Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Definitely counted 9 possibly 10
Cheating connections of the 2nd out of a very major prize?
Cheating connections of the 2nd out of a very major prize?
Show More
My final post on this was ITV's Matt Chapman, on Twitter, was asked about his thoughts on 'Crowley's use of the whip?'
Matt Chapman's official response......
'Fantastic'
Matt Chapman's official response......
'Fantastic'
If Crowley could count to 10 which would have meant a DQ and he stopped at 9 it begs the question that 'in the heat of the moment when it's difficult to count properly' as we are led to believe, he can obviously count to 6? So the leeway within the rules meant he was able to cheat with virtual impunity. Utterly bonkers.
Crowley was counting with his pocket; Crowley sure knew how to count. Because of this I hope the BHA will instigate its automatic disqualification rule when a rider transgresses the 6-strike rule esp in a Group race. No mitigation whatsoever.
I like horseracing and, 6-strikes is more than sufficient "encouragement" for the horse; the rider could use their "intelligence" when to use the whip. Post 6-strikes the horsemanship and talent of the rider must be the only persuasion.
I like horseracing and, 6-strikes is more than sufficient "encouragement" for the horse; the rider could use their "intelligence" when to use the whip. Post 6-strikes the horsemanship and talent of the rider must be the only persuasion.
Seems plenty think the whip does not make a horse run faster,if that is the case then the horse won despite it's use? How then can the horse be disqualified for trying harder and running faster than the runner up?
When is the last time a horse was reported as being marked with the feather duster which whips are these days compared with the old style sticks?
When is the last time a horse was reported as being marked with the feather duster which whips are these days compared with the old style sticks?
Seems plenty think the whip does not make a horse run faster,if that is the case then the horse won despite it's use? How then can the horse be disqualified for trying harder and running faster than the runner up?
When is the last time a horse was reported as being marked with the feather duster which whips are these days compared with the old style sticks?
When is the last time a horse was reported as being marked with the feather duster which whips are these days compared with the old style sticks?
Marked or not, that's irrelevant; two camps whether a persuader assists or not. However, even the slightest possibility of an "unprofessionally" gained advantage over another eg 9-strikes instead of 6 cannot and must not be tolerated. It's ought to be stopped or punished with an automatic disqualification.
I still remember copper wires being ripped-out of telephone junction boxes and sold to unscrupulous dealers for cash. This trade was ended when the g0vernment made it illegal for this transaction to be concluded in cash.
I still remember copper wires being ripped-out of telephone junction boxes and sold to unscrupulous dealers for cash. This trade was ended when the g0vernment made it illegal for this transaction to be concluded in cash.
Enjoy your time with animal rights extremists impossible,sure they get your analogy even though it throws no light on any advantage gained in the race!!
Disqualify and give the fodder a chance for a change ffs
Not much danger of you being affected Quixall,unfortunately!!
Penalties for controversial new whip rules eased following review with senior riders
ASCOT, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 01: A jockeys whip at Ascot racecourse on October 01, 2011 in Ascot, England. (Photo by Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images)
The whip rules have been amended following a six-month review of the data
Credit: Alan Crowhurst
Whip penalties have been eased in the latest amendment to British racing’s controversial whip rules following an assessment of the first six months under the new regime.
While there have been no changes to the technical aspects of the whip rules, such as the maximum number of times the whip can be used in a race, sanctions have been amended after discussions between the BHA, Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) and senior riders.
Flat riders could have their punishment for using the whip one more time than the maximum allowed level of six strikes reduced by one day, to three days, if the rider has had 100 or more rides in Britain since their last breach of the whip rules. A two-day reduction could be permitted if the rider has had 200 or more rides in Britain without breaking the rules.
The same reductions would also apply to jump jockeys who had ridden 75 times without using the whip above the permitted level of seven times, or 150 days without breaching the rules.
The amendments to the rules come at a time when the whip debate has been reignited by the prospect of a significant ban for jockey Jim Crowley after he exceeded the maximum use of the whip during a pulsating finish to the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes, a race won by Crowley on Hukum over the Rob Hornby-ridden Westover.
Under the new rules, penalties will only be doubled in Class 1 races and any Class 2 race worth £150,000 or more. It will also apply to any Class 2 race restricted to apprentice, conditional or amateur riders.
