- This topic has 108 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Though he failed to win subsequently, there’s little doubt that, without the whip, Pistolet Noir would have run halfway across Gloucestershire at an early stage of the opening race – at 15/8 on, that would have gone down a storm with his supporters. The other side of the coin is that The Sawyer would probably still have won without quite so many smacks, for which his young rider deservedly picked up a ban.
I’m ambivalent on the whips use, though the sound of of it’s crack might motivate a horse as much as the perceived pain. Horses have thicker skins than us and, in human terms, it would take an almighty swipe against a leather shoed foot to cause any real injury.Not sure that the whip itself is the problem, it’s the over-use of it that is so wrong.
For so many jocks it is the first resort, where, in my opinion, it should be the last.
The other problem, as I see it, is the lack of ability in jockeys to realise when a horse is beaten.
Perhaps AP has to take some of the blame here for the number of times he has persuaded horses that looked beaten at the time to get up to win. Now they all think they can do it.
Colin
The difference between the obstacles and the whip is that removing the obstacles fundamentally alters the sport. You couldn’t have National Hunt racing without having fences for horses to jump.
Cormack,
If I’ve got your meaning right, I find that amazing.
You SEEM to be saying jumping obstacles is just as cruel or even more so than the whip. Yet this does not matter because it is necessary for jump racing to exist.Something is either cruel or not.
If jump racing is at least equally as cruel as the whip (which you believe should be banned) then jump racing should be banned too.
You can have jump racing without obstacles, it’s called flat racing.
Ginge are you being deliberately numptified here or what?
I’ll answer Cormacks point for him though I suspect he’ll do a better job of it when he comes online.
No it is not cruel to ask a horse to jump a fence. Yes horses can be injured because of it but then horses can be injured running on the flat or up the gallops. Its rather like people they can get injured rock climbing or something but they can also get injured crossing a road, its life nothing can be 100% safe.
The difference is (and this is the important thing) to hit a horse with a whip is to deliberatly intend
to hurt the horse. There will be people who say it doesn’t hurt them but thats just denial, it does. No it doesn’t leave lasting physical damage but it does hurt them therefore a jockey is deliberately hurting a horse – all in the name of sport. That is wrong. When you aim a horse at a fence you do not do that with the intention of deliberately causing the horse any pain / discomfort.As far as public perception is concerned they are turned off the sport by the use of the whip. The amount of times people have said to me "its cruel whipping horses" must run into treble figures.
Sorry for speaking for you Cormack. Hopefully I’ve argued your case with a large degree of accuracy.
Ian – very well put and a fair summing up of my position.
Couple of additional points though (inevitably!)-
Ginger –
You SEEM to be saying jumping obstacles is just as cruel or even more so than the whip
I didn’t say ANY OF IT was ‘cruel’. I don’t think use of the whip is cruel, just unnecessary. Jumping obstacles is inherently more dangerous for the horse than being whipped, that is an indisputable fact that no one could argue with. It’s dangerous, but not cruel. And jumping the obstacles IS necessary. You COULDN’T have National Hunt racing without that. The use of the whip as an ‘encourager’ is not necessary.You COULD have jump racing (or flat racing) without that.
I don’t know how much more clearly I can put it.
So what about the obstacles then Cormack?
THAT question (posed by your good self directly to me) is the one I was answering when posting the following (my only reference to obstacles btw)
The difference between the obstacles and the whip is that removing the obstacles fundamentally alters the sport. You couldn’t have National Hunt racing without having fences for horses to jump.
You’ve kind of supported that statement with your comment
You can have jump racing without obstacles, it’s called flat racing.
Ian has eloquently articulated the philosophical difference between ‘aiming horses at solid obstacles’ and the usage of the whip.
Can you explain to me Ginger just how the whip ‘encourages’ a horse to go faster? My view is that it provides a sting, a pain, which the horse instinctively (because that’s what horses are genetically programmed to do) tries to escape from by running. Any other explanation would be welcomed.
Once again, I’d encourage you (well, I wouldn’t really but you get my meaning) to smack a horse that is stood still in a field, with a whip and see what happens. It won’t stand there and look at you in a puzzled fashion as if to say ‘did you just tap me with that cushioned object you little devil you’. No, it’ll take off full speed as far away as it can get because it’ll have a sore butt and it won’t want a repeat of the scenario.
Regarding Pistolet Noir, in addition to the early part of the race Ruby used the whip to discourage the horse from wandering between the last two fences and, in the respect that it has a use ininstances like that, there is a case for keeping the whip as an aid.
