- This topic has 27 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Having been asked several times what rule I should like to see in place regarding whip usage, I offer Japan Racing’s rule and commend it to the Forum as a BHA template, for its simplicity, flexibility and effectiveness. Here it is in its entirety:
Art. 113 During a race, a jockey must not make a loud voice without justifiable reason, or, use his/her whip wrongfully.
That’s it folks. No other mention of the whip in the Japanese rule book. “Wrongfully” is up to the (very good professional stewards) to determine. Works beautifully there, so why not here?
Because it is subjective to the views of each set of stewards. Therefore it will inevitably be inconsistently applied. Then there will be clarification and guidance issued. Then we will have limits applied.
Hang on, haven’t we already been through all this !!
Round and round in circles we go until we disappear up our own …. you know the rest.- Total Posts 17716
Because it is subjective to the views of each set of stewards. Therefore it will inevitably be inconsistently applied. Then there will be clarification and guidance issued. Then we will have limits applied.
Hang on, haven’t we already been through all this !!
Round and round in circles we go until we disappear up our own …. you know the rest.Absolutely right.
So why does it work beautifully in Japan?
Professional Stewarding, plus a much more highly educated General Public which is massively enthusiastic about Horse Racing to a phenomenal degree. Those have to be the aims of the BHA, not this eternal merry-go-round of self-inflicted mortal wounds to our poor, benighted Sport.
Poor research Pinza –
From the official Japan Racing website –
http://japanracing.jp/en/information/horsemens-information/conduct.html
6. Matters to be noted in Relation to Jockeys
a) The Jockeys to ride in races conducted by JRA must enter and stay in the Jockey’s Quarter at the racecourse designated by JRA by 6:00 PM on the previous day of that race meeting day. (For Invitational races, the Jockeys must stay at accommodation facilities designated by JRA from 6:00 PM on the previous day of each race.) This is done to uphold the integrity of racing.
b) A Jockey must ride in a race carrying the officially announced weight. The weight of 1.0 kg shall be subtracted from the weight concerned as the weight of the safety vest, which is mandatory. For example, if the announced weight is 57 kg, the Jockey has to ride the horse at the weight of 58.0 kg.c) The JRA may require the random selection of several Jockeys on race day to take and pass a urine test for prohibited substances (stimulant drugs, marijuana, narcotics, and diuretics).
d) A whip which is 77 cm (approximately 30 inches) or longer is prohibited from being used in races.
e) From the standpoint of horse welfare and safety of racing, the use of the whip in the following manner may be liable to punishment:
– Using the whip to the extent of causing injury.
– Using the whip with the arm above shoulder height.
– Using the whip with excessive force.
– Using the whip on a horse which is showing no response.
– The continued use of the whip on a horse after its chance of winning or being placed is clearly gone.
– The unnecessary use of the whip on a horse that has clearly won its race or has obtained its maximum placing.
– Using the whip on a horse which is past the winning post.
– Using the whip on the flank of the horse.
– Using the whip with excessive frequency.
– Using the whip on any part of the horse’s head or in the vicinity of the head.
– The use of the whip in front of the saddle while the whip is held in the forehand position, unless exceptional circumstances prevail.f) No one under 15 years of age is permitted to ride as a Jockey in JRA races.
g) Should an incident of interference which affects the result of the race occur during race, the offending horse is disqualified or demoted behind the offended horse, depending on the finishing order of the offender and the victimized horse.
h) We strongly recommend that Jockeys subscribe to casualty compensation before they leave their home country, which will provide them with coverage while in Japan.In short, very similar to our own rules which, by being very specific and clear about what constitutes excessive frequency (as requested by jockeys), are superior IMO.
In short, very similar to our own rules which, by being very specific and clear about what constitutes excessive frequency (as requested by jockeys), are superior IMO.
Nice one Corm – an example of how useful proper research can be as opposed to selective, non contextualised, random quoting to support a particular stance.
- Total Posts 17716
Corm
, thank you – I’m delighted you’ve turned up what are the fuller
Guidelines
which support Japan’s
Official Rule Book
, which I quoted (please note
Paul
) absolutely correctly and without any selection whatsoever.
This spelling-out of what constitutes misuse of the whip is quite admirable, and leaves little ground uncovered.
As you can see, the most important thing about these rules is that there is
no mention whatsoever of a specific number of hits
. That was my primary point (aside from the simplicity of the position) and your research fleshes that out beautifully.
The second most important point, following on from that, is that it is
left to the Stewards
to interpret the Guidelines with full flexibility and in context of individual circumstances.
So there is nothing in Japan Racing’s whip guidelines with which I should imagine anyone here would want to disagree. This is (as I originally suggested) a
model set of rules
, which BHA could peruse to very good advantage. Your research bears out my initial feeling perfectly: if I need a research assistant – which I clearly do – you’ll be first in line for the job!
