A step on The Long And Winding Road

Home Forums Horse Racing A step on The Long And Winding Road

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 180 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1448326
    wordfromthewise
    Participant
    • Total Posts 446

    Thanks and apologies for the duplication.

    #1448337
    cormack15cormack15
    Keymaster
    • Total Posts 8767

    You manage it through stiffer penalties for offenders GT.

    Plus if trainer’s horses are being laid and winning but whip DQ’d on any sort of regular basis you step in.

    I think it’s a convoluted scenario you describe GT. Penalties and rules need to be clear, simple and uniformly applied.

    #1448352
    GingertipsterGingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 26354

    How big are these fines and penalties?

    Stiffer penalties for journeyman apprentices and/or jockeys with very few rides – means nothing. At the moment it is difficult for connections to be certain a jockey can stop a horse. Losing by appearing to try too hard will be 100% reliable. Any penalties won’t be big enough. Winnings from laying the horse will pay for the jockey’s fine and holiday with a lot left over.

    Plus if trainer’s horses are being laid and winning but whip DQ’d on any sort of regular basis you step in.

    OMG, you really haven’t thought this through, David.
    So trainers are allowed two or three non-triers each? As long as it’s not on a “regular basis” that’s ok with you. :whistle:

    Two, three or even one each means it’s going to happen on a regular basis. :negative:

    value is everything
    #1448354
    GingertipsterGingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 26354

    The reason I’ve heard authorities give for no automatic disqualification for rule breaking is connections can delberately lose by appearing to try too hard. It will be impossible to distinguish mistakes from deliberate action.

    Can not have a rule where a horse can stay on to win the Derby by 3 lengths and yet is demoted because it received 1 stroke more than allowed. You’d risk riots. The rightful horse must win.

    There must be a rule for demotion/disqualification to occur only if stewards* believe the horse would not have won without breaking the rules. ie Bringing whip rules in line with interference rules. You don’t need to go any further than that. Once jockeys are used to stronger penalties and know they CAN and WILL be demoted/disqualified from a position they’ve cheated to achieve – whip offences will all but disappear.

    * Amateur stewards must be replaced by a panel based in one place. Interviews done by skype etc.

    value is everything
    #1448356
    GingertipsterGingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 26354

    “Far more horses idling badly – the best horse far less likely to win.”

    I’ll have to stop you right there, Ginge. If a horse doesn’t have the right temperament for racing, how can it be the “best” horse?

    Some horses need the whip to show their best, some don’t; but the ones that don’t need the whip to show their best can still show their best when whips are allowed. Horses that need the whip will not be able to show their best in whipless racing. The best horse far less likely to win.

    Many thousands of horses idle to varying degrees, Gladiateur. Not just the sort of idling we see currently from the squiggle/temperamental racehorse. Lots of supposedly “genuine” horses need an encourager to either keep them going and/or get to the front. Idling is currently why a lot of horses run up winning sequences in handicap company. Deceiving the handicapper in to thinking the horse has little in hand. ie In reality the horse has more ability than it looks. Needing to be asked (with the whip) for its effort and/or needing the whip to keep it going and/or needing the whip because it is a natural follower. There’s a lot of the wild horse in the thoroughbred. Horses are pack animals, some are natural leaders and some natural followers. Without the whip these (previously genuine) “followers” would idle much worse and lose. In affect, number of squiggle horses massively increased.

    Also, where as nowadays a horse that settles well and then finds plenty for pressure (the whip) is described as “genuine”. But these will not find anywhere near as much in the closing stages. Genuine horses become known as temperamental… Where as one that travels well through a race and does not find off the bridle (for the whip) – currently thought of as temperamental – may be what the punter should look for in a whipless race.

    Whipless racing would change racing enormously. Not worth betting on. :whistle:

    value is everything
    #1448378
    cormack15cormack15
    Keymaster
    • Total Posts 8767

    Ginge – Do you really think laying one for all you are worth on the exchanges then winning but giving it nine or ten smacks to ensure disqualification would be a ‘quieter’ way of sending out a non-trier than a quietish run out the back where there are a plethora of scenarios that can be employed to disguise it? Really?

    #1448451
    LostSoldier3
    Blocked
    • Total Posts 1894

    Whipless racing would change racing enormously. Not worth betting on.

    Gingertipster is absolutely right. Amazing how blind these wallahs are to this as well. Take away the whip and you first kill the betting then kill the sport dead within 10 years. We must fight these short-sighted people tooth and claw.

    The whip is a gateway issue. Cormack and the rest talk about ‘perceptions’ but if we cave on the whip, how do we defend the concept that we’re producing chronically inbred animals and training them to race for our entertainment – all the while accepting that a percentage will die on the racecourse through the risks of the challenges we set and another unseen percentage will die either due to training injuries (linked to the inbreeding thing) or simply be killed for meat due to poor conformation or if unsellable at yearling/store auctions? Often at rather inhumane and unregulated slaughterhouses, one might add.

    Barely anybody (even the agitators for change) talks about these issues of ‘wastage’ and irresponsible breeding, which are the real animal rights issues in our industry.

    I don’t see how one can pivot these horribly dark and unseemly elements of horse racing against the rest of it and somehow conclude that we must get rid of the whip as an urgent priority. Strange how the mind works for some people, although I would suggest it’s another case of clueless groupthink. Wouldn’t be the first example of hypocrisy from this forum’s administrator, of course…

    #1448475
    cormack15cormack15
    Keymaster
    • Total Posts 8767

    LS – your repeated personal jibes in EVERY SINGLE POST are becoming really tiresome but I will respond.

    ‘clueless groupthink’ – I could just as easily ‘suggest’ your position on retention of the use of the whip as a case of ‘clueless groupthink’. Do you even know what groupthink actually is (no googling now)?

