- This topic has 56 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
The ‘safety’ red herring is one of the many obvious flaws in the new rules. If I’m approaching an obstacle at 30 mph with horses either side of me and I sense that my horse is thinking of diving out & taking other horses with him and I decide to give him two sharp smacks to get him back onto the right leg, focused on the job and safely over the fence there is no way that stewards will sanction that after the event.
My sense that the horse is going to duck out may be based on many years of riding experience, thousands of rides under rules, close knowledge of this particular horse and this particular track but there would be no way that I could demonstrate that the horse would have behaved in a certain way but for my actions.
In other words, only safety action that doesn’t work (ie I use the smacks and the horse ducks anyway) can ever be demonstrably safety based.
It’s just one of the many nonsenses of these rules. There is no room for a professional equine sportsman or woman to use their judgement and their expertise to do what is best for the horse and it’s chances. Brian Harding’s ban amply demonstrated this. The rules do not allow sufficient scope for the riding of all types of horses in all types of circumstances. They are not fit for purpose. I can’t believe that the BHA hasn’t realised this by now but of course even if they have their inexcusable haste and naivite in introducing these rules has left them nowhere to go.
I think this is very well said Sean.
As I just posted on the new whip poll thread, NH is such a completely different game to the flat, and needs looking at in a different way. No way should the same rules apply to both.
Another thing I’d like to mention is jockeys who are maybe lying close to last, and whopping **** out of the horse just to avoid being last. They are outpaced, outclassed, going nowhere, and must learn to accept that. It’s not only on the finish line that whips are misused. If they have enough people to count strokes throughout a long NH race why are they not catching these guys? Just because the maximum number of strokes has not been exceeded does not necessarily mean that whip abuse has not occured.
Ricky – of course I won’t concede to being blatantly wrong, esp when I think I am blatantly right but I hope I’m not coming across as ‘dogged’ in the ‘not listening’ sense. I do hear the arguments and I absolutely understand the concerns. I just don’t happen to believe they are valid.
I’m not an animal rights activist, I’m a meat-eater, I was brought up spending large amounts of time on my grandparents farm around all kinds of animals. And I have been watching racing for several decades. Lots of it.
I say all that to dispel any thoughts that I am some kind of namby pamby liberal. I don’t think any (or many) of the racing people who support this reduction in whip use (many clear thinkers such as Peter O’Sullevan would like it go further, as would I) are such ‘types’.
I simply think that it is not necessary to use the whip as frequently as we have been in the past, in fact I think it is unecessary to use it at all (apart from safety) in flat racing and possibly so in National Hunt racing too. Racing would still be competitive in my view. I appreciate many don’t agree and I do respect those views but I haven’t seen anything yet under these new rules that has fundamentally altered that opinion.
On a moral standpoint, I think that we have a very clear duty of care to the racehorse, as we do to all animals and particularly those we utilise for our own ends. That duty of care is almost always observed in racing but I’d be uncomfortable, on a moral standpoint, with defending the hitting of horses
unnecessarily
, as I believe is the case in most, perhaps all, races. It isn’t morally justifiable because it is unecessary. That is my basic position. You can still have racing without the whip so it is
unnecessary
. It’d still be competitive, it’d still be exciting, the jockeys would still be trying as hard as they could to win and good, genuine horses who ran fastest from A to B would win the races.
Like Sean, who has been consistent throughout, I’d hope that I’ve been consistent with that viewpoint.
On Sean’s point, I do make a very clear distinction between the whip and other items of tack. That distinction is that the whip is unnecessary apart from on safety grounds. I’m not even convinced it is that effective (as an ‘encourager’). Fred Winter advocated limited usage (famously uttering that if thy won’t go for two they won’t go for twenty). Peter Scudamore felt that more stringent controls were required. John Francome has advocated a total ban. Bill Shoemaker said more races were lost through the whip than were ever won. (Pinza – have you taken those views into account along with those others you’re collecting?)
Sean –
At listed class and below this drops to 0.96% and Grade Ones reach the dizzy heights of 1.2%
If you think that this difference of 0.23% over a small sample of grade one chases constitutes clear evidence of a ‘win at all costs mentality’ then I don’t honestly think there’s much point debating the facts any more is there?Statistically, the figures you quote actually show a
25%
greater likelihood of an offence in Grade Ones (((1.2-.96)/.96)*100) or (.24/.96)%. I think it’s fairly clear cut that jockeys are more likely to offend in the bigger races where more is at stake. Wasn’t that one of the arguments those against the rules were making at the start – ‘wait until Cheltenham and see what happens’?
