July 28, 2019 at 10:03 #1449573
- Total Posts 2889
The “Race of the Century” – Grundy/Bustino would have been completely ruined/marred by the current whip rules let alone no whip.July 28, 2019 at 11:03 #1449582
- Total Posts 5001
That’s an interesting example Yeats
It was debated at the time and for years afterwards whether Bustino would have won had he been subjected to ‘stronger handling’. His jockey Joe Mercer was very much a ‘push and shove’ jockey who rarely to resorted to stiff backhanders: in that respect the polar opposite of Pat Eddery
Who knows; and in any case Bustino’s owner, Lady Beaverbrook, didn’t like to see her charges whipped anyway, one of the reasons she employed Mercer a lotJuly 28, 2019 at 11:42 #1449588
- Total Posts 5699
I believe Mercer was one of the jockeys who subscribed to the theory that if they won’t go for one, they won’t go for a hundred.
Christy Roche was obviously not a believer in this. Have a look at his winning ride on Secreto in the 84 Derby then tell me how long you think it would take for the whip to be banned if such a ride happened in a modern Derby.
Secreto never ran again.
Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience, then onlookers might not be able to tell the difference. https://lazybet.com/July 28, 2019 at 15:25 #1449621
We need the whip, but we don’t need to go back to the 1980’s or 1970’s rules.
On the whole, jockeys now use the whip in a good, safe way. However, they should still be punished when breaking them and even more so when appearing to ignore them. To help them stay within the rules and be fair to jockeys who’ve kept within the rules – any jockey breaking the rules gets a ban wherever they’ve finished and… (a recap where I stand – how rules should be changed):
Professional Stewards: Based at HQ, with interviews done by skype.
In normal races:
Horses stewards believe have only won/placed due to breaking rules should be demoted (same as interference rules). When breaking the rules are thought to have made no difference to placings the result stands.
In valuable races:
Horses stewards believe have only won/placed due to minor infringement should be demoted – when minor infringements are thought to make no difference to placings the result stands.
Any major infringement in valuable races the horse is disqualified – wherever it has finished, even if it would’ve won without breaking those rules.
Punishments: Major infringements of whip rules punishments increased. Not only by length of bans but also to valuable races. eg Major infringement of a jockey who has tried to win a valuable race by breaking whip rules can not ride in any race for X months, but can not ride in valuable races for double that time.value is everythingAugust 6, 2019 at 19:05 #1450611
- Total Posts 5699
Here’s the probable beginning of a campaign that many on here believed nobody was about to start. I don’t know what their budget is, but if they can back this with serious money then racing has left it too late and will now need to ban the whip on the back of this, leaving Animalaid to claim victory and move on to the next racing target.
Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience, then onlookers might not be able to tell the difference. https://lazybet.com/August 6, 2019 at 20:40 #1450613
It’s hardly the “beginning of a campaign”.
…And you call the arguements others give as “straw mannish”!
Nobody is under any illusions here. We all know what Animal Aid has been up to for many, many years and will continue to do.
It is crazy not to realise: If Racing bans the soft, safe whip on what will be seen as welfare grounds, then there can be absolutely NO justification for keeping the hard, injury making, killer STEEPLECHASES (and hurdles) in their path. Animal Aid know this.
So if Racing does ban the soft safe whip, Animal Aid would not need to “move on to the next Racing target” – they’d know its end would be inevitable.value is everythingAugust 6, 2019 at 22:41 #1450614
- Total Posts 556
Well perhaps they can ban the whip at London race meetings, Ally Pally maybe.August 7, 2019 at 07:10 #1450623
- Total Posts 1894
The beginning of the end. Well done Cormack & co.August 7, 2019 at 11:04 #1450631
Joe, AA have been on the go for a long time. If you’re going to Fake News this forum, please do it with something with a bit more depth to it.
AA isn’t aiming to just get rid of the whip, they want rid of horse racing. RP column confirms this –
‘Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience, then onlookers might not be able to tell the difference.’August 7, 2019 at 12:59 #1450637
Hanen’t you heard, Kev?
Having met with the Chancellor of Animal Aid; Joe “Chamberlain” Steeplechasing has been seen waving a piece of paper and declaring “Peace In Our Time”. It says AA will agree to hard, injury making, killer obstacles if the BHA agrees to ban the soft safe whip.value is everythingAugust 7, 2019 at 16:47 #1450646
This is where AA just embarrass themselves for me. I refuse to believe most of the British public are stupid enough not to see that as just a shock tactic factually wrong advert. A small dog cowering under a whip Vs a large racehorse. Frankly ridiculous and this is where AA, who have a valid argument they want to bring forward just make themselves look stupid.
Incidentally on this subject, the point about Too Darn Hot reacting so well to the whip in the sussex stakes goes someway to suggesting reducing the use of the whip to 3 times max is a good thing. A horse doesn’t need to be whipped 7 times in the last 2 furlongs, if it does, then it’s done its running, but if the BHA change it now, they will make themselves look guilty.
For sure they are not helping themselves or defending themselves very well.August 7, 2019 at 17:10 #1450649
Native River had done his running after 3 strikes in the GC?
Crystal Ocean got 7 in this years KG, had he done his running after 3?August 7, 2019 at 17:26 #1450653
Yes Kev. It’s whacking a horse 7 times to make it run faster that’s got us into this mess in the first place. I’m firmly in the “we need the whip camp”, but whacking a horse 7 times suggests it’s responded and slowed, 7 times. We lose weight in the whole argument in that case.August 7, 2019 at 17:31 #1450654
Why is 7 too many but 3 is perfect? Why 3 and not 1?
If you truly believe Native River would’ve given his all with 3 hits then this convo is pointless.
There’s no mess, AA have been pursuing horse racing (not just the whip) for years.August 7, 2019 at 17:46 #1450656
There is a mess because high profile racing figures are now saying there’s a discussion to be had. Don’t think that’s happened before has it?
A horse needs to want to run. If it doesn’t and we need to hit it 7 times to keep it going that suggests we are forcing the animal to do something it doesn’t want to do.
I get though, why 7 not 3 not 1 not 26……
At the end of the day it’s a spectator sport. If spectators are put off by seeing a horse hit 7 times then it needs addressing.
You sound like you are of the opinion that we should be allowed to strike a horse as many times as we like. That’s fine, that’s your opinion, but I don’t agree with that. I’m a massive horse racing fan and have been for a very long time now. I also love animals and love horses and the site of a horse getting whacked consistently in the final furlong doesn’t sit well with me at all. I don’t like to see it, whether it hurts the horse or not. I also think 7 times is unnecessary. I get there are occasions as you mention where it was ( to physically get the best out of the horse) but I would wager there are a large percentage of times where it’s not. I watched the Hayley Turner ride again the other day and her horse doesn’t respond very much each time so what was the point in doing it.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.