- This topic has 108 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
So John Francome now wants a "no whips trial".
I used to believe the same.
However, now the whip has been changed in to a cushioned tool and jockeys banned from using it in the wrong place / too often / too much force; can’t see a problem.
If it is wrong to use a cushioned encourager; what about the obstacles themselves? How many horses die from whip use?
If the whip is wrong; then surely jumping obstacles that may cause injury or death is wrong.
Ban the whip and jump racing will be next.
Value Is EverythingWould this be a worldwide trial, including Ireland & France? Can you imagine having a 2 month trial then saying "Right we’ve had a trial and it doesn’t work without a whip so we’re now going back to the whip".
Francome was a great jockey but an utter clown as a pundit.I’m very much in the ‘no whip’ camp. I do not see any need for it to be honest.
So what about the obstacles then Cormack?
Surely they are much more dangerous than a cushioned whip?
Value Is EverythingI think if we’re looking at it from the perspecive of people who are already followers of racing, we’re looking at it from the wrong angle.
I think what Francombe was saying was that some people who might be interested in racing are put off by the horses being hit. Now I’ve written it on here, I’m not sure I agree with it but it’s certainly an interesting viewpoint.
I’m assuming Racing For Change have people doing market research, maybe they could ask the question.
For me personally, I wouldn’t mind them doing it as a trial. It might be interesting to see, just out of curiosity.
- Total Posts 17716
I think if we’re looking at it from the perspective of people who are already followers of racing, we’re looking at it from the wrong angle.
But if we’re looking at it from the perspective of people who aren’t, then all we’re going to get is a earful of prejudiced, ignorant opinionated tosh.
Banning the whip is hardly going to have the non-believers queuing at the turnstiles, now is it? There is no evidence at all that anyone beyond the Animal Aid lot, who want racing banned completely, give a toss about the whip issue.
Remember the current rules were formulated with the full agreement of the RSPCA. Is that not enough?
I’m assuming Racing For Change have people doing market research, maybe they could ask the question.
Brian’s a big whip fan, Ben isn’t? … I expect Racing for Change’s marketing molluscs are more interested in which of them uses the beer tent more.
Do you think "they" will be satisfied once the whip is banned? Of course not. Jump racing is explicitly the next target of the Animal Aid puritans.
For a sensible warning on where all this C4 pot-stirring is likely to lead, read this article from 2008 if you haven’t already:
I’m fully in the ban the whip camp. There is no room for abuse of horses in the name of sport.
At the end of the day it is NOTessential. Horses would still run, jockeys would still ride and there would still be a horse that finish first, second and third.
Its 2010 FFS its time racing pulled itself into the new century.
[
I’m assuming Racing For Change have people doing market research, maybe they could ask the question.
Brian’s a big whip fan, Ben isn’t? … I expect Racing for Change’s marketing molluscs are more interested in which of them uses the beer tent more.
I take all your points on board except for this one. Market research can tell you alot. Ask 500 who’ve never been racing. If 400 say they’d be more likely to go racing if the whip was banned & take it from there. If 4 people say they would, then forget it.
I doubt very much if anyone backs a horse based on the jockey’s versatility with the whip. I think we generally assume that all jockeys have been adequately trained on the appropriate and timely execution of ‘the persuader’ though no doubt the greater one’s experience the more capable one becomes at ensuring the whip’s effectiveness.
However, take the whip out of the equation and we are then faced with a further conundrum in our selections i.e. how strong is the jockey and to what extent can sheer brute force encourage his/her mount to run faster? I fear, therefore, that many younger and physically restricted jockeys, will be deprived of the very asset which helps them to compete with their more muscular colleagues.
