Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Expecting jockeys to change habits of a riding lifetime heading into the cauldron of Cheltenham next month is a huge ask.
Greg Wood @Greg_Wood_
Mon 13 Feb 2023 15.34 GMT
British racing’s latest attempt to impose once-and-for-all rules on use of the whip began on Monday at Catterick, Plumpton and Wolverhampton, with the hope that the fresh toughening of the regime will not generate the same controversy and negative publicity as the last line-in-the-sand moment in the autumn of 2011.
That prompted threats of an all-out strike by jockeys and led to Richard Hughes briefly handing in his riding licence in protest, while Christophe Soumillon was fined his cut of the prize fund – about £55,000 – for going one stroke over the limit of seven in the Champion Stakes at Ascot.
The process of sanding down the rough edges of the rules began almost immediately. The strike threat was averted, Hughes went on to win the championship three years running from 2012 and Soumillon got his money back. But it was all so bruising and humiliatingly public it is perhaps no surprise that this time around the tweaks to the new regime started before it had even come into force.
The latest rules are the result of an extended consultation process on the use of the whip, which included jockeys, trainers and animal welfare groups. An initial intention to ban use of the whip in the forehand position was dropped last month, after many senior riders expressed concerns.
A proposal to double the current penalty for use above shoulder height has also been dropped, with suggestions from some riders, including Harry Cobden, Paul Nicholls’s stable jockey, they had been warned by officials, during a “bedding-in” period for the new rules,extended bans for winning rides would have been received had they occurred once the new regime was in force.
The British Horseracing Authority disputes the numbers attached to those claims – it was allegedly a 24-day “ban” in Cobden’s case after his win on Il Ridoto at Cheltenham’s Trials day meeting, which would be enough to rule a rider out of Aintree if they offend at the Cheltenham Festival. The regulator also points out that breaches will now be considered by a new Whip Review Committee, not the stewards on the day, and published figures from the bedding-in period that show a significant number of potential breaches in the early weeks dropping markedly before Monday’s full implementation.
However, there has been no shift on the timing of the new rules’ introduction or on the decision to introduce disqualification as the ultimate penalty for the most serious breaches of the rules – defined as four strokes over the limit of six on the Flat and seven over jumps.
Having suffered the PR consequences after the last big change to the whip rules, which arrived a few days before the first Champions Day at Ascot, the timing certainly feels like a brave decision, at best. It could be argued there is never an ideal moment and that when summer arrives there will always be a big meeting in the not-too-distant future.
But next month’s Cheltenham Festival is not just a big meeting, but the biggest of the year, flat or jumps. The Grand National a few weeks later is the sport’s most famous and popular race. That inevitably heaps extra pressure on all jockeys, not least those based in Ireland who will be turning up to ride at the Festival in March without the benefit of a bedding-in period.
The arrival of potential disqualification – several days after the event and so not for betting purposes – is also fraught with danger. One of the most likely scenarios for a rider going four strokes over the limit is in the closing stages of a major race and the headlines that could follow a close finish up the long run-in in the National and in the days leading up to a WRC decision on whether or not punters who backed the runner-up were robbed are scarcely imaginable.
Proponents of disqualification for serious breaches often claim the deterrent effect will be such that it may never need to be used. We shall see, but my own view would be that it is highly likely to happen and probably sooner rather than later.
The BHA has praised the efforts of jockeys in recent weeks to adapt to the new rules, but expecting riders to change what are, in some cases at least, the habits of a riding lifetime, just as they head into the cauldron of Cheltenham, is a huge ask. They will get there in time, but the next few weeks could give us all an unnecessarily bumpy ride.
Greg Wood @Greg_Wood_
Mon 13 Feb 2023 15.34 GMT
British racing’s latest attempt to impose once-and-for-all rules on use of the whip began on Monday at Catterick, Plumpton and Wolverhampton, with the hope that the fresh toughening of the regime will not generate the same controversy and negative publicity as the last line-in-the-sand moment in the autumn of 2011.
That prompted threats of an all-out strike by jockeys and led to Richard Hughes briefly handing in his riding licence in protest, while Christophe Soumillon was fined his cut of the prize fund – about £55,000 – for going one stroke over the limit of seven in the Champion Stakes at Ascot.
The process of sanding down the rough edges of the rules began almost immediately. The strike threat was averted, Hughes went on to win the championship three years running from 2012 and Soumillon got his money back. But it was all so bruising and humiliatingly public it is perhaps no surprise that this time around the tweaks to the new regime started before it had even come into force.
