- This topic has 43 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Where would you place the limit on how often a horse can be hit KF?
My views on the Whip rules are as simple as me! A jockeys discretion should be the law of the day,it takes what it takes to WIN and i believe that 99% of Jockeys use the whip accordingly,they are not Horse abusers,they are Horsemen/Women.What I dont like to see is a jockey hitting a horse who has No chance of winning there really is no point other than frustration and i believe they deserve to be punished!I have said it before to all those that think everythings hunkydorey at the moment that it will take only one high profile race where the fine line of winning and losing is decided by the extra illegal strike of the whip and the Sh*t will hit the fan Again. Its coming!
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.
Aaron, i should have a word with your Devil as your above post only describes what actually has happened in every race that was ever run………….and of the millions of races ran like that how many horses died because of the whip again?
Ffs that has to be the most ridiculous post i have read regarding the Whip debate!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.
‘Dangerous Aspect’ What? That stat has as much credibility as Alex Salmond and his ridiculous ideas for an independant Scotland.
Agree with your post before last KF. The media arent interested in some hairy arsed northern journeyman getting a ban but wait till Tony, Ruby or Hughsie miss a festival….
I counted 16 bans in the first 9 days of the year, on those figures can’t see how the issue has died down at all, it’s just the media coverage that’s died down, which is understandable in a way I guess.
Cormack, what’s wrong with Pinza’s stats?
As a genuine point, is there any racing nation where the whip is banned?
Mike
There is No Nation anywhere in the World where they have Banned the Whip Mike. Some countrys certainly have a difference of opinion to ours as to how the whip is advocated but then again the term ‘Horseracing’ is defined in many ways around the world.
Those who predicted apocalypse have been proven spectacularly wrong.
I’ll give you Robert Cooper if you give me the other 4 just from todays racing who have all been banned!
I see Robert Winston got 22 days at Southwell. Haven’t seen it yet but apparently he’s been done for 3 correctional smacks to keep his horse from hanging into another.
Winston a senior jockey of 15 years describes himself as " insulted" by the way he’s been forced to ride.
Yep it’s all sorted out now…
Robert Winston may have been suspended for a year for passing on information, but I suspect his card is still well and truly marked. Seems like a sentence with an underlying message "you are down and we are going to keep you there".
KF – so you’d advocate a return to the good old days when jockeys often thrashed exhausted horses home? No limit on whip use – leave it to the jockeys?
Cav – First of all, promoting the expectation that reducing allowable count would result in fewer bans was not really plausible and was one of several errors made by BHA when introducing/selling the rule changes. Their hope is that the resulting culture change (driven by stiffer penalties) will eventually reduce the offence rate. I think it might but it’ll take quite a time. In any case, Pinza’s stats show (although he avoids highlighting it obviously) that the offence rate (measured offences/no.races run) over jumps Dec 2010 Vs Dec 2011 is roughly the same (5% against 5.17%) year on year.
Pinza’s stats
don’t
show that horses are being hit less (you MUST agree that that, in itself, is a good thing – how could anyone not) and that other offences (interference for example) are significantly down. Surely good too, no?
I’d be really interested to see betting turnover figs – although such is the disparity between last year and this (because of weather) that comparisons are difficult.
Number of bans are in jockey’s hands. They are the ones riding outside the rules. There is no point them blaming anyone other than themselves when they are banned. I would guess that their problem is that connections are putting them under pressure to win regardless – the issue of rule-breaking being rewarded (i.e. no disqualfications for horses ridden outside the rules to their likely advantage) is still a real conundrum. I can see the difficulties, re betting, etc.
Perhaps the answer is that they keep the race but the horse and/or stable gets a ban as well as the jockey? That might sharpen connections minds.
Just an idea, not a proposal
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.