Johnson 7 day ban £6000 fine

You really think the owner tells the jockey how many times to hit the horse, The Headmaster?
Good god.

the football analogy must be one of the worst comparisons i have seen on here

No I don't BB.  But I know if the rule was in place they could, would or should remind them how many times not to hit them.
Get it?

Mar 16, 2018 -- 8:30PM, The Headmaster wrote:

No I don't BB.  But I know if the rule was in place they could, would or should remind them how many times not to hit them.Get it?

and then simply refuse to use them in future

it would soon be out of the game imo

owners pay the bills, not jockeys

It's really simple, the dealer.  Deal with the transgression as a team transgression.  I think that would change the culture.
Do you not?

*refuse to use them if they transgress the rules

i personally think your talking nonsense with regards that and imo hitting the owner isnt the answer

Correct wsb.

if you'll pardon the pun

Well then you are never going to effect change, the dealer.  What was your solution, out of interest?

So why have they not fined the girl who won the Foxhunters for not using the whip enough lol, god watch every American Horse racing they beat the crap out of them off the home bend now that is serious.

i dont know the solution but i do know if i owned a horse that a jockey decides to break the rules by striking it too many times, then the punishment should be on the jockey, not the owner. whatever that punishment should be is of course open to debate because the present situation isnt working

Mar 16, 2018 -- 8:33PM, the dealer wrote:

i personally think your talking nonsense with regards that and imo hitting the owner isnt the answer

owners (as a population) are not being hit though
they are completely unaffected by this proposal

its only the owners of the rule breakers who are disadvantaged...and its in favour of the owners who have been disadvantaged by being beaten by a horse that has had an unfair advantage

there is no net advantage or disadvantage to the collective owner

dealer...stop using that jockey then
and the trainer insists on using him/her, remove your horses from that trainer

that is the ultimate punishment for a jockey

no owner will use a jockey that is willing to compromise prize money

Any jockey who got a horse disqualified for using too many stokes would find it hard getting good outside rides in future. Especially in big races.
They'd never live it down.
We might find one or two getting disqualified at the start, but the message would soon sink in.

Overuse of the whip in a finish would be a thing of the past.

if you are the owner of the winner that the jockey has digressed on then you are. the assumption being of course that in todays example you are saying it wouldnt have won had he only hit it the designated amount of times. its very hard to prove one way or another.

i do agree that it cant go on the way it is but imo that isnt the solution

I think it is naive beyond belief to assume that such a policy would do anything other than alienate people within the sport, The Headmaster. I understand the point you are making, but I think it is a ridiculous idea.

well you wouldnt use them but you are still punishing owners when he first digresses and imo that just isnt right

no I think native river probably would have won for 8 smacks but I don't feel its overly relevant
we are trying to get jockeys to ride to within the rules for the welfare of the sport

My solution would be to fine the jockey their percentage of the prize money and give them a suspension which would increase every time they commit a whip offence. If the owner chooses to compensate the jockey for a significant win then they are hit in the pocket but wouldn't lose all their prize money for a transgression which (whatever you choose to believe) is essentially beyond their control. The jockeys would be far less likely to offend if the suspensions were longer than they are currently.

*the horses ffs
been a long week

What is this idea that jockeys will do whatever they want with no regard to the trainer or owner who has put them up?  I find that hard to swallow and don't understand who is being 'alienated'.

I think if dickie was banned for 3 weeks and fined all his prize money he would still have ridden native river the same

give it a while to sink in and after a handful of 4, 5 or 6 figure prize money re-distributions, there would be no jockeys breaking whip rules or riding to win at all costs

I guess because he won fairly comfortably it doesn't get much attention and like most I don't think it affected the result at all.
But imagine if he had won a short head and Nico had used his whip correctly within the rules.
Surely, like in a normal stweards eqnuiry where they have to decide if an infringement caused by poor / illegal jockeyship cost the other horse a race the stewards should have the option of disqualification.

Still be a grey area (eg. what if he won a neck and only went one over the allowed number of strikes) and open to debate like most stewards decisons (see the Imperial Cup last week) but at some point there will be a high profile race where a whip transgresser gets home by a whisker and there will be a big furore.

Totally agree wsb. Jockeys will continue to take a bullet for the team while we separate them from the other connections.  The team analogy again.  Connect the dots and you find the answer imo.

unclepuncle (see my earlier post)

There were 3 I posted that cheated and won by half length or under, this week and got whip bans,
when the 2nd home lawfully stuck to the rules of racing.

I am sure there were others.

Katie Walsh really gets to me, because she has had several high profile whip bans and
couldn't care less again this week and was flagrant in her cheating.

dont think johson will be bothered one jot

Mar 16, 2018 -- 9:11PM, brendrew wrote:

dont think johson will be bothered one jot

correct, and that's the problem

Still a grey area these whip rules. And what is the point in having whip rules if the result is allowed to stand. Agree with unclepuncle don't think it affected the result at all here but what if a horse wins by a neck and jockey went over allowed number of strikes. No point in having whip rules if jockeys are just going to ignore them and win at all costs.