And I’d also repeat my earlier assertion which I had hoped would put some perspective on my stance (which I clearly failed miserably to do as GT now thinks that I think the whole shooting match is a form of cruelty) –
All that said I don’t believe that it’s any kind of major welfare issue. I just think there is no need for the whip, that it is one bad bit of PR we could eliminate.
NO whip would fundamentally change racing.
In jump racing there’d be horses refusing to race with regularity. Possibly on average one per race, may be more; with punters as angry as ever “not getting a run for their money”.
A bigger advantage in racing prominently, being more difficult to make ground would change tactical riding forever.
Connections trying to find ways of scareing their horses to run faster.
Jockeys may try to do things to make their horse wander, with an excuse to use the whip.Ginger, as I attempted to hightlight earlier, there is no need to guess anymore as we now have a relatively large number of ‘Hands & Heels’ races to draw conclusions from.
So, what evidence from these Hands & Heels races is there for any of the above guesses.
As an aside I wonder how many on here have actually watched Hands & Heels races without even knowing it.
As ever this appears to be going round in a circle with one person not appearing to be taking any notice of the same replies being given over and over again. There is no justification for not opening up these hands and heels races. End of story. It will happen it is just a question of when.
I must admit that, as a former keen follower of Sprint Valley and Steepledowns, very rarely have I noticed any appreciable benefit in my horses’ being whipped.
If anything, it has only served to give the impression that the jockey has been trying.
Seriously though, very often I cringe when I see horses being whipped when, in my amateur opinion, it is obviously going to serve no purpose whatsoever in helping them to achieve even a minor place in the finishing order.
I really do believe that there should be a certain point in the race where the no-hopers are instructed to stop whipping.
KI don’t have particularly strong views one way or t’other – wouldn’t bother me if whips were banned or not – but I will make a physiological point which has been overlooked.
Once again, I’d encourage you (well, I wouldn’t really but you get my meaning) to smack a horse that is stood still in a field, with a whip and see what happens. It won’t stand there and look at you in a puzzled fashion as if to say ‘did you just tap me with that cushioned object you little devil you’. No, it’ll take off full speed as far away as it can get because it’ll have a sore butt and it won’t want a repeat of the scenario.
The difference between the horse stood in the field and the horse running in the last stages of a race is that the latter will have massive amounts of adrenaline in its system, and science will tell you that adrenaline has a dampening effect on pain. The horse will still feel ‘something’ – let’s face it, they can feel a fly landing on their skin – but it would not equate to being smacked in a field in a cold blood, so Corm’s ‘control experiment’ can’t be taken as a direct equivalent of use of a whip in a race.
Surely the whole relationship between horse and rider is one of a rather small week creature trying to kid a much larger stronger animal that they are, in fact, more powerful. And racing is trying to falsely create the ‘flee’ reaction in a horses mentallity. The whip isn’t meant to hurt but to make the horse think that a predator is gaining on it therefore it needs to go faster to escape. Whether it’s right or not I don’t know enough about it to make a judgement; the only people that do are those more closely involved with horses; jockeys, trainers, work riders etc. It must have annoyed Francome over the years to see jockeys resorting to the whip in races where he didn’t, as he wasn’t that sort of rider, being a brilliant horseman.It probably isn’t much fun having a lump of metal in your mouth with someone pulling on it all the time, but that doesn’t bother people!
I don’t have particularly strong views one way or t’other – wouldn’t bother me if whips were banned or not – but I will make a physiological point which has been overlooked.
Once again, I’d encourage you (well, I wouldn’t really but you get my meaning) to smack a horse that is stood still in a field, with a whip and see what happens. It won’t stand there and look at you in a puzzled fashion as if to say ‘did you just tap me with that cushioned object you little devil you’. No, it’ll take off full speed as far away as it can get because it’ll have a sore butt and it won’t want a repeat of the scenario.
The difference between the horse stood in the field and the horse running in the last stages of a race is that the latter will have massive amounts of adrenaline in its system, and science will tell you that adrenaline has a dampening effect on pain. The horse will still feel ‘something’ – let’s face it, they can feel a fly landing on their skin – but it would not equate to being smacked in a field in a cold blood, so Corm’s ‘control experiment’ can’t be taken as a direct equivalent of use of a whip in a race.
I suspect most people are not arguing about degree of pain. It doesn’t take scientific knowledge to know if a horse is not hit with a whip it doesn’t feel any pain.
