- This topic has 43 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Perhaps the "psychological" damage is corrected by the applause ,treats and more that goes to the winner.We all must suffer the damage of losing to enjoy the rewards from winning.I believe we enter cuckoo land at this point.In the wild how about the "psychological damage" done the young stud when banished from the herd by the top dog!Now that is real cruel.So lets not go overboard in antropomorphism.
I do wonder these days how many results are different to how they would have been last season, but I guess only the jockeys and trainers could tell me that, my racereading skills not being up to much. We’ve come a long way since the days when horses died from heat [The Crimean War] of cold [The Boer War] and had their vocal chords removed so as not to give away the army’s position [The First World War]. Thankfully, horses are no longer sent into battle, but, whatever they do in war or sport they do because they trust us, and surely hurling them at a huge fence at racing speed betrays that trust more than hitting them with a bit of foam? We’ll still cover up the things that really matter, overbreeding of horses and live exportation for slaughter [surely the most terrifying thing that can happen to any horse], but, as long as we’re ‘seen’ to be doing something for horse welfare, that’s fine.
Excellent Post Moe,good to see you telling it as it is!
Keep it up Gal! 
Tuffers i dont see any mention of the Mental/psychological effects a horse suffers when it comes a cropper jumping a fence at 30mph,i would hazard a guess that when a horse struggles to get up from falling due only to being winded its suffering more mentally than when its being slapped on the backside with a piece of foam but hey thats the price these fine animals pay for our pleasure.
Golden Silver
paid the ultimate price a couple of weeks ago for our entertainment,i’m sure he’d rather have a sore a*se though!
A good point and one reason why I shall never be able to bring myself to own a chaser – though as you can see from my signature, I have nothing but admiration for the bravery of those horses that do give their all over fences.
Appreciate your honesty Tuffers! Let me push you a bit more…
Do you ever consider the strains both mental and physical Jockeys put themselves under to achieve their goals,take Richard Hughes for example,near on 5ft 11ins tall and yet can get down to under 9 stone.If he put 4 stone on he wouldn’t be considered overweight,these guys put their bodies through what we would find impossible,sweating and starving,christ when i back a winner its Lobster and Champagne,Richard might get the lettuce! No i feel for the Jockeys having their skills and judgement undermined by a bunch of Fat Cats trying to ‘whip’ them into their way of thinking!Yet another straw man KF –
All the jockeys compete equally under the rules so no one is at any advantage or disadvantage or hardship as a result of the new rules (apart from those who break them of course).
Cav – many distinguished racing minds were calling for reduction/elimination in whip usage long before introduction of new rules so there is much more to it than racing reacting to ‘8 housewives’.
The ethics/morality of asking horses to jump is totally different situation to hitting them with a stick and I’ve outlined why on several occasions.
Appreciate your honesty Tuffers! Let me push you a bit more…
Do you ever consider the strains both mental and physical Jockeys put themselves under to achieve their goals,take Richard Hughes for example,near on 5ft 11ins tall and yet can get down to under 9 stone.If he put 4 stone on he wouldn’t be considered overweight,these guys put their bodies through what we would find impossible,sweating and starving,christ when i back a winner its Lobster and Champagne,Richard might get the lettuce! No i feel for the Jockeys having their skills and judgement undermined by a bunch of Fat Cats trying to ‘whip’ them into their way of thinking!I certainly do, KF. A promising young rider whom we’ve used a number of times has been struggling recently and I feel for all these young lads who drive halfway across the country for one ride at somewhere like Wolverhampton.
I don’t accept that the new whip rules make things any harder for them, though. A young lad like Ryan Powell, for example, has ridden a couple of cracking finishes for us without being in any danger of breaching the whip rules. I see this as an opportunity for good young jockeys to make a name for themselves as capable of riding within the rules and ironically the bans being served by some of the more senior jocks gives them the chance to pick up some extra rides
The ethics/morality of asking horses to jump is totally different situation to hitting them with a stick and I’ve outlined why on several occasions.
Agreed,there’s a damn sight more risk to a horses welfare asking it to jump a fence and yet your blinkered outlines conveniently miss that point completely.Your views on the whip remind me of those who stroke a Mouse before feeding it to a Snake!
Tuffers i dont see any mention of the Mental/psychological effects a horse suffers when it comes a cropper jumping a fence at 30mph,i would hazard a guess that when a horse struggles to get up from falling due only to being winded its suffering more mentally than when its being slapped on the backside with a piece of foam but hey thats the price these fine animals pay for our pleasure.
Golden Silver
paid the ultimate price a couple of weeks ago for our entertainment,i’m sure he’d rather have a sore a*se though!
A good point and one reason why I shall never be able to bring myself to own a chaser –
Thats an interesting viewpoint Tuffers,particularly from one ‘from the other side, so to speak.Obviously from your remark you can put into perspective that ‘whipping’ a horse bothers you but also that ‘Jumping’ a horse bothers you more,i can associate with your consistent viewpoint thanks.
However Cormack has major issues with the whip and yet ‘owns’ a 4 mile Chaser who could do with a few backhanders,he doesn’t have a problem with the fact there is a 100% more chance of his horse injurying itself over 22 fences but hates the idea of hitting it with a piece of foam to keep it interested.Call me stupid but that reeks of hypocrisy to me!I don’t miss the point – I’m acutely aware of the point. I happen to disagree that the two are relatyed, philosphhically. One (jumping) is clearly necessary if you are to have jump racing. The other (whipping) is not.
