There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 82 comments are related to the topic:
Bumpy ride ahead for latest attempt to impose whip rules
Bumpy ride ahead for latest attempt to impose whip rules
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 82
|
By:
Apart from Lorcan Williams and Aiden Coleman, the list is mainly inexperienced riders which suggests that the top jockeys are sticking to the rules on the whole. Lorcan has my sympathy and my thanks as I backed the horse and it was only his ride that made the difference in a very close finish. Perhaps we need a just giving page for each banned jockey for winning punters to compensate a ride that leads to a ban
 |
|
By:
Good luck with a jockey strike. Should get them absolutely nowhere, and make them look even more infantile.
Fitzy who would have had to sort out his own whip use idiotically suggested that it was inhumane not have sympathy with Williams. He said the same three times in a five minute interview. The usual broken record approach. It would probably be inhumane not to have sympathy with the Ukraine people, but to use the expression in relation to a jock who knew the rules, but broke them and was banned accordingly is just exaggerated nonsense, but of course no surprise. |
|
By:
So you are pleased a jockey broke the rules so you had a winning bet? Just Giving page? I don't think I have read a more bonkers post.
|
|
By:
as an owner you'd hope your jockey would do everything to win on the big occasion - including breaking the whip.
This puts extra unnecessary pressure on jockeys . In some ways, disqualification rules would be much easier for jockeys |
|
By:
different, I did put an emoji after my tongue in cheek comment about just giving! How many punters would prefer their jockey to put his whip down and get beaten by another jockey still using one? I agree with the rules but have to admit I was pleased it won.
|
|
By:
Suspect was a little tongue in cheek Drum. a strike would show some unity when there isn't any and we all agree need for rules but goodness me feels like blind leading the blind sadly. what next speed limits more important things in life than whip rules as you rightly point out and we hope aren't fatalities at Chelters in particular or anywhere that sort puts things into perspective.
|
|
By:
At what point does someone in authority at ATR decide that viewers are sick to death of Chapman and his opinionated diatribe day in day out?
|
|
By:
I have been thinking that for years swifty, but some people like his shouting and hollering act. When it comes to many midweek meetings he has no interest in the racing either so another reason to dispense of his services.
|
|
By:
I agree, no idea why he does those kind of shifts, spends the whole night ranting and trying to discredit Seb Sanders in the name of banter. Must just be me and you sparrow, he bores me to death.
|
|
By:
Earlier in the day they went over to Harvey as part of a tribute to Jim Lewis and probably after less than a couple of minutes he had somehow started discussing the whip. Even by Harvey's basement standards it was ridiculous.
|
|
By:
The press are only interested in controversy, preferably among those in authority.
|
|
By:
Mavis Pike has become the second horse in as many weeks under the new whip rules to be disqualified after her rider James Turner was found to have used his whip five times over the permitted level at Newcastle on Saturday.
Turner, an amateur rider, was suspended for 20 days after the whip review committee determined on Tuesday he had used his whip 12 times on Mavis Pike, trained and owned by Nigel Twiston-Davies, when she finished second in the mares’ all-weather bumper. Six of the nine jockeys found in breach of the whip rules, which came into effect over jumps on February 13, were either conditional or amateur riders. Conor O’Farrell, who received a four-day ban last week for using his whip without giving his mount time to respond, was handed another four-day ban this week for using his whip once over the permitted level. Conditional jockey Philip Armson will be unable to ride at the Cheltenham Festival after picking up a 14-day suspension for using his whip three times over the permitted level when winning on Gwencily Berbas in the Devon National. He was also fined £650 and ordered to spend a day training at the British Racing School. Fellow conditional William Shanahan will also be unable to ride at the festival after he was suspended for seven days for using his whip twice more than the permitted level. Sam Twiston-Davies, Tom Cannon, Jamie Neild and Fergus Gillard all received four-day bans. The other major ban was handed out to amateur Alice Proctor, who was suspended for 11 days after using her whip when out of contention in a hunter chase at Taunton. Three additional rides are set to be assessed by the whip review committee with the results announced on Friday. For those jockeys, any suspensions will still commence 14 days after the offence is determined and they are written to, so if they are found in breach on Friday their suspension will commence on March 17, Gold Cup day. A BHA spokesman said: “Jockeys are clearly quickly adapting to the new rules, and we praise them for this. We hope all jockeys realise that using the whip without regard for the thresholds in place could very easily lead to disqualification, and to ensure that this does not happen. There is no justification for using the whip four times or more above the permitted level.” Last week, Lunar Discovery, who finished second in an Ayr bumper, became the first horse to be thrown out under Britain’s toughened new whip rules after conditional rider Charlotte Jones used her whip 11 times, which at four strikes over the permitted seven in jumps races triggered an automatic disqualification and a 14-day ban. A total of 20 decisions were handed down by the whip review committee from the first full week of racing under the rules, including an 18-day ban for jockey Lorcan Williams which ruled him out of the Cheltenham Festival. List of jockeys banned for whip violations Conor O'Farrell (used whip once above permitted level) Ban: March 18-21 William Shanahan (used whip twice above permitted level) Ban: March 14-20 Sam Twiston-Davies (used whip without giving mount time to respond) Ban: March 18-21 Tom Cannon (used whip without giving mount time to respond) Ban: March 18-21 Alice Proctor (used whip when mount was out of contention) Ban: March 14, 16-17, 19, 23-24, 26, 30 and April 3, 5 and 8. Jamie Neild (used his whip without regard to his mount’s stride pattern) Ban: March 19, 23-24, 26 Fergus Gillard (used whip once above permitted level) Ban: March 18-21 Phillip Armson (used whip three times above permitted level and without regard to his mount’s stride pattern) Ban: March 14-27 James Turner (used whip five times above permitted level) Ban: March 14, 16-17, 19, 23-24, 26, 30 and April 3, 5, 8-13, 16-17, 21, 23-24 |
|
By:
if williams got 18 days for a series of offences and still didnt get disqualified the owners probably bought him a nice drink,leaves plenty of scope to break the rules and still keep the race
|
|
By:
So the BHA don't want to talk to Chapman.