Jim Crowley holds up the trophy after Hukum wins
the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Qipco Stakes
Jim Crowley is in danger of picking up a significant ban for his use of the whip on Hukum in the King George
Credit: Mark Cranham
Additionally, riders will only be referred under the totting up rule when punished for using the whip above the permitted level four times in a six-month period, up from three times. The maximum suspension under the totting up rule has also been reduced to four months from six months.
Streamlining to the penalty process has also been brought in, with jockeys able to have their cases heard on the day by racecourse stewards when going one strike over the permitted level. They will have no right to appeal the sanction if taking this option.
The BHA also announced that a time limit of seven days will be imposed for retrospective reviews by the Whip Review Committee (WRC) into potential breaches of the rules, except in the case where there could be a potential disqualification.
Sam Angell, chair of the WRC, said: “These changes reflect an ongoing process to improve the new whip rules and penalties, while retaining the original objectives, which are to ensure more judicious use of the whip for encouragement, improve the perceptions of whip use and ensure that the outcomes of races are fair.
"The BHA remains extremely grateful to the PJA and the senior riders who have engaged so constructively with this process. This dialogue will remain ongoing.
"We continue to see a reduction in the rate of offences, which is a testament to the measures being taken by the jockeys as they continue to adapt to the new rules, for which they deserve great credit.
Data published by the BHA on Monday showed 425 rides had been referred to the WRC during the first six months of the new whip rules, resulting in 360 breaches, or 0.96 per cent of rides during the period.
Using the whip above the permitted level accounted for 61 per cent of the suspensions, with less experienced riders receiving a higher proportion of the bans. Professional riders accounted for 77 per cent of the rides and 57 per cent of the penalties, whereas jockeys classed as apprentice, conditional and amateur received 43 per cent of the bans despite taking 23 per cent of the rides.
“We continue to see a reduction in the rate of offences, which is a testament to the measures being taken by jockeys as they continue to adapt to the new rules, for which they deserve great credit,” Angell added.
Read this next:
ASCOT, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 01: A jockeys whip at Ascot racecourse on October 01, 2011 in Ascot, England. (Photo by Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images)
The whip rules have been amended following a six-month review of the data
Credit: Alan Crowhurst
Whip penalties have been eased in the latest amendment to British racing’s controversial whip rules following an assessment of the first six months under the new regime.
While there have been no changes to the technical aspects of the whip rules, such as the maximum number of times the whip can be used in a race, sanctions have been amended after discussions between the BHA, Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) and senior riders.
Flat riders could have their punishment for using the whip one more time than the maximum allowed level of six strikes reduced by one day, to three days, if the rider has had 100 or more rides in Britain since their last breach of the whip rules. A two-day reduction could be permitted if the rider has had 200 or more rides in Britain without breaking the rules.
The same reductions would also apply to jump jockeys who had ridden 75 times without using the whip above the permitted level of seven times, or 150 days without breaching the rules.
The amendments to the rules come at a time when the whip debate has been reignited by the prospect of a significant ban for jockey Jim Crowley after he exceeded the maximum use of the whip during a pulsating finish to the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes, a race won by Crowley on Hukum over the Rob Hornby-ridden Westover.
Under the new rules, penalties will only be doubled in Class 1 races and any Class 2 race worth £150,000 or more. It will also apply to any Class 2 race restricted to apprentice, conditional or amateur riders.
Jim Crowley holds up the trophy after Hukum wins
the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Qipco Stakes
Jim Crowley is in danger of picking up a significant ban for his use of the whip on Hukum in the King George
Credit: Mark Cranham
Additionally, riders will only be referred under the totting up rule when punished for using the whip above the permitted level four times in a six-month period, up from three times. The maximum suspension under the totting up rule has also been reduced to four months from six months.
Streamlining to the penalty process has also been brought in, with jockeys able to have their cases heard on the day by racecourse stewards when going one strike over the permitted level. They will have no right to appeal the sanction if taking this option.
The BHA also announced that a time limit of seven days will be imposed for retrospective reviews by the Whip Review Committee (WRC) into potential breaches of the rules, except in the case where there could be a potential disqualification.
