what about the punter if rules are rules that horse should be out shouldn't it if it was advantaged by another smack or two the boffs must have thought about that when they made the rules don't you think everybody will be smacking willy nilly now

Jim Crowley handed 20-day ban and fined £10,000 for overuse of the whip on King George winner Hukum

Jim Crowley has been suspended for 20 days and fined £10,000 for his winning ride on Hukum in the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes having used his whip nine times during the race, three times above the permitted level.

Rob Hornby, who partnered King George second Westover, also received a ban for overuse of the whip. Hornby used his whip one time above the permitted level, which would have previously incurred an eight-day ban due to the race being a Class 1. However, an easing of penalties announced by the BHA on Monday means the rider will only be suspended for four days having not had a whip penalty in over 200 rides in Britain.

Speaking before the penalty was announced, Crowley, who will be suspended for the Ebor festival at York, said he did not believe the punishment he was going to receive fitted the crime and stressed discontent remains among his colleagues over the new rules.

However, a spokesman for the BHA said there was "very little justification" for the use of the whip by the jockeys in the closing stages of the King George and that hefty penalties were needed to "safeguard the perception of the sport [and] maintain fairness in close finishes".

Crowley said: "Neither me or Rob had any idea we had gone over the count, which is the worrying thing. We got back to the stewards' room and got a tap on the shoulder, and straight away that feeling of dread came over you.

"We're aware of the whip rules and the severity of them, and it's in your mind, but you're also keeping control of your horse's momentum, rhythm and avoiding interference.

"You're really in the zone and it's very difficult to be counting the strikes when you're in that scenario."

There was just a head to split Hukum and Westover at the finish and Crowley compared the situation to other sports when trying to explain the complexity of keeping to the rules in the heat of battle.

"Imagine you are driving a racing car around the track going at high speed, you have cars around and you're trying not to touch bumpers," said Crowley on ITV. "Then all of a sudden you're counting as well as a million things going on.

"If you're one length clear, it's easier to do, but in that scenario it's very, very difficult and hard to explain. It could be a tennis player in a Wimbledon final going back and forth in a rally, you're not counting numbers in your head.

"The rules are the rules and we accept that but I don't think my punishment is going to fit the crime and it will be tough to swallow. It was a mistake we went over but neither of us went out there with a win at all costs mentality.

"Some riders were consulted about the rules before they were enforced but I can guarantee there's not a single jockey in the weighing room who agrees with the rules."

The BHA said there had been more than 23,500 Flat races since the new whip rules were introduced in March, and that Crowley's ride on Hukum was only the second time a jockey had used the whip three times above the permitted level.

A BHA spokesman said:
"The use of the whip in the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes was not reflective of the riding we have generally seen in major races since the introduction of the new rules. For example, the Cheltenham, Aintree, Epsom and Royal Ascot meetings have all taken place this year without a single rider using the whip above the permitted level on a winning ride.

"Specific thresholds for whip use is now standard policy among most major racing nations, including all of our nearest neighbours.

"On Saturday the whip was used three times above the permitted level on the winner, for which there is very little justification. It is to deter whip use like this that strict penalties are in place, especially in major races.
They are designed not only to safeguard the perception of the sport, but also maintain fairness in close finishes, encouraging riders to stay within the rules, in the interest of the betting public and fellow riders."

said on tv he didnt know how many times he went over but stopped short of 10 which would have meant disq.

It is most certainly not in the interests of the punters for jockeys not to use the whip in a finish.  It is the reality of the competitive nature of the sport that this weak-kneed bunch who run the BHA should be addressing and dealing with nor the "perception" of limp-wristed, so-called animal lovers, who believe there is cruelty afoot and always will.  They are unhappy that there is racing at all, and will always aim to have it banned altogether so lets put a stop to this appeasement and get on with the sport - on our terms!

Rob Hornby - 'went over' - too.

Agree 100% with Honcho!!

Why did your jockey go over then impossible?

Case lost before you even get started!!! NAP

as pointed out early CROWLEY just taking the pish ,taking people for fools,
apparently to difficult to count to 6 although he does it in 99% of his races
then cant tell the difference between 6 and 9,
but after forgetting all that to difficult to count ,remembers the difference between 9 and 10 which would have resulted in losing the BIG POT
taking people /lydia for a fool

as in all sports theres ridiculous rules but once there instigated ,they should be adhered to,do you think a boxer should be allowed to hit you 9 times below the belt
a walker break in to a trot for a stride
a 200 metre go an inch over the line etc
a golfer penalised for ball moving after addressing his ball
etc
etc
etc

I have never said I thought the offence should be ignored.  No offence should ever be ignored but to use this one as an example because it was seen all over the world and may be bad for "our image" is bowlucks.  As simple as that.  In fact, in my view, it is rank hypocrisy. I have though said that the punishment is ridiculously severe and smacks exactly of what you said - "imagery". Nothing else. Let's be seen to be toadying to the antis instead of standing our ground in defence of a fine sport.  And I will continue to say that the new rules are ridiculous because they are.  As simple as that..