The only surprise is that it has taken so long. He has literally wittered on ad nauseam regarding the whip. I am not even sure he actually cares one way or other, it's far more about trying to cement himself as some sort of hero figure with in the bubble. The disgrace is not that they have taken this stance, it is the fact that Sky Sports just send out mouthpieces, and never show any inclination to actually debate the issue. A debate actually consists of two sides. |
|
By:
The bha brought the changes in, so imo they are the ones who need to agree to debate the issue, giving their side. If they don't want to speak to Chapman then arrange to speak to someone else. You can't have a debate if they dont want to turn up.
|
|
By:
If you want a sensible debate then you don't want Chapman anywhere near.
|
|
By:
I agree arrange it with someone else but as a governing body they should cone out and answer the criticism that has landed their way.
|
|
By:
The debate is whether there should be a whip or not, not whether the jocks like these rules, or not.
The rules were only introduced after a lengthy consultation. You can't keep consulting on the same thing over and over again. That would be a total nonsense. Other sports just introduce rules without issues, but the racing bubble seem to find problems with anything. |
|
By:
Lengthy consultation?? I don't think that was the case.
Whip or no whip is a completely different debate 8no The issue we have is rules which aren't going to work. Horses possibly disqualified a week later, inappropriate lengthy suspensions etc These are the issues today, regardless with your pro ar ante whip. |
|
By:
I agree the rules are rubbish, and have only been produced so the whip is retained a little bit longer. The BHA are pandering the jocks, but they don't even realise. Perhaps if they spelt it out and said you can either accept these rules or no whip at all?
How is it that the tougher rules in France - where they seem to like a strike occasionally - have been accepted without any corresponding ballyhoo. There is something badly wrong with the mentality over here which doesn't seem to be able to grasp the direction of flow. |
|
By:
An additional three professionals jump jockeys have been suspended for whip-related offences last week.
Richard Patrick and Ryan Mania will be out of action for eight days, starting on Cheltenham Gold Cup day on March 17, with the two riders having additional offences added to their hearings. Patrick was found to have used his whip once above the permitted level of seven aboard the Kerry Lee-trained Eaton Collina when winning the 2m3½f novice handicap chase at Chepstow on February 25. He was also deemed to have used his whip in the incorrect place. Mania similarly went one over the new limit on the Sandy Thomson-trained Leading Force, who finished second in the 2m4½f novice hurdle at Newcastle on the same day. The three-person panel on the whip review committee deemed Mania to have used his whip without giving his mount time to respond. An additional ride was identified by the whip review committee, with Alan Johns suspended for four days from March 18 for using his whip once above the permitted level on Twilight Glory, who won the 2m7½f handicap chase at Lingfield for Tim Vaughan on February 20. Six of the nine jockeys found in breach of the whip rules, which came into effect over jumps on February 13, earlier this week were either conditional or amateur riders. |
|
By:
To a regular race viewer like me, the visual differences are hardly detectable between before and after the changes. So how on earth is some random on tw@tter going to tell the difference.
It's perfectly obvious to me that the suits want to remove whip for encouragement completely, but don't think that's viable in one hit (pardon the pun). Therefore going for the salami slicing option. How many actual stakeholders in UK racing want to ditch the whip, and are public about it? Those who want to ditch it aren't in a winnable position. Possibly they think they will be after this self inflicted harm. The 'dilemma' that the people who are stakeholders and want to ditch the whip face is that using animals for sport is actually virtually impossible to defend. Which is where it will go once the whip has gone and you still see stomach churning incidents on the racecourse such as occurred at Newbury today and Dundalk last night. |
|
By:
I don't buy that last paragraph at all. The idea that if you get rid of the whip you get rid of racing is just a scaremongering tactic used by those who are desperate to retain the whip. In the countries that have got rid has racing finished?
|
|
By:
Not at all, if the logic is followed. A broken leg swinging and the horse being shot is far worse than being hit with a stick in a effort to go faster. If it's believed that removing the stick is needed to appease the woke agenda, it's not going to stop at that is it, as removing the stick won't appease them. It's a fantasy. Either you support horse racing the way it has been done in living memory, or you don't. It's now being watered down almost on an annual basis, that's not going to stop until there is nothing left.
|
|
By:
Two different things: you can instantly do something about one of them, the other you can't.