Sam Angell, chair of the WRC, said: “These changes reflect an ongoing process to improve the new whip rules and penalties, while retaining the original objectives, which are to ensure more judicious use of the whip for encouragement, improve the perceptions of whip use and ensure that the outcomes of races are fair.
"The BHA remains extremely grateful to the PJA and the senior riders who have engaged so constructively with this process. This dialogue will remain ongoing.
"We continue to see a reduction in the rate of offences, which is a testament to the measures being taken by the jockeys as they continue to adapt to the new rules, for which they deserve great credit.
Data published by the BHA on Monday showed 425 rides had been referred to the WRC during the first six months of the new whip rules, resulting in 360 breaches, or 0.96 per cent of rides during the period.
Using the whip above the permitted level accounted for 61 per cent of the suspensions, with less experienced riders receiving a higher proportion of the bans. Professional riders accounted for 77 per cent of the rides and 57 per cent of the penalties, whereas jockeys classed as apprentice, conditional and amateur received 43 per cent of the bans despite taking 23 per cent of the rides.
“We continue to see a reduction in the rate of offences, which is a testament to the measures being taken by jockeys as they continue to adapt to the new rules, for which they deserve great credit,” Angell added.
Read this next:
Merely my opinion and nothing to do with animal right - I'm not in their camp. I do not like to see jockey "unprofessionally" even possibly gaining an advantage.
I can take horseracing with or without a whip. But, 6-strikes is sufficient. The jockeys need to employ their intelligence when to initiate and utilise these 6 strikes.
I can take horseracing with or without a whip. But, 6-strikes is sufficient. The jockeys need to employ their intelligence when to initiate and utilise these 6 strikes.
CagliariG 31 Jul 23 19:26
Not much danger of you being affected Quixall,unfortunately!!
Excuse me you don’t know my P/L……
Not much danger of you being affected Quixall,unfortunately!!
Excuse me you don’t know my P/L……
Oh you don’t believe all the sh!te on here do you ffs
I believe Ikeaman, StewB and Gaze turn a profit from shed loads of losers Quixall because they say they do it must be true?
£10k fine? I believe the financial penalty ought to be at least 80% of his share of the prize money. As it is the punishment does not fit the crime.
what/wheres the deterrent when max fine is less than the jocks winning %
He loses 20 days riding fees plus the prize money if riding
any wnrs in that time.Think he misses the ride on the jolly
@York aswell,Mostahdhaf.
any wnrs in that time.Think he misses the ride on the jolly
@York aswell,Mostahdhaf.
do away with the whip the dodgy ones will be on the menu over the water better a smack don't you think where will the less enthusiastic dodgepots go?
you arnt seriously suggesting the loss of riding fees to a retained rider of top owners is a deterrent ?
Still leaves him with 50 large in the hip
Should be disqualified…..tbf..
Should be disqualified…..tbf..
crowley on tv now saying he wasnt aware he,d broke rules but he,s aware enough not to do it in every race he rides,just the £250,000 group one finishes
Let's hope Marquand could get a leg up on Mostahdaf in the Juddmonte International.
might try that one with the mrs only meant to have 6 double whisky,s last night but turned out it was 9 lost count after 6
It comes to a fair amount of money.
Mostadahf wins the York race he'll lose that percentage aswell.
That's over £500k to the wnr.
Mostadahf wins the York race he'll lose that percentage aswell.
That's over £500k to the wnr.
so he should lose the % of his next 500,000 race winner as he loses nothing if it doesnt win ?
Jocks need an all out strike like everybody else the authorities dont make me laugh who thinks they are fit for purpose racing has gone significantly backwards last ten years in so many ways.
No yout right the horse might not win but if it does or get's
placed it's cost him for trying.
placed it's cost him for trying.
take your pick today from jocks taking the pish out of public in live tv interviews
murphy i didnt want to give TOM an easy lead [ just the 25lengths ]
crowley i didnt no i,d hit horse more than 6 times [ 9 ]
murphy i didnt want to give TOM an easy lead [ just the 25lengths ]
crowley i didnt no i,d hit horse more than 6 times [ 9 ]
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."
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."