"Tete Rouge" wrote:
If the whips are completely unnessecary then why did Ruby Walsh feel the need to slap Lochan Lacha with his hand in a handicap hurdle earlier this season
Actually, I thought that this race was an excellent example of the whip NOT being necessary.
Ruby’s slaps, if they even made contact, really wouldn’t have been felt by the horse – have you tried hitting something behind you at that angle? There is no way you can put any force into it. The horse, in this case, as galvanised by the movement, the shifts in the jockey’s weight (to the extent that changing the imaginary whip hand influenced the direction in which the horse was tending to hang) and the other aids that are used in a finish – i.e. kicking, squeezing, possibly shouting. Much of the effect of the whip is psychological.
At the end of the day he had to hit the horse with his hand as a substitute for the whip.
NO whip would fundamentally change racing.
In jump racing there’d be horses refusing to race with regularity. Possibly on average one per race, may be more; with punters as angry as ever "not getting a run for their money".
A bigger advantage in racing prominently, being more difficult to make ground would change tactical riding forever.
Connections trying to find ways of scareing their horses to run faster.
Jockeys may try to do things to make their horse wander, with an excuse to use the whip.Ginger, as I attempted to hightlight earlier, there is no need to
guess
anymore as we now have a relatively large number of ‘Hands & Heels’ races to draw conclusions from.
So, what evidence from these Hands & Heels races is there for any of the above
guesses
.
As an aside I wonder how many on here have actually watched Hands & Heels races without even knowing it.
Pompete,
Yes, I have seen “hands and heels” races and they are an excellent introduction. Teaching young riders style and rhythm. Giving a basic education without the often overused whip.However, the “hands and heels” series is a non-starter in telling us how successful non-whip racing will be.
These are conditional / apprentices, learning the trade. They are not experienced enough to try and do anything else to scare the horse in to running faster. Though have noticed more screaming at horses to go faster. If they did try anything out of the ordinary, they’d get castigated by press and connections; unlike if AP or Fallon did the same.
Being conditional / apprentices there is no point connections putting DIFFICULT horses in those races, most are genuine types very likely to behave themselves. Where as in normal races there are many temperamental or horses with kinks. It’s this type (that you don’t see in h+h races) that will cause the problem in non-whip races.
Value Is EverythingIan – very well put and a fair summing up of my position.
Couple of additional points though (inevitably!)-
Ginger –
You SEEM to be saying jumping obstacles is just as cruel or even more so than the whip
I didn’t say ANY OF IT was ‘cruel’. I don’t think use of the whip is cruel, just unnecessary. Jumping obstacles is inherently more dangerous for the horse than being whipped, that is an indisputable fact that no one could argue with. It’s dangerous, but not cruel. And jumping the obstacles IS necessary. You COULDN’T have National Hunt racing without that. The use of the whip as an ‘encourager’ is not necessary.You COULD have jump racing (or flat racing) without that.
I don’t know how much more clearly I can put it.
So what about the obstacles then Cormack?
THAT question (posed by your good self directly to me) is the one I was answering when posting the following (my only reference to obstacles btw)
The difference between the obstacles and the whip is that removing the obstacles fundamentally alters the sport. You couldn’t have National Hunt racing without having fences for horses to jump.
You’ve kind of supported that statement with your comment
You can have jump racing without obstacles, it’s called flat racing.
Ian has eloquently articulated the philosophical difference between ‘aiming horses at solid obstacles’ and the usage of the whip.
Can you explain to me Ginger just how the whip ‘encourages’ a horse to go faster? My view is that it provides a sting, a pain, which the horse instinctively (because that’s what horses are genetically programmed to do) tries to escape from by running. Any other explanation would be welcomed.
Once again, I’d encourage you (well, I wouldn’t really but you get my meaning) to smack a horse that is stood still in a field, with a whip and see what happens. It won’t stand there and look at you in a puzzled fashion as if to say ‘did you just tap me with that cushioned object you little devil you’. No, it’ll take off full speed as far away as it can get because it’ll have a sore butt and it won’t want a repeat of the scenario.
Regarding Pistolet Noir, in addition to the early part of the race Ruby used the whip to discourage the horse from wandering between the last two fences and, in the respect that it has a use ininstances like that, there is a case for keeping the whip as an aid.
And I’d also repeat my earlier assertion which I had hoped would put some perspective on my stance (which I clearly failed miserably to do as GT now thinks that I think the whole shooting match is a form of cruelty) –
All that said I don’t believe that it’s any kind of major welfare issue. I just think there is no need for the whip, that it is one bad bit of PR we could eliminate.