The latest rules are the result of an extended consultation process on the use of the whip, which included jockeys, trainers and animal welfare groups. An initial intention to ban use of the whip in the forehand position was dropped last month, after many senior riders expressed concerns.
A proposal to double the current penalty for use above shoulder height has also been dropped, with suggestions from some riders, including Harry Cobden, Paul Nicholls’s stable jockey, they had been warned by officials, during a “bedding-in” period for the new rules,extended bans for winning rides would have been received had they occurred once the new regime was in force.
The British Horseracing Authority disputes the numbers attached to those claims – it was allegedly a 24-day “ban” in Cobden’s case after his win on Il Ridoto at Cheltenham’s Trials day meeting, which would be enough to rule a rider out of Aintree if they offend at the Cheltenham Festival. The regulator also points out that breaches will now be considered by a new Whip Review Committee, not the stewards on the day, and published figures from the bedding-in period that show a significant number of potential breaches in the early weeks dropping markedly before Monday’s full implementation.
However, there has been no shift on the timing of the new rules’ introduction or on the decision to introduce disqualification as the ultimate penalty for the most serious breaches of the rules – defined as four strokes over the limit of six on the Flat and seven over jumps.
Having suffered the PR consequences after the last big change to the whip rules, which arrived a few days before the first Champions Day at Ascot, the timing certainly feels like a brave decision, at best. It could be argued there is never an ideal moment and that when summer arrives there will always be a big meeting in the not-too-distant future.
But next month’s Cheltenham Festival is not just a big meeting, but the biggest of the year, flat or jumps. The Grand National a few weeks later is the sport’s most famous and popular race. That inevitably heaps extra pressure on all jockeys, not least those based in Ireland who will be turning up to ride at the Festival in March without the benefit of a bedding-in period.
The arrival of potential disqualification – several days after the event and so not for betting purposes – is also fraught with danger. One of the most likely scenarios for a rider going four strokes over the limit is in the closing stages of a major race and the headlines that could follow a close finish up the long run-in in the National and in the days leading up to a WRC decision on whether or not punters who backed the runner-up were robbed are scarcely imaginable.
Proponents of disqualification for serious breaches often claim the deterrent effect will be such that it may never need to be used. We shall see, but my own view would be that it is highly likely to happen and probably sooner rather than later.
The BHA has praised the efforts of jockeys in recent weeks to adapt to the new rules, but expecting riders to change what are, in some cases at least, the habits of a riding lifetime, just as they head into the cauldron of Cheltenham, is a huge ask. They will get there in time, but the next few weeks could give us all an unnecessarily bumpy ride.
Show More
Diddums. What is it about our weighing room? Don't the dinosaurs realise that the BHA are bending over backwards to stretch out the period of time before the whip goes?
The rules are tougher in France. They recently made them even tougher. I didn't hear any surrounding ballyhoo to the new implementation.
The rules are tougher in France. They recently made them even tougher. I didn't hear any surrounding ballyhoo to the new implementation.
Surely they can count ?
Barry O’Connell rider stated he doesn’t really like the whip…seldom uses the whip…..quiet rider….
And that’s coming from an Irish jockey….difficult to believe but he did say it live on tv…..
Most prefer slasher and rashers….up towards the line and punters screaming hit the fkn thing…..dreadful…imv..
Barry O’Connell rider stated he doesn’t really like the whip…seldom uses the whip…..quiet rider….
And that’s coming from an Irish jockey….difficult to believe but he did say it live on tv…..
Most prefer slasher and rashers….up towards the line and punters screaming hit the fkn thing…..dreadful…imv..
Lorcan Williams to get 14-day ban and miss Cheltenham Festival.
The jockey said: "I'm missing the four biggest days of racing for doing my job and achieving the best possible position for everyone. My horse has responded to the encouragement every time I've asked him. Every time I laid off him it gave the other horse a chance to get back at me.
"We're jockeys, we want to win and my horse wouldn't have won if I hadn't done that. We're in a competitive sport and a competitive environment. I had to give the horse the encouragement he needed to achieve the best possible position for myself, the horse, my owners and trainer. Whereas if I had dropped my hands I would have been called in by the stewards.
There's a rule and you broke it to gain an unfair advantage. You admitted you wouldn't have won if you hadn't cheated. Zero sympathy here. Learn to count in your 2 weeks off would be my advice.
The jockey said: "I'm missing the four biggest days of racing for doing my job and achieving the best possible position for everyone. My horse has responded to the encouragement every time I've asked him. Every time I laid off him it gave the other horse a chance to get back at me.