I disagree that measuring the number of bans Vs Rides is valid as most horses are out of contention and are unlikely to attract whip usage to merit a ban. Bans Vs Races is much more valid in my view.
On that basis 4 whip offences (and the whip isn’t just about frequency, whip can be misused in a variety of ways as we know) at Cheltenham could be argued as being 4 offences in 27 races. Or 14.8%. Just over 1 in 7 races. I think that is too many. Way too many considering how often jockeys were allowed to hit at that time.
Right time to get to sleep, it gets dark early up here on planet Lah-Lah!
- Total Posts 17716
Fred Winter advocated limited usage (famously uttering that if thy won’t go for two they won’t go for twenty). Peter Scudamore felt that more stringent controls were required. John Francome has advocated a total ban. Bill Shoemaker said more races were lost through the whip than were ever won. (Pinza – have you taken those views into account along with those others you’re collecting?)
I have indeed taken the views of these four great horsemen into account. What’s obvious about most of them is the difference between what these men said about the whip
in theory
(and often retirement), and what they did with it
in practise
.
Not too much footage of
Fred Winter
in his pomp exists, but he was a famously adept whip waver (as opposed to striker) and certainly needed his whip – no feather duster in those days – in his most famous race of all, the 1962
Grand Steeplechase de Paris
when he rode
Mandarin
to victory with the bit broken and no other means of sterring. Navigating that difficult Auteuil configuration was managed by a combination of whip slaps and other jockeys helping to keep him on track.
Bill Shoemaker
‘s
bon mot
addressed the inability of inexperienced or poor jockeys to use the whip correctly, which is something the Racing Schools have worked at hard over the years, and worked at well. He himself used the whip to its full extent, and once again we’re not talking feather dusters. He personally won more races than he lost, by using the whip brilliantly.
John Francome
baffles me. The gap between what he
says
, and what he
did
(again pre-duster days) is huge. I suppose he’s keen to position himself within that "spirit of the times" which has been evoked so much (and so questionably) during this debate.
How many strokes did
Peter Scudamore
use riding
Bonanza Boy
to keep him from getting tailed off early on in that famous
Whitbread
? Watch and tell… His support of the new rules was strong, though he’s kept his head down as far as I can see since their introduction. Actually he needn’t have done, because (despite his personal feelings) he called it right.
I have just re-read his prophecy about what would happen when these new rules came in
(
Daily Mail 27th September
):
"The new regulations could see repeat offenders among the jockey ranks banned for 20, 30 or more days. They could also have to face the Disciplinary Committee with their licences to ride at stake.
But ultimately, they answer to their employers – the owners and trainers – and I have still to be convinced, when the chips are down, that that responsibility and the hope of future employment won’t outweigh the new rules.
That means more breaches. I hope I’m wrong but that scenario would mean the positive effect of these new stiffer changes will be undermined and keep the use of the whip under scrutiny."
Prescient stuff from Scudamore, and a recognition that the reality of the situation would make the rules unworkable, however desirable he personally thought them to be.
We can all think of races which have been arguably lost by resort to the whip (Pitman on
Crisp
, Dettori on
Swain
) but these are few and far between. The gap between the
theory
and the
practise
of these great men puts their statements about the whip (all except Shoemaker’s certainly spoken in retirement) into a proper perspective.
Excellent stuff again Pinza.
I have been thinking about a point raised by
Eclipse First
in relation to the 12 month totting up period.
If we assume that the average jockey when racing has a 99.25% chance of complying with the whip rules then his chance of getting ban becomes 100% – (99.25 %)to the power of his number of rides.
As AP ordinarily rides about 800 times during the season by my calculation if each ride had a 99.25% chance of compliance with the rules then there is an overall
99.9%
chance that AP will incur a further ban in the next twelve months.
Anyone care to check my calculation ?
If I am correct it reflects the impossibility of the current situation for the jockeys.
- Total Posts 17716
Seanryan
, your figures are (as ever) irrefutable.
I’d be more worried, in a way, if the likes of AP and Ruby
don’t
get another ban or two by the end of the season. It might rather prove
Andrew Thornton
‘s point this morning:
I think we’ve already seen this precise preoccupation impacting negatively on the rides of both leaders of the profession, and impacting negatively also on the punters’ sense of getting a run for their money.There was plenty of quiet "schooling" going on at today’s jumps meetings, that’s for sure.
- Total Posts 102
I read somewhere that under the new rules there would have been 35 Bans at last years Cheltenham Festival.
Will there be a point where you virtually cant go above 3 miles and be competitive, or are we heading towards NH "Lite"??
