- This topic has 179 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’m somewhat with Matt Chapman here to be honest. You strike a horse 7 times(or whatever it is) and you win it’s fine, you’re a hero. You strike it 8 and it’s wrong and you’re a villain. That’s absurd. The question here is, does hitting the horse with a whip cause it pain? Is there an accepted view on this or is it still open to debate? My understanding was that it doesn’t cause pain, it’s the equivalent of a light slap on the wrist or something?
I personally think Charlie Fellows has been a bit irresponsible in this and caused a huge stir when actually our welfare rules are way better than say America’s or Australia. I actually got turned off the racing watching the breeders cup last year as the American horses were getting thrashed all the way to line.
This is in my eyes frankly b*llsh*t. The general hypocrisy is insane. Banning the whip is ok but making horses run the grand national, that’s fine? That’s a big joke.
Since we seem to really like talking about the intricacies of whip use, I will add a bit more.
“Some horses need the whip to show their best. Horses that need the whip will not be able to show their best in whipless racing.”These statements are true, but only indicate a deficiency in some horses, when compared with others. They cannot produce enough adrenaline/epinephrine without external assistance. Just as some cannot produce enough adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for high-performance energy production, or have inadequate lung surface area to oxygenate the blood quickly enough, etc.
The statements also don’t work on a logically-persuasive level if you substitute “Spurs”, “Buzzer”, “HF Sound Generator”, “Lasix”.
If an experienced trainer cannot train competitiveness into a horse, and a jockey’s hands, heels, body and voice cannot extract that competitiveness from the horse, then the horse is not a competitive horse.
Just because somebody 250 years ago thought it would be a good idea to turn a correctional implement in agriculture and transport, into an encouragement implement in horse racing, does not mean that it is a great idea today. Does anyone think that if we did not already have the whip that there would be a resounding “Yes” if somebody suggested that the BHA should introduce it to encourage reluctant horses to run faster?
Times change, and what is acceptable in life and in sport changes too; no more smoking in enclosed public spaces, no more forearm tackles in rugby, compulsion to wear seatbelts in a car, no more fox hunting with dogs, no more football tackles from behind, no more sending children up chimneys even if they are a perfect fit for the job. Ninety percent of doctors were against the creation of the NHS (and they should know – right?) and almost fifty percent of MPs. Nobody in any potential public campaign about the whip will be thinking the experts’ (jockeys, trainers, BHA staff, punters, bookies, TRF members, etc.) opinion is any more valuable than their own.
It is OK for the clique of horse racing people to decide the weight for age scale; it’s a wholely internal thing. In the long term, racing authorities will not allow whips, or they will be coerced by MPs being lobbied by their constituents; the whip is a public thing. We have known for well over half a century that where humans are involved, and it is not an engineering/scientific question (will this bridge collapse?), then we make decisions and form opinions on what we feel about a situation; that is, how we perceive the situation. The questions: Does the whip make a horse run faster? Does the whip hurt the horse? Is the whip cruel? Is the whip soft enough? are all great fun to debate but are all really irrelevant. They do not matter. Nobody has an algorithm on paper or in their head, or has the data, that calculates a final number that indicates whip=good or whip=bad; because it is not question that is susceptible to numerical calculation. It therefore becomes a matter of human perception and opinion. Right or wrong, that is what humans do. What matters is how many people who watch horse racing, and see a human being hitting an animal with a stick, say, “I think that is wrong!” The public will decide, and from the very low key rebuttal by other trainers to Charlie Fellowes over whip disqualifications, it seems the long and winding road might be shorter than many think.
As for any hypocrisy; human jockey hitting a horse with a stick has a downside of 100% horse; human jockey jumping a fence on the back of a horse has a downside of 50% each. The first is perceived as abusing a dominant position, and therefore “wrong”. The second is perceived as a shared risk, and therefore “sporting”. In the real world, perception is everything. Plus, horses cannot refuse the whip, but they can refuse to jump, even though they often like to jump fences when they have already disposed of their jockey.
That’s a really intelligent and well written post MV. It is very difficult to argue against it when written like that and your view seems very plausible. I do think though that when push comes to shove and a decision needs to be made there will be a lot of pushback from the jockeys surely, if for nothing else other than they can need the whip for safety reasons, but most importantly whilst life has changed and is changing so does the constant power of money. I do think there is a fair arguement to say it would kill racing as we know it(mentioned in this thread) and thus the power of the bookmakers might be enough to stop it happening.
One thing I didn’t like at all was the way Hayley Turner arrogantly dismissed herself of much blame and instead suggested it was the authorities fault for not dishing out longer bans. She came across to me a little bit like she couldn’t give a sh*t basically and that doesn’t help the situation at all.
“Virgin Holidays has announced it will stop offering and promoting excursions to attractions and experiences featuring captive whales and dolphins.”
Today’s news on animal welfare above.
Come 2025 at latest, the whip will be gone as an ‘encourager’. Sponsors will flee from ‘whipped’ racing, as will the upcoming generation. In his Telegraph column Charlie Brooks followed up Fellowes’ piece with a similar plea for a whip ban. It turns out he is involved with this Championship Racing project where the main sponsor they are courting says he will not get involved unless races are whipless.
The millennials, Generation X, whatever they’re called, or rather their self-appointed spokespeople, will not put up with horses being whipped. They won’t care about the turnover of foals, non racetrack injuries, EIPH, after-racing care etc, because out of sight will be out of mind. Nor will they care to be educated by the establishment about padded whips, idling horses, plans for more drastic penalties for offenders.