"We're jockeys, we want to win and my horse wouldn't have won if I hadn't done that. We're in a competitive sport and a competitive environment. I had to give the horse the encouragement he needed to achieve the best possible position for myself, the horse, my owners and trainer. Whereas if I had dropped my hands I would have been called in by the stewards.
There's a rule and you broke it to gain an unfair advantage. You admitted you wouldn't have won if you hadn't cheated. Zero sympathy here. Learn to count in your 2 weeks off would be my advice.
Yes, what a pathetic attempt to gain sympathy.
Why would you drop your hands, rather than ride hands and heels? He sounds like a complete chump, as does Nicholls for backing him up. Must be really tough missing out on a couple of 50/1 no hopers.
Why would you drop your hands, rather than ride hands and heels? He sounds like a complete chump, as does Nicholls for backing him up. Must be really tough missing out on a couple of 50/1 no hopers.
I think there are a couple of issues here. I totally get the failing to ride out stuff and the why would they go over the permitted strikes of the whip argument.
However I do have a bit of sympathy with regards having to change their whip action and style.
It's something that comes automatic to them, each has their own style, whip action, they are now being asked to change that with immediate affect.
I would imagine that would be similar to learning to drive in a car with 5 gears and 10 years later saying you now can't use gear 2 or 4. Imo it would take a fair bit of getting used to and for some time you would automatically still go for gear 2 and 4.
I think its a bit hard to say any jockey wouldn't miss riding at the festival, whatever prices his mounts were.
Personally I think its a shambles and for once I actually agree with Mark Chapman. In what is now becomes the norm, we are pampering to a minority once again.
However I do have a bit of sympathy with regards having to change their whip action and style.
It's something that comes automatic to them, each has their own style, whip action, they are now being asked to change that with immediate affect.
I would imagine that would be similar to learning to drive in a car with 5 gears and 10 years later saying you now can't use gear 2 or 4. Imo it would take a fair bit of getting used to and for some time you would automatically still go for gear 2 and 4.
I think its a bit hard to say any jockey wouldn't miss riding at the festival, whatever prices his mounts were.
Personally I think its a shambles and for once I actually agree with Mark Chapman. In what is now becomes the norm, we are pampering to a minority once again.
Williams defended his actions and argued that he would have effectively had to concede the race to stay within the rules.
This beggars belief.
As always feel for the connections of the 2nd placed horse,
who stuck to the rules and got cheated out of a big day of celebrations.
Shades of Billaway at the Festival, which was a total disgrace.
This beggars belief.
As always feel for the connections of the 2nd placed horse,
who stuck to the rules and got cheated out of a big day of celebrations.
Shades of Billaway at the Festival, which was a total disgrace.
Within the bubble there is no proper debate. You are literally told that the whip must stay. Chapman is happy to spout his views over and over again because it keeps him in with the crowd.
It's not pandering to a minority to say animals shouldn't be hit with a whip in the name of sport. I think given reasoned argument, in fact any argument, the vast majority of people would agree.
The actual pandering is being done by the BHA to constantly appease the jockeys, and allow them to keep hitting horses for as long as possible.
If it was only allowed to be used for correction there would none of this counting and disqualification nonsense.
It's not pandering to a minority to say animals shouldn't be hit with a whip in the name of sport. I think given reasoned argument, in fact any argument, the vast majority of people would agree.
The actual pandering is being done by the BHA to constantly appease the jockeys, and allow them to keep hitting horses for as long as possible.
If it was only allowed to be used for correction there would none of this counting and disqualification nonsense.
I probably disagree with most of that but it's all about opinions.
I believe in this case Chapman is so vociferous and passionate about the whip issue because he strongly believes what they are trying to do 8s wrong.
The whip has changed, the present version does no damage to the horse.
I don't think they are allowed to keep hitting horses as long as possible. If they went over they deserve to be punished, as they do if they continue to hit them without giving the horse time to respond. They rules are in place and probably should have been adhered to more but I just don't see the need for another change.
Being only allowed for correction imo would be open to loads of debate and personal opinion.
It's a very emotive subject and I do agree that when it's used wrongly and in the wrong way it does the sport no good but imo they are few and far between and not enough to have brought in the new changes.
Without the whip imho it would become a totally different sport and not for the better.
I believe in this case Chapman is so vociferous and passionate about the whip issue because he strongly believes what they are trying to do 8s wrong.
The whip has changed, the present version does no damage to the horse.
I don't think they are allowed to keep hitting horses as long as possible. If they went over they deserve to be punished, as they do if they continue to hit them without giving the horse time to respond. They rules are in place and probably should have been adhered to more but I just don't see the need for another change.
