- This topic has 28 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
My opinion is that keen racing fans like ourselves make too much noise about the whip rules. The vast majority of races and jockeys abide by the whip rules. It’s not a huge issue for me and I don’t think its that big an issue for non racing fans either.
Correct but of course the biggest noise of all comes from the BHA/Stewards with their farcical whip stroke counting and bans.
A case of horse racing regularly shooting itself in the foot.
I don’t recall any posters making any noise about Coleman’s ride prior to the belated enquiry or Aspell’s ride prior to his ban.
The fact is anyone who advocates disqualification for whip offences is either clueless or not a serious punter, could be both.
Punters would stop betting on the sport in their droves.
the fact is anyone who advocates disqualification for whip offences is either clueless or not a serious punter, could be both.
Punters would stop betting on the sport in their droves
So bloody true Eddie , but common sense should prevail ., the bookies know that punters would vanish …so it wont ever happen
My opinion is that keen racing fans like ourselves make too much noise about the whip rules. The vast majority of races and jockeys abide by the whip rules. It’s not a huge issue for me and I don’t think its that big an issue for non racing fans either.
Correct but of course the biggest noise of all comes from the BHA/Stewards with their farcical whip stroke counting and bans.
A case of horse racing regularly shooting itself in the foot.
I don’t recall any posters making any noise about Coleman’s ride prior to the belated enquiry or Aspell’s ride prior to his ban.
The fact is anyone who advocates disqualification for whip offences is either clueless or not a serious punter, could be both.
Punters would stop betting on the sport in their droves.
The nonsense is that Bittar leaves behind a fudge arising from when he hastily adjusted the whip rules and sanctions in the aftermath of their hasty introduction , Hughes going on strike and Soumillon speaking out.
What we are left with is a tendency for jockeys to flout the rules in big races and "win at all costs". Horseman such as Doyle, Hughes and Moore have done this in big flat races such as Champions Day. We have seen it in jump racing by Condon, Coleman and Aspell recently. Racing looks ridiculous because it has a set of rules which it won’t adequately enforce. Connections of horses whose riders complied with the rules may be disadvantaged in that had their jockey broken the rules as well their horse may have won.
Racing is divided with correspondents likes Thomas supporting Precott’s DQ idea. Conversely Cunningham and McGrath are worried that punters would switch to other sports.How about two alternatives?
1. Abolish the number of strikes whip rule completely and go back to how Irish jockeys behaved at Cheltenham in the 80’s and American jockeys continue to do so.
2.Leave the rules as they are, but if a rider breaks them, strip connections of all prize money but allow the result to stand. On the flat they would still get stallion fees but it might stop some of the rule breaking over jumps.
Q: How hopeful are you that your desire to see the disqualification of horses whose riders break the whip rules will be implemented?
A: One day it will have to come and I hope it comes before we have more fruitless bans, fines and inquiries after big races that only play into the abolitionists’ hands. It is simplicity itself and will result in: no bans, no fines, no suspensions; each jockey knowing what he can and can’t do; the best horse winning.
Sir Mark Prescott in today’s RP Q&A.
Clear, unarguable logic.
The thing people will say is ‘what about the punters?’. Well, punters are disadvantaged to a greater extent at present, where their horses can be beaten by rule-breaking and cheating with impunity so far as the result is concerned.
Whether it be Prescott, Francome, Peter Thomas, Muscat, cormack, stilvi etc one thing they never say is whether they expect Britain to disqualify winners for whip offences unilaterally to the rest of the world.
Maybe they don’t care or think it is unimportant but it’s hard to believe you would propose such a thing without a thought or mention to it.
In any event, none of the above are serious big money punters, the ones British racing relies on for an income.
Levy would fall through the floor if such a stupid idea of a rule was ever introduced, I would be laughing from the sidelines with my money firmly in my pocket.I have always stated that disqualification for the whip should be a non-starter. All the argument about this is nothing more than a smokescreen put up by those who want to retain the whip. If you don’t hit the horse you don’t have the problem.