Thank you once again for turning up chapter and verse to support my contention that it is in
codifying a precise number of strokes
that the BHA has gone so foolishly astray here.
Pinza – one of the primary reasons the BHA have set out a precise number of srokes is, as I understand it, (perhaps Silvoir, if you’re looking in you could confirm/elaborate) that the jockeys asked for that level of clarity.
Pinza – one of the primary reasons the BHA have set out a precise number of srokes is, as I understand it, (perhaps Silvoir, if you’re looking in you could confirm/elaborate) that the jockeys asked for that level of clarity.
That’s no excuse, the BHA are the regulatory authority for horse racing not jockeys. The crucial difference between the Japan rules and ours is common sense or the lack of it as far as our rules are concerned.
Frankie was on BBC Breakfast this morning to presumably promote Champions Day, all they wanted to talk about was the whip, they even ended the interview thinking there was Ladies Race on Saturday.
All you hear now is whip, whip, whip, thanks to the imcompetent BHA.What are they to do Yeats?
The jockeys were (by and large) ignoring the old rules. During consultation the jockeys highlighted some specifics which they felt would help their membership to be more compliant and the BHA, quite appropriately, took cognisance of that feedback and provided the very clear direction the jockeys asked for (and the number of strokes allowed is more than reasonable, certainly enough to make all but the most unwilling beast go about its business – 5 strokes in the final furlong is one every 2.4 seconds very roughly).
Regarding the outcry that the BHA is reacting only to perception – the whip is an issue that has bubbled under the surface for years, it wanted sorting. If anyone thinks that the perception of the general public is unimportant in this day and age they are in cloud cuckooland. Any sport (or business) which doesn’t have the support of the general public is in serious trouble.
The whip rule needs to be in place for a time (I’d say a year would be fair and reasonable) and then reviewed. If it’s not working then review it and make changes.
- Total Posts 17716
All you hear now is whip, whip, whip, thanks to the imcompetent BHA.
And it is all you’re going to hear for the foreseeable future. To hear the person in charge of Stewarding (William Nunneley) defending the BHA to Lydia Hislop yesterday was a quite extraordinary throwback to the bad, old paternalistic days.
Quote:
"It’s the guys up top have got us into this in the first place … and I’m terribly disappointed with what’s happened today.
So are we all. But no, Mr Nunneley. It’s you guys in High Holborn who got yourself into this in the first place. The guys "up top" are the victims, not the cause of the problem.
We have the largest body of well-trained jockeys in the world, and the highest standards, thanks to the BH Apprentice Schools and some brilliant trainer mentors; and all you can do is speak about them as if they’d just crawled out from under stones.
Pinza – one of the primary reasons the BHA have set out a precise number of srokes is, as I understand it, (perhaps Silvoir, if you’re looking in you could confirm/elaborate) that the jockeys asked for that level of clarity.
This is a tweet from Paul Struthers.
‘
These will be my last resets on the subject for tonight but: 1. Jockeys asked for a strict limit’
And it is all you’re going to hear for the foreseeable future. To hear the person in charge of Stewarding (William Nunneley) defending the BHA to Lydia Hislop yesterday was a quite extraordinary throwback to the bad, old paternalistic days.
Quote:
"It’s the guys up top have got us into this in the first place … and I’m terribly disappointed with what’s happened today.
So are we all. But no, Mr Nunneley. It’s you guys in High Holborn who got yourself into this in the first place. The guys "up top" are the victims, not the cause of the problem.
Ye right!
Nothing to do with jockeys disregarding the old rules then.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Nothing to do with jockeys disregarding the old rules then.
By "old rules" I take it you mean the "new rules" previous to this week’s revisions. They were certainly disregarded.
Nunneley and his chums apparently couldn’t see what it was about those "new rules" which (as we agree) rendered them unworkable. By sticking with the crude idea of counting strokes (notably absent from the excellent Japanese rules) and introducing ridiculously punitive penalties they’ve merely compounded their original error, and terminally cheesed off the jockeys into the bargain.
I’m amazed that nobody actually saw this, or even considered it.
There was nothing wrong with the original rules, added to the new safety whip. Everything else has been about perception, and (sorry to give offence yet again) appeasement.
As people keep saying and you keep ignoring Pinza, the reason why a definate number of strokes has come in is directly because that’s what
jockeys themselves
wanted.
Value Is EverythingBy sticking with the crude idea of counting strokes (notably absent from the excellent Japanese rules) and introducing ridiculously punitive penalties they’ve merely compounded their original error, and terminally cheesed off the jockeys into the bargain.
I repeat
again
the tweet from Paul Struthers.
These will be my last resets on the subject for tonight but: 1.
Jockeys asked for a strict limit
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.