Try watching Willie Carson and Richard Quinn rides,should many other‘horsemen’ who didn’t resort to rat-a-tat-tat
Carson was poetry on a horse never any hot head slash and rasher……
Carson was poetry on a horse never any hot head slash and rasher……
said on tv he didnt know how many times he went over but stopped short of 10 which would have meant disq.
and manages 6 or under in 99% of races he rides in,just those pesky tight finishes £500,000 races i cant count to 6 in
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!
to be fair crowley should be embarrassed he needed 9 wacks to get past hornby,
i no but side on hornby stopped well before crowley ,which suggests /looked in real time hornby was aware/counting
If I was the owner of Westover (no chance here given Juddmonte) and only beaten a head I'd seriously consider appealing to have the result reversed, why? My jockey was aware and understood the rule governing whip usage. And, as such only lost by a head; the other (winning) jockey did not.
Why did your jockey go over then impossible?
Case lost before you even get started!!! NAP
Case lost before you even get started!!! NAP
Why did your jockey go over then impossible?
Case lost before you even get started!!! NAP
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
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
It is amazing to me how seemingly wise, enthusiastic and erudite forumites, who love horse racing, have been taken in by this brainwashing about the whip. And who want to see jockeys at the throats of fellow jockeys, all of whom are under the yoke of these ridiculous, impediments to their carrying out of their jobs.
A £10K fine is utterly ridiculous for such an offence on top of the loss of earnings that this top class and stainless of reputation jockey will also incur as a result of this ban.
It is Crowley, and indeed the jockeys themselves, who should be taking the BHA to legal action in the face of such draconian sanctions and removal of their ability to earn money at their professions.
Where is the PJA in all of this? Absolute stony silence from their direction.
A £10K fine is utterly ridiculous for such an offence on top of the loss of earnings that this top class and stainless of reputation jockey will also incur as a result of this ban.
It is Crowley, and indeed the jockeys themselves, who should be taking the BHA to legal action in the face of such draconian sanctions and removal of their ability to earn money at their professions.
Where is the PJA in all of this? Absolute stony silence from their direction.
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
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
LH they are trying to protect the image of horseracing. Do you really think reducing the number of hits has made racing worse? I bet you haven't even noticed the difference. And the reason is because it hasn't made it a worse spectacle at all. And then, in one of the biggest races of the year, with one of the biggest audiences, when a jockey breaks the rules you think they should ignore it? That is plain crazy. Our sport of choice is worth protecting and I have no problem with a limit to the number of hits a horse gets.
How many do you think is the right number and what would you do if the rule was ignored?
How many do you think is the right number and what would you do if the rule was ignored?
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..
introduce VAR. be great entertainment for the crowd and punters. VAR review on Saturday, punters glued to the big screen as the stewards counted the whacks. then flashes up .... 1st and 2nd disqualified. King of Steel 1st.
then you have a real deterrent and probably never see whip abuse again cos they know they'll get chucked.
then you have a real deterrent and probably never see whip abuse again cos they know they'll get chucked.
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
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.
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.
Laura Coughlan, probably only over by one on look back smiling but deserves her ban.
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.
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.
As above I'm pro whip but it still needs to be regulated. I dont agree with the severity of the bans or the permitted amount of strikes. You can't however ignore rides that aren't right and hers wasn't. She used it too frequently and never gave the horse time to respond.
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.
If a jockey is unwilling or cannot accept the penalty/sentence, then the jockey must not do the crime.
LoyalHoncho, I doubt there will be any jump racing in 50 years. I won't be here to see if I am right. It is a shame but thats the way it is going it is a different world.
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.
The PJA should most certainly be representing Mr Crowley in this case and assisting him with an appeal of this most severe of livelihood/income deprivation sanctions. Otherwise what are they for.
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.
All aspects of life in Britain are now ruled by minorities. The 'woke' agendas are influencing
all authorities including the BHA. Public perception is a nonsense. The vast majority of people
aren't the least bit interested in horse racing. If the BHA were honest about it they would admit
that it's fear of the crackpot animal rights nutters that drives their decision making.
Stand up to minority rule and you might get your bank account closed!
all authorities including the BHA. Public perception is a nonsense. The vast majority of people
aren't the least bit interested in horse racing. If the BHA were honest about it they would admit
that it's fear of the crackpot animal rights nutters that drives their decision making.
Stand up to minority rule and you might get your bank account closed!