Being only allowed for correction imo would be open to loads of debate and personal opinion.
It's a very emotive subject and I do agree that when it's used wrongly and in the wrong way it does the sport no good but imo they are few and far between and not enough to have brought in the new changes.
Without the whip imho it would become a totally different sport and not for the better.
Chapman ain’t for the punter just watch they way he carries on in the paddock,kidding around and crawling making out they are all his friends ffs
It's always the same with Chapman, just an ego trip like the rest of his loudmouth act.
Without the whip imho it would become a totally different sport and not for the better....You would still back just as many losers so what is the big deal?
Many think the future of racing will depend on this issue, acey.
Nothing to do with betting, not sure why that would be your assumption.
Every horse is different, some do it easily, some are just lazy, some need sencouragement. Without the whip that all changes.
The problem I have is there isn't a problem and doesn't need changing
Every horse is different, some do it easily, some are just lazy, some need sencouragement. Without the whip that all changes.
The problem I have is there isn't a problem and doesn't need changing
Forgetting the rights or wrongs of the new rules, with Williams he knew the new 'number', he knew he was breaking those rules , yet he proceeded to cheat his fellow professionals on his way to a victory, and now he cries that he's going to be punished. This wasn't a case of stewards interpretation of above shoulder height, riding style etc.
In the same way Oisin Murphy cheated Buick out of the jockey's title, Buick kept his counsel but knows he was beaten by a cheat.
I hope other jockeys start speaking out.
In the same way Oisin Murphy cheated Buick out of the jockey's title, Buick kept his counsel but knows he was beaten by a cheat.
I hope other jockeys start speaking out.
My betting habits would not change one iota if the whip was abolished why would it?...Carry it for correctional purposes only imho.
Chapman going off on one again before a race at Southwell.
BHA encouraging non triers with the new rules.. Crazy ban for Williams for that ride. AP would have been given 6 months for his ride on Wichita Lineman using current rules...
He cost the runner-up a prestigious grade 2 and £18k difference in prizemoney that day . They will , along with the sensible majority on here, have no sympathy for the lad on his occasion.
Should be no maximum number at all. Either no whip at all, or no limit, keeps is very simple then.
and the jockeys themselves agreed to these rules to keep the whip.Now they want to stick to these rules with the caveat they can break them if 'it matters'
The jockeys are similar to Johnson. Sign a deal and then renege a short time afterwards
Chapman still ranting and raving during the breaks at Southwell.
Every right to though, both of them talking sense.. especially regarding the marking of horses etc.
Its more dangerous to the horses to let some of these so called professional jocks get on board in the first place...
How would it be a different sport? It would be exactly the same without horses being hit. I suspect the vast majority of results would be exactly the same, with or without the whip. What's actually wrong with the horse that has the most natural desire winning the race? I would say absolutely nothing. The truth is nobody knows the degree of pain when the horse it, only that if it isn't hit then there isn't any. You can quote what you like, produce ridiculous demonstartions, but that is the only actual fact that can be argued. The rest is a load of bull, something Chapman is an expert at spouting. There are few better at it.
The way forward is to have a trial period where the whip is only carried for correction. I have a feeling the jockeys would oppose the idea because they would be fearful that it would be successful. The BHA should have implemented this years ago, but instead we have had year after year of just fannying around. They need to start acting like they have a grip on the situation, and if that means upsetting the weighing room for a greater good, then so be it.
The way forward is to have a trial period where the whip is only carried for correction. I have a feeling the jockeys would oppose the idea because they would be fearful that it would be successful. The BHA should have implemented this years ago, but instead we have had year after year of just fannying around. They need to start acting like they have a grip on the situation, and if that means upsetting the weighing room for a greater good, then so be it.
Don't need a trial period, just a few trial meetings. There used to be some hands and heels races for conditional jockeys but i think they've now been phased out.
At Kempton over Xmas you had to walk past the Horse Death Watch chalked pavement of all the horses who had lost their lives for our entertainment. It did not make it a particularly nice start to the day.
Now, I'm not one for appeasing activists but the simple fact is hitting animals does not sit well in the current climate and it will eventually be eliminated from racing.
Nobody really knows why certain horses are 'lazy'. There is a fair chance they are hurting in their body or their breathing or something else. A perfectable fit and healthy will often run all the way to the line without any need for the jockey to resort to the whip.
I'm sick of Chapman saying it doesn't hurt the horse, in any number. I'd love someone to slap him round the face once. No doubt he'll laugh and say he didn't feel a thing. Then do it 10 times and let's have a look at his face. I'd certainly pay to watch.