If a few taps of the whip encourage a horse to achieve its full potential then I see no real harm being done provided the authorities constantly review their monitoring of races. With today’s technology surely it would be possible for jockeys to be fitted with radio ear pieces so that the stewards could communicate with them during the course of a race. For example, when a horse is half a furlong behind approaching the last fence it would be fairly straightforward for the steward to tell the jockey to "stop whipping! Thornton"
Failing that, perhaps a discreet, cattle prod-like device attached to the saddle and out of view of spectators might be the answer. TIC
KI’d bet that a lot of them would say they would be more likely to go racing if there was a whip ban; I also bet that a year later most of them will still not have seen a racetrack. I also don’t know of a single person who rides horses who would dream of riding out without one. More education in the use of the whip I’d agree with, and even stiffer penalties for overuse of it. A strong jockey can give a horse a hard race without using the whip and with most people won’t even notice.
So John Francome now wants a "no whips trial".
I used to believe the same.
However, now the whip has been changed in to a cushioned tool and jockeys banned from using it in the wrong place / too often / too much force; can’t see a problem.
If it is wrong to use a cushioned encourager; what about the obstacles themselves? How many horses die from whip use?
If the whip is wrong; then surely jumping obstacles that may cause injury or death is wrong.
Ban the whip and jump racing will be next.
Can people who are against the whip please answer the main point of my arguement.
Value Is EverythingI don’t know why we are still waiting around in giving these races a trial.
Full marks to Francome for turning this argument around as the likes of McGrath can no longer just insult Big Mac as a pathetic defence. It was a shame that Nick Luck was only joking when he said it would be McGrath’s last appearance on the Morning Line. Other than that silly laugh he adds very little.
Just to emphasise nobody is talking about stopping a whip being carried so please no arguments along those lines.
Gingertipster – the two things are not comparable. The idea that these trial races will somehow lead to a ban on National Hunt racing is ridiculous.
I’m fully in the ban the whip camp. There is no room for abuse of horses in the name of sport.
At the end of the day it is NOTessential. Horses would still run, jockeys would still ride and there would still be a horse that finish first, second and third.
Its 2010 FFS its time racing pulled itself into the new century.
If the whip is "abuse" what do you call riding a horse at a solid object?
Would Twist Magic have taken part last week without the persuader?
Value Is EverythingThe difference Ginge is jumping obstacles is essential for jump racing, jump racing can’t survive without the obstacles. The whip isn’t essential racing can survive it.
Nobody jumps an obstacle to deliberately cause a horse any displeasure / pain, when they strike a horse with a whip that is exactly the intention.
I’m fully in the ban the whip camp. There is no room for abuse of horses in the name of sport.
At the end of the day it is NOTessential. Horses would still run, jockeys would still ride and there would still be a horse that finish first, second and third.
Its 2010 FFS its time racing pulled itself into the new century.
If the whip is "abuse" what do you call riding a horse at a solid object?
[b:uy20tr42]Would Twist Magic have taken part last week without the persuader?[/[/b:uy20tr42]quote]
That is irrelevant – a different horse wins the race thats all. Sometimes there just needs to be an acceptance that a horse just won’t run / put it all in, whatever.
At the end of the day it is NOTessential. Horses would still run, jockeys would still ride and there would still be a horse that finish first, second and third.
Indeed Ian, as is evident imv from the hundreds of ‘Hands & Heels’ races that have been run under both codes over the last few years. I would suggest that there is no evidence whatsoever arising from these races that support the continual ‘need’ for the use of the whip in British Racing.
However, I personal would simply ban the use of the whip after the last in NH races and in the final two furlongs of a flat race as I have no problem with it being used in giving the horse a few reminders, as under the current rules.
Finally, given it is ‘The Greatest Jockey’ who has proposed this trail I do hope we avoid the normal name calling and the old ‘you’ve never sat on a horse’ arguments from the usual suspects directed to those of us that support his view.
Jim McGrath looked as if he’d seen a ghost when John Francome asked him how many times he had ridden a horse ?
Maybe a bit indelicate of Francome do do so; akin to the footballers’ riposte, "show’s your medals", but Jim McGrath needs to appreciate that others’ opinions are just as valid as his. There is no right or wrong answer on the matter.
Myself; I’d go along with Francome on this one.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.