    ‘hypocrisy’ – I’ve explained what I understand could be viewed as a contradictory position re- the whip against, using an example, my support of jumps racing several times in the past. You can accept racing has ‘costs’ (attrition rate, injuries, etc) WITHOUT supporting hitting the horse’s with a whip when, in my opinion, is an unnecessary ‘cost’. It is not hypocritical, it is a reasonable position that, for example, Sir Peter O’Sullevan and John Francome (among many other racing professionals) held/hold. Would you describe Sir Peter, one of the game’s great thinkers, as ‘short-sighted’? I don’t think you’d find much hypocrisy in my posts, you might find an example or two when I’ve changed my opinion on a topic, but hypocrisy, doubt it.

    A very poor, bitter, tone throughout that post and I’d point out that you’ve been warned before during your immature feuds with other individuals on this forum that we won’t accept contributions that dissolve into personal attacks or contributors who continually resort to them. Although I have a relatively thick skin, you’re treading a thin line. Stick to the issues and avoid the personal attacks, on me and anyone else, please.

    #1448479
    DroneDrone
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5008

    LostSoldier3 wrote:

    Barely anybody (even the agitators for change) talks about these issues of ‘wastage’ and irresponsible breeding, which are the real animal rights issues in our industry.

    Nice one LS3

    I’ve raised the dare-not-speak-its-name issue of ‘wastage’ on several occasions – if memory serves, as you’ve done, as a pointed deflection on one of these myriad and ever-tiresome whip threads – and it’s largely been met with a deafening silence

    So, once again:

    How many foals are put-down due to inbreeding-induced malformations?

    How many raced 2yos are never seen again on the racecourse as 3yos and what happens to the ‘disappeared’?

    How many racehorses are adequately rehomed on retirement and what happens to those who are not?

    I’ve not the slightest idea: nice task for Wikileaks

    A horse is for life, not just the racetrack

    #1448486
    Ex RubyLightEx RubyLight
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1256

    If you read Charlie Fellowes’ letter and also Hayley Turners reply, you must admit they’re 100% right.
    Both of them are the ones involved in that particular “incident” and if Hayley thinks that a two or three month ban would change a lot more than it is the case right now, why not listen to her/them?

    I bet that everyone in the sport wants to win fair and square and is more concerned about the future of the sport than some on this forum. Even Donald McCain admitted that Ballabriggs should have been disqualified. So if the pros are generally against the whip and pro disqualification in such circumstances, let’s eliminate some risks….

    #1448491
    Nathan HughesNathan Hughes
    Participant
    • Total Posts 20958

    How many non triers are there in Group races or big meetings ie Royal Ascot Ginge..?
    I think these tend to fall into the category of win at all costs and for me should be the main focus of any rule change, I wouldn’t be worried about low class races as the big races are the ones that are on the Tv with the wider audience.
    A suspension to jockeys in future Group races won’t make a difference to connections, they’ll get in another jockey pre race who won’t be riding in future G1 races, everyone’s a winner still. Disqualified is the best way although agree that the distance in lengths is a possibly alternative although that still opens up a big can of worms

    Don't Eat The Pie and Don't Buy The S*n
    #1448546
    GingertipsterGingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 26354

    Ginge – Do you really think laying one for all you are worth on the exchanges then winning but giving it nine or ten smacks to ensure disqualification would be a ‘quieter’ way of sending out a non-trier than a where there are a plethora of scenarios that can be employed to disguise it? Really?

    Of course it is easier, David.

    Currently:
    A “quietish run out the back” doesn’t stop the horse from travelling well and being impossible for the jockey to disguise its ability. Right now, so much can go wrong when trying to stop a horse that stewards may recognise a non-trier.

    Under your rules:
    A jockey (and more importantly – LAYERS – knows 100% definite that giving 9 or 10 strokes means NO chance of winning, whilst appearing to to try too hard.

    It’s obvious and shouldn’t even be up for discussion.

    value is everything
    #1448552
    cormack15cormack15
    Keymaster
    • Total Posts 8767

    Hmmm, I’ll beg to differ GT. We’ll see how it pans out when the DQ’s are eventually brought in.

    #1448553
    GingertipsterGingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 26354

    Gingertipster wrote:
    Where as nowadays a horse that settles well and then finds plenty for pressure (the whip) is described as “genuine”. But these will not find anywhere near as much in the closing stages. Genuine horses become known as temperamental… Where as one that travels well through a race and does not find off the bridle (for the whip) – currently thought of as temperamental – may be what the punter should look for in a whipless race.

    One of my favourites Beat The Bank lost his life today. Very genuine racehorse usually pushed along early yet found plenty for pressue/the whip. A horse who may well under whipless rules have been described as either temperamental or useless. Certainly would not have got the public following; not won or even run in the quality of races he did.

    RIP Beat The Bank.

    value is everything
    #1448555
    greenasgrass
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2562

    One problem with banning or curtailing whip use might be a lot more kicking and flapping at the end of races.
    I would expect jockeys to ride longer and wear boots with stiffer heels to maximise leg power.
    Drawbacks:
    – A boot in the ribs probably hurts more than a smack on the bum but is harder to see and doesn’t leave a mark even if there was some bruising under the skin
    – jockeys need to look like they’re trying hard to avoid getting slated for being “weak in a finish”- expect more flapping about that may just unbalance the horse rather than help it
    – although women have good core strength they don’t have as much lower leg strength as men so winners ridden by female jockeys- so beloved of the telly to sell the sport to the public- may become more scarce. In fact long legs and brute strength in general might become more of a factor leaving male and female jockeys with shorter legs but more skill and finesse at a relative disadvantage.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 180 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.