Ian and Cormack,
Exactly, nothing can be 100% safe. Just seems crazy to me people can be against a CUSHIONED whip; yet are quite happy to see horses jumping obstacles on firm going. If I had my way SUMMER jump racing would be banned. Jumping obstacles on a firm surface is proven to be infinitely more dangerous than jumping on a soft surface.
With jump racing from late September to April, jump racing from June to early September IS NOT NECESSARY. Causing a greater risk of physical injury and fatalities (unlike the whip).
If you use even a cushioned whip on a horse in a field, of course it will run away. Because it is surprised and does not understand why or where the feeling comes from. It’s an instinctive reaction from when it’s ancestors were wild animals. A wild horse who waits to understand a touch before fleeing will not live long. Creeping up and touching it with your hand will get the same response. Unless the smack is of full force or in the wrong place (both banned under existing rules) the actual “pain” is nothing to do with a fleeing reaction.
Ian said a jockey is: “deliberately hurting a horse” with a whip and Corm: “his (McGrath’s) argument that whips aren’t MEANT to hurt horses was met with incredulity by Francome, AND RIGHTLY SO”.
Using anything on an animal that is “not necessary”, yet “hurts” and should be effectively banned; in my opinion infers cruelty. What is worse, is it infers cruelty to the general public and / or animal rights brigade. There are varying degrees of cruelty and peoples definition of cruelty will be different.Does it “hurt” to be encouraged by a whip? Is it inflicting pain? All depends what you compare it with. Compared to breaking a leg it is no pain at all. When connections go up to collect their winning prize; we give our appreciation by inflicting a similar pain / hurt on ourselves by clapping. Should we be banned from inflicting pain / hurt with a high five on a child? Difference is a horse does not understand and tries to get away from the “clapping” (“pain / hurt”). This probable increase in speed does no damage as long as the whip is used as the rules INTENDED. Of course, if a cushioned racing whip were used on our skin it would inflict more pain than clapping. Vigorous clapping with our skin is (imo) akin to a RACING whip on skin of a thoroughbreds rear end.
In my opinion humans clapping, high five or using a racing whip on a racehorse (with correct force and positioning), do not inflict enough “pain” to call it “hurting”.
How is this new whip rule going to work?
Conditionals and apprentices do not want to do anything to annoy other trainers and connections. I don’t bet in h+h races, but what happens if a jockey does use the whip in the conventional manner? Is he disqualified?
In your no-whip rules, Is a horse disqualified if a jockey uses the whip?Let’s take the Epsom Derby as an example:
A race worth a considerable sum, worth bending the rules for. On an undulating course where horses often wander down the camber. How do stewards know the occasions where a horse would remain straight without the use of a whip; and those who would wander down the camber? Are stewards going to disqualify the first 5 home? Any horse who remains straight and is not allowed a whip is at a disadvantage.How can it be policed?
With your rules many more horses will not race. With a smaller group of horses capable of winning (genuine racehorses winning a greater percentage). Inevitably there will be a larger group of worthless horses, so there won’t be enough places away from racing to find them a home. Are you prepared to see a possible increase of racehorses destroyed as a result of this new whip rule?
Value Is EverythingAre you prepared to see a far greater percentage of racehorses destroyed as a result of this new whip rule?
Come on GT – now you are losing the plot entirely.
For those members opposed to the whip there are two options:
a) If not already, join the RSPCA and influence policy within that organisation and then proceed to persuade the Government to intervene through the statute book.
b) Forget horse-racing altogether and return to a more serene and non-confrontational way of life – "more tea, Vicar? .. how about a cucumber sandwich?"I reckon Corm15 is half-way to opting for the latter.
Cheers
KPerhaps we should do away with jocks, saddles , bridles and whips and have a Land Rover with a huge bright coloured carrot on the back and let them chase that.
Now THAT would be a laugh.
Happy, I think they should give you a job in Racing For Change.
Are you prepared to see a far greater percentage of racehorses destroyed as a result of this new whip rule?
Come on GT – now you are losing the plot entirely.
Me Cormack, surely not!
May be I exaggerated a little, should have said "are you prepared to see a
possible increase
in racehorses destroyed as a result of a new whip rule". But you get my point. Will change original post.
Your assumption that racing would not change funamentally, is wrong in my opinion. Hope you will answer my points when you have time Corm.
(wish there was a smilie for thumbs up)
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.