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 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.
Public perception is manipulated. It is exactly like roggrain alluded to. Preferred tiny minority voices are deliberately amplified and given a platform, which allows nefarious people to give the impression that's what 'everyone' thinks. Until the actual by election in Uxbridge for example, the mainstream would have you believe that the only few people against the ulez tax expansion in London were gammon fruitcakes.
Around 7.5 million tuned in to watch Corach Rambler's victory in the Randox Grand National.
The figure, which was equivalent to the same amount that watched last year's running, was the highest one-minute audience peak of the year so far for a sporting event on ITV, beating the 7.1m viewers for the Six Nations match between England and Scotland in February.
And yes, the KG has been given x10 more attention due to the way the updated whip rules have been framed. This would be akin to giving professional footballers a three headers a match limit (due to the proven risk of long term brain damage), and severe bans and fines dished out if breaching the cap.
The only reason it's being discussed in racing and serious betting circles is due to the framing of the rules, not a perception of abuse from the riders.
Around 7.5 million tuned in to watch Corach Rambler's victory in the Randox Grand National.
The figure, which was equivalent to the same amount that watched last year's running, was the highest one-minute audience peak of the year so far for a sporting event on ITV, beating the 7.1m viewers for the Six Nations match between England and Scotland in February.
And yes, the KG has been given x10 more attention due to the way the updated whip rules have been framed. This would be akin to giving professional footballers a three headers a match limit (due to the proven risk of long term brain damage), and severe bans and fines dished out if breaching the cap.
The only reason it's being discussed in racing and serious betting circles is due to the framing of the rules, not a perception of abuse from the riders.
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.
unless your watching a dedicated racing channel/itv racing show theres more chance of a having a catch up in the street with LORD LUCAN than coming across any channel/news discussing USE OF THE WHIP, put the clips up of any MSM outlet other than itv racing and 2 dedicated racing channels who even mention crowley,s whip ban let along informed their opinions on it on to others , just more invisible/non existent conflated woke nonesense as this thread proves, the blind alleys/conflated subjects brought in to a thread on whip rules is staggering
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.
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.
load of bollocks i went racing over 50 yrs with my dad and the stands didnt need BHA telling them about the CRACKS< whipping,bloodied horses meated out by piggot and co ,its always been an issue, as a teenager i can still remember now watch piggot thrash a horse called moott the hoople to within an inch f its life at newcastle and it was the talk of the track,bars etc,same as AP, irish jocks thrashing away at chelt etc,etc
When do you believe was the most recent era of commonplace whip abuse in UK horse racing?
Take your head out of the sand,the tickling sticks are not even close to what you describe,sounds like you have not moved on as racing already has!!
Has there been a case of a horse marked with the new style whip ?
I can't remember the year but assuming early/mid 90s when Peter Scudamore helped develop a new style whip with a cushion and presume the modern one developed from the prototype?
you could give luke morris a feather duster but it still looks absolutely shocking,
like i say if their a tickling stick we,re losing nothing without them,
take any kid, racing newbie to a track when they have apprentices etc showing off the EQUASISER and the cracking noise alone would stop lots of them coming racing again
like i say if their a tickling stick we,re losing nothing without them,
take any kid, racing newbie to a track when they have apprentices etc showing off the EQUASISER and the cracking noise alone would stop lots of them coming racing again
When do you believe was the most recent era of commonplace whip abuse in UK horse racing?
any random kid also most likely believes the world is about to combust unless I stop driving my car. judging the world by the opinions of heavily indoctrinated kids is probably not the best way to form industry policy.
Nobody has even mention the first couple of taps Crowley used were to keep his mount from leaning to its right,it straightened as a result so maybe should be counted as in the interests of safety?
1st time poster,do you think a generation of youngsters were put off by Nicky Carlisle because of how he looked? LOL
Btw Luke Morris has no choice due to the damage he has to his joints!!
Btw Luke Morris has no choice due to the damage he has to his joints!!