We really are in trouble if anyone is thinking of massaging rules to appease ‘big-money punters’.
Stilvi
get a grip , and deal n reality , too many nonsense posts now , too many assumptions …sometimes you have to think
I reckon there is about 1 chance in a million , that today the bookies rep starts off with the first ruling …ban the whip
ok thats a very slim chance , but its all you have , so how about trying to be real and press for
workable rules , agreed and sanctioned by all parties
…. then and only then will this problem go away , as it is , its plainly unacceptable for the masasive amount of negative publicity racing is bringing upon itself
First step is to get that darn aussie off the board , and replace with a common sense man/woman who will be accepted and listened too, get all parties to agree on boundaries and penalties , no quibble common sense approach
in the meantime lets end this silly tirade please , its an insult to anybody’s intelligence
imo
Leaving aside Ricky who appears to have a severe problem with the idea that people might have different views to his own why is racing so scared to have proper debates on this subject? A proper debate should actually involve two sides putting their views. So often all you get is a pro-whip presenter speaking to pro-whip guests. That is what happened on ATR today and the Sunday Forum.
Denis O’Regan gets 10 days ban for tender handling of Delvin Road during the week.
Launchbury gets 21 days for an accidental error.
Should the bans be similar?
Yes Oasis, 10 days is not enough, should be 21 for Dennis.
Value Is EverythingMy opinion is that keen racing fans like ourselves make too much noise about the whip rules. The vast majority of races and jockeys abide by the whip rules. It’s not a huge issue for me and I don’t think its that big an issue for non racing fans either.
Again, spot on Oasis. I do think todays rules work pretty well with the odd exception.
Value Is EverythingThe fact is anyone who advocates disqualification for whip offences is either clueless or not a serious punter, could be both.
Punters would stop betting on the sport in their droves.
Disagree Eddie,
I am a serious punter and would be in favour of disqualification under extreme circumstances.At the moment a punter can see a jockey he’s backed keep
within
the rules and be beaten by one who’s clearly
ONLY
won by
breaking
them. ie Had both jockeys kept to the rules the second’s connections/punters would’ve won.
Just as when a jockey
breaking
the
interference
rules has changed the rightful result it is
demoted
… Where
breaking
the
whip
rules has clearly changed the result I believe punters would actually like placings to be
reversed
. Why should breaking the rules pay?
Where whip rules are broken and deemed
not
to effect the result – result stands.
(Applies to places as well as win)
Value Is EverythingI am a serious punter and would be in favour of disqualification under extreme circumstances.
At the moment a punter can see a jockey he’s backed keep
within
the rules and be beaten by one who’s clearly
ONLY
won by
breaking
them. ie Had both jockeys kept to the rules the second’s connections/punters would’ve won.
Just as when a jockey
breaking
the
interference
rules has changed the rightful result it is
demoted
… Where
breaking
the
whip
rules has clearly changed the result I believe punters would actually like placings to be
reversed
. Why should breaking the rules pay?
Where whip rules are broken and deemed
not
to effect the result – result stands.
(Applies to places as well as win)
Well Gingertipster any view is most unlikely to have 100% backing from any set of punters, there will always be exceptions like your good self.
I’ve heard enough from serious punters to know levy would be decimated and there would be no guarantee it would all return even if the decision was reversed in future.
A common fallacy put around is that this whip rule breaking only occurs in big races but it happens every day of the week in minor races. Havlin & Kirby have received ridiculous whip bans these last few days for doing what was sufficient to win the race, both rode excellent races without abusing their horses but who’s to say they wouldn’t be disqualified under any new rules, they could be disqualified at one track but not another.
If you want to support that sort of rubbish it’s up to you but I never will. The rules are rubbish and the sooner they see sense, get rid of Jamie Stier, the better.
Like others who’ve put forward disqualification you’ve failed to say whether you find it perfectly acceptable for Britain to do it unilaterally and make British racing an even bigger laughing stock.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.