I’ve been through this before but…
I accept that asking a horse to jump or gallop puts it at increased risk of harm. I believe that this additional risk of harm is a price I am willing to pay for the entertainment and economic benefits racing brings. It is a deal with the devil in a way. I do so reluctantly but in the belief that, so long as everything is done as far as is reasonably practical to protect the horse from unnecessary danger, it is an unavoidable facet of the sport.
The whip I regard as completely unnecessary and avoidable. There is no need, other than for safety, to use it. Races will still be won and lost, racing will still be a specatacle, people will, by and large, enjoy it just the same.
So, I welcome the reduction in whip usage. I think the reduction in allowable use has been a very positive move forward. Those who predicted apocalypse have been proven spectacularly wrong.
I’d like to see the whip completely banned (other than safety) but I’m pretty happy with things as they stand so wouldn’t be campaigning vociferously for further reductions at this stage. I’d like to see jockeys take a more responsible attitude and exercise greater professionalism and control so that there were fewer rule breaches, but the rules themselves are good.
All IMO of course!
PS – Cav, as a stats man you will surely recognise that Pinza’s data is a) irrelevant and b) statistically useless
Nothing hypocritical about it KF. I’ve outlined (on many occasions now, and again above) what I see as the philosophical differences.
I accept that asking a horse to jump or gallop puts it at increased risk of harm. I believe that this additional risk of harm is a price I am willing to pay for the entertainment and economic benefits racing brings. It is a deal with the devil in a way. I do so reluctantly but in the belief that, so long as everything is done as far as is reasonably practical to protect the horse from unnecessary danger, it is an unavoidable facet of the sport.
Read your above Post again and tell me where there’s No Hypocritical viewpoints regarding your issue with a whip hurting a horse?
If you can accept the ‘increase of harm’ galloping and jumping puts on a horse you can be expected to accept that the very minor risk a whip puts on the same beast surely?
You are also ‘Prepared to deal with the Devil’ because jumping is pre-requisite to National Hunt racing but again cant deal with the ‘Fairy’ which in comparison is the whip!
Your last piece suggests ‘So long as the horse is protected from unecessary danger you reluctantly accept that danger is an unavoidable facet of the sport’ The Whip isn’t Dangerous though!I’m not a jockey but it seems obvious that the whip rules can make it a good deal harder for jump jockey’s to get the more recalcitrant beasts in lower grade fare round in good order to win. I have formed this impression while watching many races. I know the pro-rules mob on here (Scotland is well represented, and it is a matter of historical fact that the Scottish have always had a taste for puritan ‘reformist’ thinking) say this doesn’t matter but I feel that it shouldn’t just be docile well-behaved horses that ‘deserve’ to win.
What the public and the pro-reform crowd need to realise is that jump racing has always been an incredibly atavistic sport – it had a bad reputation 150 years ago! – and in these grey and politically correct days it stands out even more so.
There are two roads it can take from here: either a) a firm stance that communicates to the public exactly what is going on thereby defusing hysteria and sentimentality; or b) continue the long process of reforming itself out of existence.My feeling is the National will have to be moved or abolished.
I accept that asking a horse to jump or gallop puts it at increased risk of harm. I believe that this additional risk of harm is a price I am willing to pay for the entertainment and economic benefits racing brings. It is a deal with the devil in a way. I do so reluctantly but in the belief that, so long as everything is done as far as is reasonably practical to protect the horse from unnecessary danger, it is an unavoidable facet of the sport.
Read your above Post again and tell me where there’s No Hypocritical viewpoints regarding your issue with a whip hurting a horse?
If you can accept the ‘increase of harm’ galloping and jumping puts on a horse you can be expected to accept that the very minor risk a whip puts on the same beast surely?
You are also ‘Prepared to deal with the Devil’ because jumping is pre-requisite to National Hunt racing but again cant deal with the ‘Fairy’ which in comparison is the whip!
Your last piece suggests ‘So long as the horse is protected from unecessary danger you reluctantly accept that danger is an unavoidable facet of the sport’ The Whip isn’t Dangerous though!Kingfisher
I am an advocate of the devil. How about this. The primary reason for using a whip is to make a horse go faster or make it operate at its maximum capability. There is a greater risk of injury or death the faster you go or the closer you get to your maximum capability. Therefore using the whip to reach this point makes it more dangerous. As for your Richard Hughes piece well Hughes has a choice. He can choose to make the sacrifice or he can choose to go and work in a factory. A horse doesn’t have the choice yet can still end up in the factory.
I’m not quite sure what the main purpose is of the article linked by the OP. Is it highlighting the danger of the sport or is it making yet another point about the whip rules. I tend to think it may be the latter. I fear the last word of the article should be the opposite.
I agree a) is the correct route PTS. Alongside careful management of racing’s own house.
Yes, where would we all be but for Scotland’s great and proud histroy of reform I wonder. I agree on that.
The other dangerous aspect of the whip KF is that initial data appears to show significantly reduced numbers of interference cases since whip rules introduced. That has to be a good thing – for safety campaigners AND punters.
I agree a) is the correct route PTS. Alongside careful management of racing’s own house.
Yes, where would we all be but for Scotland’s great and proud histroy of reform I wonder. I agree on that.
I wouldn’t want to get in to a row about that. Suffice to say: if that long history of reform is responsible for the social and health problems north of the border, then maybe it isn’t such an august history…
Just out of curiosity: do you think salmond’s idea of living off oil and whisky is feasible?
My concern would be the quality of administrator we have at our disposal to realise his vision, admirable as it may be in theory. Recent history with relatively simple projects such as the building of the parliament itself and the disgraceful travesty that is the Edinburgh tram project suggests we might find running a national economy a problematic challenge.
Keep it up Gal! 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.