1,m 63 as old school as they come and if i,m commenting on the equasiser been tried at racecourses its because ive been there heard it and seen it in action and was shocked by the noise it makes, so why do you feel the need to mock the current younger generation because it fits your current world narrative conflating all your current thinking into every subject you discuss/comment on
ie your so called anti woke agenda
ie your so called anti woke agenda
Sadly as you get older, public opinion changes. What might have seemed normal 40 or 50 years ago is now illegal and vice versa. Racing has 2 issues that conflict with one another. Gambling has been liberalised beyond what anyone in the 1970s could have imagined while animal welfare issues have moved massively and may continue to do so. Will we have horse or greyhound racing, cows on farms or even pet dogs in 20 or 40 years time? I won't be here to see that but the rate of change is accelerating. Jim Crowley knew the rules but he has been riding for many years and would have been applauded by almost everyone for that ride 10 years ago.
Of course, everything evolves with time, that's life. How many people outside of those with a deep interest in the sport, or a deep interest in ending it are discussing Crowley's ride on Hukum? The only reason it is being discussed by anyone is that he severely contravened the new rules, not because Hukum was possibly abused.
There are two elements at play obviously. Are the new rules proportionate in general is a different conversation to whether they were implemented correctly. In my view they are extremely disproportionate, that does not mean he should have contravened them due to it being an important race.
There are two elements at play obviously. Are the new rules proportionate in general is a different conversation to whether they were implemented correctly. In my view they are extremely disproportionate, that does not mean he should have contravened them due to it being an important race.
In my view the far worse treatment that the animals receive these days is when they are clearly beaten but carry on being ridden out almost a furlong behind, or just plodding along to finish. Especially over jump races it is shameful sometimes that they jockeys persist when out of the race. Presumably due to the handicapping system encouraging them to cross the finish line.
It is not always shameful. Some of those horses are swinging the lead and if you pull up as soon as you are 10 lengths behind, the horse will say thanks, I will try that again. You could of course argue that they are not worth persevering with by staying in training.
Yes shameful 'sometimes'. That's the actual abuse (in my view) they should be weeding out. In was in Ireland, Kilbeggan I think the other day where the finishers were pulling up having finished the race, and some dork was still firing his knackered and beaten mount (at around 5pmh) into the last. Of course the horse took a heavy fall, and laid lifeless on the ground. By the grace of god I believe he actually got up but looked long odds on that he wouldn't. Most of this happens away from the broadcast cameras.
Like so much of the depressing post modern discourse, perception is valued over substance.
why do chappers and others on here feel the need to lie to defend the whip by saying horses cant even feel the pro cush,when we all no they can hence why they use it and those that can get the strongest jock to use it the most tim es even if means breaking the rules, for them
just watched preview of galway hurdle where the mullins horse ballyistok swished his tail 5 times after been hit 5 times after the last clear as day ,whip lands he swishes tail,why would that happen if half a tonne of horse couldnt feel it ?
argue the case without lying and taking people for fools
just watched preview of galway hurdle where the mullins horse ballyistok swished his tail 5 times after been hit 5 times after the last clear as day ,whip lands he swishes tail,why would that happen if half a tonne of horse couldnt feel it ?
argue the case without lying and taking people for fools
20 day ban,10 grand fine and suddenly aged 40+ in 4 days crowley manages to count to 6 instead of 9 in heat of battle
The nearly £30,000 Jockey's percentage - from winning the Nassau - will more than pay the Fine.
crowley now given it the its not that easy to stay within the rules, no 99.9% of thick as fook jockeys just manage it in 99.9% of races 7 days a week, and crowley manages to cut his strokes down by 50% inside a week
How has gambling been liberalised in 2023 pray? The very opposite is the truth. It is so interfered with. regulated and restricted now it is almost impossible to get a decent bet on!
It is Gaming that has been made so available to the great unwashed and hence our present day problems for serious punters!
It is Gaming that has been made so available to the great unwashed and hence our present day problems for serious punters!
Wasting your time honcho,TAPS barely describes this forum!!
LH, I was comparing to the 1960-70s if you were referring to my post at 13.06. In those days few people could bet unless they went racing or did the football pools or bet illegally. The freedom to bet on any sport, to lay online, to bet free of betting tax, to watch racing at home apart from the big meetings was unknown back then. I agree that the liberal period is coming to an end now with affordability checks but most people will never be asked. After 25 years, surely Betfair know my betting habits by now? But the idea of restricting jockeys use of the whip was equally unheard of at that time.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539