Now, I'm not one for appeasing activists but the simple fact is hitting animals does not sit well in the current climate and it will eventually be eliminated from racing.
Nobody really knows why certain horses are 'lazy'. There is a fair chance they are hurting in their body or their breathing or something else. A perfectable fit and healthy will often run all the way to the line without any need for the jockey to resort to the whip.
I'm sick of Chapman saying it doesn't hurt the horse, in any number. I'd love someone to slap him round the face once. No doubt he'll laugh and say he didn't feel a thing. Then do it 10 times and let's have a look at his face. I'd certainly pay to watch.
It never ceases to amaze me how people don't actually read everything that's posted, No one seems to want a genuine debate, it has to be thats all bull, I'm right your wrong.ive never once said anyone else's opinion is wrong. I've gave an opinion that I believe horse racing without whips would be a different sport. I believe that had the whip been removed 5 years ago, hundreds of results would have been different. How many less winners would McCoy have ridden without the whip? There has been a massive improvement in standards over the last few years regarding the whip, I just think the latest step imo is one step too far.
Anyway I bow out of the "debate" we will see what happens over the next few months.
Anyway I bow out of the "debate" we will see what happens over the next few months.
It looks to me as if you're the one who doesn't want a debate, preferring instead to try and put yourself on a pedestal. That precisely mirrors the action of Chapman and many other talking heads within the bubble. They just want to talk to people who agree with them. That's not a debate, and it just becomes someone saying the same thing over and over.
There is zero evidence that the whip doesn't hurt. Consequently, that idea is bull.
Not that it should matter one jot to whether there is whip or not, but I would be surprised if McCoy wouldn't have ridden quite a few more winners without the whip. He was very fit, and would just have adapted that much better than the rest.
There is zero evidence that the whip doesn't hurt. Consequently, that idea is bull.
Not that it should matter one jot to whether there is whip or not, but I would be surprised if McCoy wouldn't have ridden quite a few more winners without the whip. He was very fit, and would just have adapted that much better than the rest.
There is also no evidence that the whip does hurt... farcical debate really.
From first posting on this thread.
British racing’s latest attempt to impose once-and-for-all rules on use of the whip began on Monday at Catterick, Plumpton and Wolverhampton, with the hope that the fresh toughening of the regime will not generate the same controversy and negative publicity as the last line-in-the-sand moment in the autumn of 2011.
British racing’s latest attempt to impose once-and-for-all rules on use of the whip began on Monday at Catterick, Plumpton and Wolverhampton, with the hope that the fresh toughening of the regime will not generate the same controversy and negative publicity as the last line-in-the-sand moment in the autumn of 2011.
I think the last time , even though he claimed he wasn't a big user of the whip, that Richard hughes handed in his license in protest.
Brogan on the second in Williams race has also been given a ban. So if wiliams sticks to the rules and loses the second gets the race by breaking the rules. Anyone else thinks this is nonsense. Jockeys will be trying to count the other rider's strokes as well as their own.
It might not be a a different sport but the results would change. Some horses will try their hardest whip or not but others would stop as soon as they felt a bit tired without a whip. I am not making a judgement as to which is best, just pointing out that the results would change.
1.01 will be a jockey strike BHA leadership will have to go following
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
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.
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.
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.
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
This puts extra unnecessary pressure on jockeys . In some ways, disqualification rules would be much easier for jockeys
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The press are only interested in controversy, preferably among those in authority.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
If you want a sensible debate then you don't want Chapman anywhere near.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I think all them horses would be humanely killed and the meat sent to France for the French to eat .
You're assigning rationality to the kind of people that would like to see horse racing cancelled completely. That's kind of cute.
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.
@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.
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?
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?
Will sponsors want to be associated with jockeys who get a horse disqualified for going over the limit?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
just follow the rules - couldn't be simpler
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.
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.
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.
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.
And if you think cheats should be allowed to prosper you have a very different moral compass to me.
Thankfully, a topic hardly mentioned all week.
Sad, that Harvey felt the need to return to it for no obvious reason. Terrible interview from Skelton, just confirming why there have been so many issues. Basically, seems to think that administering rules is somehow the same as dictating. The 'you can't tell us anything attitude' that does nobody any good.
Sad, that Harvey felt the need to return to it for no obvious reason. Terrible interview from Skelton, just confirming why there have been so many issues. Basically, seems to think that administering rules is somehow the same as dictating. The 'you can't tell us anything attitude' that does nobody any good.
No thankfully it hasn't but it will be next week before we know for sure if anyone did break the rules.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539