Horses can break a leg going on a gallop, or roaming wild. You can try and lessen the risk, but injuries will inevitably happen. If you stop the sport overnight what do think is going to happen to all those horses that have been bred to race, and the mares and stallions breeding those horses? Far more horses would be lost by ending the sport than carrying on. It is just plain wrong to strike a horse in the name of sport. Always has been, nothing to do with any woke agenda. It's not needed for the sport to continue. |
|
By:
I think all them horses would be humanely killed and the meat sent to France for the French to eat .
|
|
By:
You're assigning rationality to the kind of people that would like to see horse racing cancelled completely. That's kind of cute.
|
|
By:
Justin O'Hanlon
@rpdarkhorse · 9h I don't watch much UK racing, but did watch a few from Kelso today because of the Irish interest. So obvious that riders were afraid of their sh1te to ride a finish because of these whip rules. It just looked terrible. Yes, agree with Justin, I think we are now seeing this. |
|
By:
Jocks afraid to hit horses. A minor step in the right direction. It is a real shame that these commentators are more interested in cementing their own positions in the industry rather than anything to do with the horse. Presumably, the alternative is being 'sent to Coventry'? Personally, I wouldn't be bothered if I never heard another jockey interview in my life.
Just watched a bit of Luck Of Sunday. Biased as usual with no representation of those wanting rid. You could literally have picked apart everything Sheehan and Lysaght were saying, but of course there was nobody to do that. Even Sheehan's body language was terrible with arms tightly folded as if he was firmly on the defensive. Next time somebody lies and says it's proven that the whip doesn't hurt please ask them to explain the evidence. None of this ludicrous tapping of the hand with the whip stunt that Chapman always goes with. Hitting with a whip has been a form of punishment throughout the ages so assuming the horse doesn't have any deviant traits why would it want to be punished? |
|
By:
Will sponsors want to be associated with jockeys who get a horse disqualified for going over the limit?
|
|
By:
You're entitled to your opinion that the whip should be nobbled completely for the purposes of the sport, dd. But that stance is a tiny minority within the key stakeholders of the sport.
The only reason the rules are being significantly changed is to appease those who aren't key stakeholders. Now it can definitely be argued that jockeys consistently disregarded the previous rules when it came to big races, as they'd rather win and take the penalty. A professional foul if you like. That was unsatisfactory. All they had to do in that case was increase the sanctions for contravening the existing rules. Up to a point where they more or less stopped doing it. Nothing else. |
|
By:
should be easy enough for jockeys to follow the rules
always remember the NH community is made up of people who thinks it's fun to chase a wild animal with dogs and tear it to pieces. They are savage and brutal. |
|
By:
It's a vapid argument to say it's easy to follow the rules. They could ban the whip completely and the rules would be easy to follow. The contention is obviously that the changes are completely unnecessary, and have the effect of being counter productive. Instead of taking attention away from the use of the whip, the sport is deliberately drawing unwanted attention to it.
|
|
By:
it's the people complaining about it who've drawn the attention - noone would have noticed otherwise
just follow the rules - couldn't be simpler |
|
By:
we'll see over the next few weeks, won't we.
|
|
By:
if jockeys follow the rules there will be nothing to see
|
|
By:
You love your circular arguments. Any rules can be 'followed' in practice. Doesn't mean that they are the right rules. The last few years tells us that.
|
|
By:
If this goes belly up big time as seems perfectly likely Chelters week and sport gets front page headlines for all wrong reasons hope the Chief has the decency to go immediately. That happens might suggest a mess of the highest order. BHA seem to be trying to headline and please wrong people for right reasons hope we are all wrong we'll see when push comes to shove won't we suspect new leader will be needed. Steaks couldn't be higher. More so hope Jock one mine doesn't stop last furlong after the necessary smacks somebody else goes past wins result on day stands then gets disqualified later now that would pig me off and cause a little chaos no doubt.
|
|
By:
Flat racing still seems to be thriving on the world stage, but apart from Ireland France and UK, jumping is a minority part of the sport and probably in decline. The reasons are many and various but the BHA seem to think that the concern about welfare is the main one. It is part of the problem but it is the economics of jumping that is the bigger problem. Small crowds in cold and wet weather, less owners willing to invest in a horse that might only run 4 times a year and then win very little prize money. Finding the right staff to look after and school the horses. So many issues but they seem to concentrate on the whip as if solving that will put things right. On top of that we get loads of obstacles omitted due to the sun or damage to fences, lack of novice chasers due to all sorts of factors and then the issues caused by either torrential or zero rainfall.
|
|
By:
The whip limit has been reduced by one. The only significant difference is the stewards will now bother to enforce pre-existing over shoulder height rules and the numbers correctly. From all the fuss you'd think jockeys had been asked to ride with their arms tied behind their backs. It's pathetic.
|