the finishing drive - well it would stand out and everyone watching would know the jockey and horse would be in trouble and likely banned and disqualied
|
|
By:
The obvious and most simple answer is disqualification for incorrect use of the whip.
If they don't bring that in they'll soon be banning the whip altogether in races. They can choose either as far as I'm concerned. |
|
By:
It is surprising that experienced riders keep doing this in big races, particularly when the horse is going away. The Foxhunter was a classic case of how a horse will respond to NOT being hit. I didn't back it this year but from the turn into the straight I was watching Pacha and there is no doubt that he needed nothing from the rider other than sitting as still as possible. The horse knew exactly what to do. I suspect that Native River would have done the same. Having said that there are plenty of horses that would stop without a hard ride.
|
|
By:
I noticed that as well in the Foxhunters sageform.
The rider simply sat there. Just goes to show that he best horse usually wins, and the antics of the jockeys like monkeys on a stick doesn't make much difference. I think the jockey had hurt her shoulder, and couldn't use the whip. If she could have used it I'm sure the horse would have received plenty of cracks. |
|
By:
surely the argument is she looked like winning easy when going past,but the others closed because they were getting hit and she wasn't,i,d say the race was an argument for using the whip, not the opposite
|
|
By:
Which one won 1tp, the ones getting hit or the one that wasn't?
''Held up in roughly midfield, headway 16th, good progress approaching 2 out, ridden before last, led run-in, pressed by rallying runner-up when pushed out towards finish, always looked in control (op 20/1)'' Probably getting tired, never in danger of getting beat anyway according to the RacingPost race readers. |
|
By:
It was not for overuse. Richard Johnson, the rider of the winner, NATIVE RIVER (IRE), was suspended for 7 days and fined £6,550 for using his whip above the permitted level from approaching the second last fence.
|
|
By:
'good hiding' , 'pulverised' , 'thrashing' - what a barrage of garbage - have you seen or felt a modern whip?
It inflicts no pain on a half ton thoroughbred - it is more about rhythm and sight and encouraging the 'flee' instinct - the majority of horses are lazy and will do the bare minimum - they need to be physically forced to gallop flat out. The tree huggers will have them in carpet slippers and gags next - turn your animal welfare ire onto debeaked battery hens , monkeys having shampoo rubbed in their eyes , smoking beagles , veal calves and your Turkey Xmas dinner that never see the light of day before it's dead on your tables. |
|
By:
It inflicts no pain on a half ton thoroughbred -
they need to be physically forced to gallop flat out. Which one is it Ekbalco? |
|
By:
If the whip doesn't hurt, then what's the point of hitting them with it?
Shouldn't they simply say giddyup if they don't fear the stick? |
|
By:
If the whip is banned , then punters will leave the game in droves.
|
|
By:
Crippers - would you agree that physically forcing a horse to do something that it doesn't necessarily want to do is called riding a horse?
And when you do agree - wold you also agree that shouting , equipment(reins/bit/girth etc) , pushing , squeezing , urging , slapping and general bullying are necessary to make the half ton beast respond to the 100lb rider? |
|
By:
Giddyup was a joke.
Pushing and squeezing? Have you seen how short some jockeys ride? They have to use the whip; they're riding too short to do anything else that would tell the horse they want maximum effort. Most horses get whipped when they start to get outpaced or weaken. That means they couldn't go any faster if they wanted to. They get a good hiding for doing their best. |
|
By:
If the whip is banned , then punters will leave the game in droves.
Absolutely disagree. |
|
By:
Ekbalco whether it hurts or not is irrelevant . the impression tv audiences are getting is that it hurts and its over the top at times
|
|
By:
I agree the whip doesn't hurt. If your were hit full on by one on your outstretched palm you'd barely flinch.
But the BHA have brought in rules that hitting the horse too many times should not be allowed. By bringing in these rules they are confirming what a lot of onlookers think that too many strikes is detrimental to the horse. If jockeys go above and break these rules a lot of onlookers will see it as a thrashing or pulverising whether it is or isn't. |
|
By:
So what's the point of the whip if the horse doesn't feel it?
Why do jockeys swing the whip so the horse sees it, if the whip isn't a threat to the horse? |
|
By:
''Showing the horse the whip to keep it up to it's work.''
If the horse isn't afraid of the whip, what's the point of showing it to them? |
|
By:
I have two questions if anybody can answer please.
1) Was the horse examined by a veterinary surgeon after the race? And if not, why not? 2) Is this the biggest fine ever for the overuse of the whip by a jockey in the UK? |
|
By:
I'm not saying they don't feel it. It just doesn't hurt. It's probably the equivalent of a tap on the shoulder with a loud smacking noise.
|
|
By:
Took a girl to the races years ago. We stood by the rails.
As the runners approached the finish, and the whips started cracking, my friend turned away from the racing with her face in a grimace and said. ''I don't want to come here again.'' And there are plenty more like her about. |
|
By:
The posters who come out with the 'tree huggers' 'welfare' points obviously can't be bothered to read the thread.
The vast majority of forumites know the whip isn't a brutal instrument. No-one is arguing. It is the cheating by jockeys (and maybe connections), breaking the rules of racing again and again, with a high degree of contempt to those rules. It isn't fair to those runners-up, who stick to the rules and see a moment of lifetime glory stolen away from them. |
|
By:
What is fact, is that at least 4 or 5 jockeys this week, said to hell with the rules,
won by half a length or under and happily took the (very weak) few-days whip-ban |