Nothing will ever work unless there is some sort of downside to the owners by a jockey transgressing.

You could severely penalise the jockey but there would still be pressure from the owners in big races for the jockeys to be one who takes it for the team when need be. It would be the ones who stick by the rules who get jocked off when they stick to the limit when the money is down or it's a big race.

Mar 16, 2018 -- 9:24PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

Nothing will ever work unless there is some sort of downside to the owners by a jockey transgressing. You could severely penalise the jockey but there would still be pressure from the owners in big races for the jockeys to be one who takes it for the team when need be. It would be the ones who stick by the rules who get jocked off when they stick to the limit when the money is down or it's a big race.

could not agree with you more SD

Break the whip rules and disqualification follows.

Now who in their right mind is going to break the rules and lose the race?

Nobody, so there's the answer.

Maybe a group of connections hammering the lay button?

Yes totally agree, SD.  Consider the horse, jockey, owner and trainer as a single unit and we'll start seeing some improvements.

fascinating thread, ban the use of the whip after the last, and in the final furlong of flat races.

WALOFS.

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.

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...

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.

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"

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Brutal ride be very surprised if that doesnt have an effect on the horse though he is v strong.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

'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.

It inflicts no pain on a half ton thoroughbred -

they need to be physically forced to gallop flat out.

Which one is it Ekbalco?

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?

If the whip is banned , then punters will leave the game in droves.

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?

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.

If the whip is banned , then punters will leave the game in droves.

Absolutely disagree.

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

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.

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?

''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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Took a girl to the races years ago. We stood by the rails.




I take it that was when it was leather whips Dr C?

Yes it would be stewarty.

I agree with poppydog.

I have no strong feelings about the whip. I think the whip rules are about right.

It's the unwillingness to enforce them I condemn.

I thought so Dr C. A well respected forumite on here who doesn't post anymore (jonjo) told a similar story about Piggott riding at Redcar. He was there with his father and could actually hear the smacks that Piggott gave his beast 100 yards out.

1 extra strike Jockey is banned from riding the horse in its next race + 25% of his riding fee and any prize money he/she receives.

2 extra strikes Jockey is banned from riding the horse in its next 2 races + 50% fine as above

3 extra strikes Jockey is banned from riding its next 3 races etc etc

^^^ Impossible.

Some people forget that a horse often gets a few smacks in the back straight to get it going/interested again. And then gets the number required if in with a chance jumping two out.

Piggott's whip was longer than usual and he really laid into them.
Whether the horse went any quicker as a result is another matter.
Piggott knew that by being so harsh that when he won he would get the credit. Hence ''only Piggott would have won on that'''

It was a myth, how could he get anymore out of a horse than the next jockey if the horse was flat out?

A 6 grand fine as a deterrent to winning the Gold Cup within the whip rules is as pointless as fining Premier League clubs 50 grand for their players surrounding the ref ......a pathetic response as they know full well that anything more will be played out in court and would bankrupt the BHA.

Have you watched The Minstrel winning the Derby?

* That was to Dr C.

Yes many times stewarty, Piggott was the passenger.

stewarty b 17 Mar 18 18:39 Joined: 02 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 15,623 | Blogger: stewarty b's blog
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?



Some shrewdies on here. I will answer my own questions.

1) No.

2) Yes.

In a tight finish, the jock that wins gets the credit for the best ride.

The trouble is that next time the two jocks meet in a close one, the other jock is just as likely to win.

The rules are ridiculous, at least 5 whip offences on winning jockeys. They should never have brought a certain amount of strikes in to the rules.

What other sport would you be able to break the rule that probably gives you an advantage yet still win?

If the on course stewards did their job, followed up by a central stewarding panel then surely they can see if a horse has been abused.

It wouldn't happen though would it BB?

At first yes, but it would soon become very rare indeed.

Crippers is a serial poster and clearly has his mind made up on this subject.

So Dr Crippen. Rab Havlin is just as good a jockey as Lester was?

Sounds like you think ALL jockeys are of equal ability?

In french trotting racing if they break out of a trot they are disqualified, harsh as fk.

That is the only way of doing it so it isnt going to happen.

Blackrock, if they ever met in a race and Rob Havlin beat LP in a close finish, what would you say then?

The top jockeys get beat all the time in close finishes.
Sounds like when they win it's because you think they're good, and when they get beat it's the horse at fault.

Correct eric, break the rules and they get thrown out.
So they don't break the rules.

trotting, the clue is in the name

Surely the abolition of jockeys and the introduction of Traps is the only answer going forward.

Could be the answer Ekbalco, you never see overuse of the whip at Portman Park either

I am already on Trap 12 LARGE for next year's Gold Cup.