Perception is all now.
Facts do not matter when emotions are high. Check Trump. Check Boris. Check the FOBT campaign.
The whip is on its way out as an ‘encourager’. Nothing we say on this forum or elsewhere will change that.
Suck it up, as the Yanks say.
Is your post for real? Are you seriously comparing captive animals to the use of the whip?!
It is purely speculative to suggest that sponsors in the next 5-10 years will desert the sport unless the whip is banned.
millennials have a certain voice in society but they are not going to change the face of the world.
Comparing captive animals to the use of the whip is just stupid sorry
Oh and the FOBT campaign is mostly about stopping hopelessly addicted people ruining their lives even more. That’s a good change surely??!
Your interpretation of my post is a major reason whip supporters don’t get what people like me are saying.
It’s nothing to do with comparing captive animals or FOBTs with racing. It is everything to do with how the public now reacts using emotions rather than logic. That’s what elected Trump. That’s what will elect Johnson. That is what ended FOBTs. That is what made Virgin decide to withdraw support from Seaworld.
A reaction to the emotions of the public.
And that is what will see the end of the whip – emotional reaction stoked by a few campaigners, and, almost certainly, locked onto by a politician sniffing out a way to make his or her name.
There are some highly experienced oddsmakers on here. I’d love to see their price on the whip still being used for ‘encouragement’ on January 1st 2025
Based on employment numbers, wage growth, stock market performance under Trump etc., there are probably many Americans who conclude that their decision to vote for the man was entirely reasonable, based on good judgement and therefore logical.
And do logic and emotion really exist exclusive of each other, Joe? I dont think so myself.
Okay so I get your point more now. To be honest I’m not even sure there are that many people talking about it or care about it are there? By all means reduce the number of times jockeys are allowed to use it but if by banning, it kills racing as we know it, I just can’t see how it would ever happen despite the point you are making. There is no end point to this except banning racing altogether and letting horses just walk around fields doing what they want. That’s not going to happen either so a line will be drawn somewhere that appeases most people I believe.
Paul, those USA voters will almost certainly come to the conclusion you suggest to justify their choice of such an individual, and on the face of it that’s the strongest of foundations for Trump to build his 2020 campaign on. So why is he instead appealing to the tribalism and prejudices of his base? Trump knows what works.
And I wouldn’t argue about the link between logic and emotion. The question is which is the stronger? Plato talked of the chariot of the soul drawn by two horses, passion and reason. No prizes for guessing which was the easiest to control.
I wouldn’t like to price that up Joe
but there is one certainty
5 years or less after the whip ban the fences will also be gone NAPGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Joe has probably nailed it. Watch anybody get interviewed about pretty much anything nowadays: the questions won’t be “What do you think about x?” but rather “How does x make you feel?”
A 40 hour week, roof, food, kids at school, 4 weeks vacation, and a few bob for the rainy day generally keep people quiet, Joe. Its only when thats not a reality anymore, that most people will kick up. I’d say many of Trump’s so called base are decent people, who feel neglected and forgotten. Poverty is a terrible reality, emotional reaction to it an understandable byproduct.
Limbic or cortex? A difficult equilibrium, granted. But for sure 63 million “Trumpians” operate with a degree of both, to a greater or lesser extent. They’d be locked up it they didn’t.
I cant think of anything more to say about the whip (and Drone will be giving out anyway….won’t you Drone?)
Fair enough, Paul. For clarity (again) I have no problem with the whip in itself; I’ve been hit with one – voluntarily :) and I very much doubt it causes horses physical pain (though it must cause anguish or they wouldn’t react to it).
What I do have an issue with is people who believe we should try to educate the public on it and try to turn them around using facts. That simply will not happen. When emotions are high, nobody is interested in being educated. In my opinion, abandonment of the whip voluntarily by the sport is vital. If we wait for a FOBT-like campaign to build against us, then, not only will that campaign succeed in the end, but it will whet the appetite of campaigners to move on to NH racing, ‘forcing’ horses into stalls, etc.
Racing needs to ban the whip soon and voluntarily by way of vaccinating the sport against campaigners. Removing the visuals that are offensive to many and on display in 99.9% of race finishes will deprive objectors of 99.9% of their ‘oxygen’.
Cavelino Rampante wrote:
I cant think of anything more to say about the whip (and Drone will be giving out anyway….won’t you Drone?)
Giving up more like
Steepler nailed it:
self-appointed spokespeople, will not put up with horses being whipped. They won’t care about the turnover of foals, non racetrack injuries, EIPH, after-racing care etc, because out of sight will be out of mind
Yep, ban the whip and all is hunky-dory with the invisible spectre-like mammoth in the cupboard-under-the stairs remaining hidden: keep quiet in there for gawd’s sake
Aye, EIPH, (bursting blood vessels in the lungs) is 1000 times the welfare issue the whip is, imo. But nobody sees it. Some Vets believe it affects 95% of competition horses and that the same animals would never run that fast under normal circumstances to cause their lungs to bleed. It’s the reason Lasix is widely used in the USA (the diuretic effect helps reduce pressure on the lungs)
Sadly, I’m hypocritical enough to live with this. Shame on me.
Here you are…what happens when you let campaigners take action rather than doing it yourself
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.