Chapman

he's so binkered it . he just backed up the argument for the whips rules . suggesting Hayley should've beat the horse home after young Gianluca Sanna managed to stick to 6 and just hold on.

Make the rule 10 he'd say it's too low, make it 50, he'd say it's still too low. The rules were made, stick to them.

yes its fine the horse was 'responding to the whip'

what does that even mean

Just ignore him. He will see another thread with his name in it, and think he has actually achieved something. That to him will be akin to seeing his name in lights. Any comments he has made on the subject have just been about ingratiating himself with the bubble. Who is he actually preaching to? Has he actually realised that it's still called a whip, and not all the other daft names he and others have invented?

I never watch or listen in to his act.

Some horses resent being whipped and will fold up when beaten with one.

And, quite frankly, who wouldn't, unless you're a High-Court judge ?

Trying to strike ( excuse the pun ) the right balance, I think six is probably more than enough.

How can you put any number on it, other than zero? Six is okay, but seven isn't? Why not 50 if it isn't supposed to hurt? Outside the bubble the argument couldn't look more pitiful. Makes the jocks - and they are the stumbling block - look ridiculous. To think it's okay to hit any animal for entertainment has always been wrong. Can none of them see the light, or like Francome, do that have to retire first?

exactly dd. Seb Sanders was a big hitter even he's said it should go. All of Prescott's jockeys were/are whip happy but even the Baronet himself has said he'd be happy to see it go. Which means he recognises it's ugly in this day and age. And quite clearly is not needed. As for the 'needed for correction' argument let's face it how often is it really used for that, not often in truth.

bluebook, if a horse isn't going forward after 5 strikes (for whatever physical or mental reason) giving it a load more isn't going to make any difference.

It's time Chapman and his ilk woke up.

chapmans none to bright he,s used an isolated incident to create an argument,presumably if turner had hit it once more to get up ,logic says if the other jock had hit it once,twice more it wouldnt have got up,so in effect turner or whoever would have cheated to win so we got the correct result, if everyone is allowed to cheat ,turner or whoever doesn't get any advantage or is Chapman saying some  jockey,s should take advantage of other jockey,s riding within the rules if that's the case why not go the whole hog and allow a free for all ,whips ,interference,stealing of whips,intimidation everything and anything goes
no one other than Chappers wants anyone riding within the rules beaten by someone breaking the rules

Chapman's a bit of an odd bod if you ask me.....the way he salivates over certain (young)jockeys...gives me the heebie geebies..

'..travelling like a travelly thing'

that's not a metaphor, it's just nonsense and now Seb Sanders is saying it, what a channel.

Not saying I'm in favour but it would be interesting to see what jockeys would last without having a whip. We've seen a race at Cheltenham and then at Newcastle where both jockeys on the favs have very little strength in a finish and rely on flailing the whip rather than strength. No doubt there are many more currently riding the same.