it was the complete opposite of usingn the race as an example
because of the new rules it was the 1st time they,d had to get involved in a major group one race,so you could say rules were working and jocks will try harder to obey the rules as in a compact summer schedule 20 days given out within days is going to cost leading jocks in missing big race rides

CROPSICK31 Jul 23 08:13Joined: 06 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 795 | Blogger: CROPSICK's blog
Used to run a G/National sweep a work,in the last few years the amount of people especialy among the younger ones who would decline to take part because they thought racing was cruel meant that some of us old gits were having to keep more of the tickets so i jacked it in this year.
That is the future of racing at the coal face and not in the the Angus Gold's of this world, and i aint an advocate of gettin rid of the whip but trying to defend it to the youngsters is a lost cause.

This is exactly it.I have noticed the youngsters are turned off Racing because they think it is cruel.

What would all you "the BHA are right" forumites say if, in the interests of reducing possible cruelty to the racehorse, and on a par with these ridiculous new whip use rules, the Racing controllers decided to reduce the number of fences in the Grand national by ten, to avoid and reduce likely/possible cruelty, like the Chair, Bechers, etc.?  Or if they demanded that all Steeplechase fence material should be soft rubber tipped so as to reduce the pain a horse goes through as it brushes over the fences?  Or if they demanded that a horse should not run more than once in a twenty eight day period so as to reduce its risk of injury and/or mental stress and souring?  Or if they insisted that a horse should not be made to travel in any transport vehicle for more than one fifty miles each way because of its possible deprivation and cruelty issues.?  or any other restrictive change to racing on behalf, supposedly, of the horse.
I'll be very interested to read your opinions because that is where Racing is heading in my view.  Total domination by the people who eventually want to see it banned.

The PJA will not and cannot condone what Mr Crowley did. As a matter of fact no fellow professional jockey could or would. There may be camaraderie but a limit of 6 is sufficient use of the persuader; jockeys need to accept and deal with it.

If a jockey is unwilling or cannot accept the penalty/sentence, then the jockey must not do the crime.

Exactly, it is a different world and as for appeasing the animal rights groups either fanantical or more mainstream they unfortunately ate the ones who have the ears of the young, the misinformed and the people in westminister.

I think the PJA was consulted and agreed to the 6-strike rule. The PJA represents and supports jockeys in various ways, but to condone what Mr Crowley did in the King George would not be one of them. Mr Crowley transgressed the rule pertaining to the use of the whip.

Rules is rules.

I am not personally particularly excited about horses being whipped - but it is clear it is not great for public perception.

But rules is rules.  You don't get to score a goal in football when offside because you were so much in the heat of the moment you didn't notice where you were on the pitch - and I frankly don't believe for a second the jockeys lost count (and if they did, that's a skill they need to learn).

The only downside I can see to the authorities coming down properly hard and DQing over-whipped horses would be that it would introduce a new way to throw a race - but harsh enough penalties on the jockeys ought to be a deterrant to that.

I believe that were this fine and additional penalty to be challenged in a law court that it would be deemed unlawful and over-turned.  It has to be unlawful for any ruling body to deprive anyone of the means to make his/her livelihood and fine them at the same time.  Quite frankly it is ridiculous.

I suppose more accurately, perception of public perception is manipulated. I don't understand why it's like this myself, as I am very happy to vocalise what I see as right and wrong. However way too many people are just willing to go along with what they are informed by the bbc, twatter and the chattering classes like the bha is 'what everyone thinks'. This is deliberate psychological manipulation, safety in the herd. The perception of what everyone actually thinks is only measurably tested against reality on a handful of occasions, alas.

You miss the main point 1st time poster,that of the BHA being influenced and caving in to the "Perception" bollox but you are right about outsiders of the sport not giving a monkeys or being aware,other than the anti's. So the bottom line is that the BHA are appeasing a tiny minority at the expense of the industry including jockeys, trainers and owners.

Nothing new in the "Perception" cr@p either e.g Military brass and politicians have been at it for decades,guarding the Sir Galahad in Belfast,armed and prepared,move to Victoria Docks in Liverpool,carry weapons but no ammo so the public would not get the perception we were fighting a war on our shores.Ditto at Greenham Common,let the Americans shoot intruders who got into the bunker areas,British troops to look on and return fire only if in immediate danger themselves,this despite probably standing alongside the Americans.

One theatre "Fire a warning shot in the air and then single well aimed shots at intruders" despite being armed with weapons capable of firing fully automatic.The point being that they wanted a perception that Britain played fair to the point of putting lives at risk purely to appease.

Thank god there was no twatter etc or we would probably have been ordered to stick flowers in the end of the barrels and blow kisses to the enemy.

Extreme in terms of the whip issue perhaps but the principle of appeasement exactly the same despite the facts of reality being obvious e.g no proof of animal cruelty,restriction of trade,punishments that are draconian in relation to breach of the rules.Giving in due to ill conceived perception is the slippery slope to ending the sport as we know it.