Sadly, PR wise, the horse has bolted
Ok Corm , understood and as always eloquent
here’s what we do , I will bet you a lunch in Newmarket or Ascot next year that the current rules , will be changed , and if not I will bet that betting turnover will plummet materially (25 per cent or more )by the end of September 2012
For me the current structure does not work , I do not care about the animal charities , they cannot hurt racing , what can and is hurting racing is the ineptitude of the BHA
Public perception is just a cloak for steir and roy (imo), it means zilch , as folks are fickle , how many people remember the grand National today 7 months on ……people move on ….this rule was constructed to appease , it did not need to happen
But it has , and we are stuck
I am diametrically opposed to your view , and have been racing since 1957
However we cannot go on in circles , lets see what happens
I am not betting though until it is changed , if its not changed I will probably lose interest and only watch key races for curiosity
good debate
Ricky
here’s what we do , I will bet you a lunch in Newmarket or Ascot next year that the current rules , will be changed , and if not I will bet that betting turnover will plummet materially (25 per cent or more )by the end of September 2012
I think the rules or, more probably, penalties
will
be changed. To be honest I wouldn’t be that precious about the penalties being changed a little. I think the rules work, but I think the penalties do need looking at.
Some kind of ratchet, perhaps more complex than the current system, incorporating Eclipse First’s idea (I think) whereby jockeys can wipe out the spectre of a totting up offence by registering a certain number of ‘clean’ rides, might be the option to go for. Rather than being time-bound if it were ‘number rides’ dependant then the busy jockeys wouldn’t be unfairly compromised (relative to a rider who may only have a quarter of teh rides in teh same period).
Repeat offenders should recieve significant punishment, and the penalty ratchet for the margin by which the count was excessive should be harsh, but the initially penalty for ‘one over’ should be decreased I think. That would go some way to smoothing the cut-off point for stroke count. A kind of non-linear, less arbitrary penalty system.
I’d keep the counts as they are. They are the stake in the ground.
I think the jockeys would go for that, their main beef seems to be the punitive penalties for marginal offences and not the actual count (although I’m sure they’d like to increase the count too). A ratchet type system would take care of those concerns while also ensuring that those offences likely to besmirch racing would be suitably and punitively punished.
- Total Posts 17716
I’d keep the counts as they are. They are the stake in the ground.
Editorial suggestion: I think that should read
"stake in the heart"
. Whilst the (whip) Count remains, Dracula will rise again.
The totting up is clearly wrong.
Cormack would you be happy with:
NH guide limit – 8 base but increasing to 9 for 2m4+ and 10 to 3m+
from base
• 9/10 hits – referred to stewards ( max 1 or 2 day bans no totting up)
• 11 hits – 5 day ban
• 12 hits – 10 day ban
• 13 hits – 20 day ban
• 14 hits – 40 day ban + horse disqualifiedSean , Id say most people would , but I cannot see them moving much from 8 , Silly I know, but maybe 9 they might go to, allowing a 2 stroke differential between the codes
I agree with Corm , the ground for movement is the penalties ,hopefully they might get changed , if not and the jocks put up with it , then they only have themselves to blame
good idea though Sean , sadly the guys in charge do not have the brains or good will to go that far ….imo
Ricky
Something along those lines but I wouldn’t be referring to stewards after 1/2 over, just have the ban there and then. And DQ’ing has been much discussed and the concensus (with which I reluctantly agree) is that it’d have such a negative effect on betting patrons that it’d result in uproar.
I wouldn’t increase the 8 for longer distances either. It simply encourages jockeys to hit exhausted horses more often.
I’d have
9 – 2 days
10 – 5 days
11 – 9 days
12 – 15 days
13 – 25 days14 and over refer to stewards with min 30 day ban.
Something akin to that.
Repeat offences, similar penalties to now but based on number of rides rather than time. Seems fairer on jockeys who are racing more frequently.
I wouldn’t increase the 8 for longer distances either. It simply encourages jockeys to hit exhausted horses more often.
I’d have
9 – 2 days
10 – 5 days
11 – 9 days
12 – 15 days
13 – 25 days14 and over refer to stewards with min 30 day ban.
So you would ban Davy Russell for a month for his ride on
Quito de la Roque
,who struck his mount at least 14 times and still won cosily! Why i hear Ginger ask did he need to hit his mount 14 times then if he still won cosily?…Answer;- Simply because the horse needed every yard of that trip and had to be ridden aggressively to be competitive,his resolution won the day thanks to an inspired ride from Davy,had he not been so ‘encouraging’ the horse would never have gone a yard after 8 strikes and we would be thinking
Sizing Europe
really gets 3 miles! Not on that ground he doesn’t!
As for 2 days for 9 strikes…You’re having a laugh,thats water off a ducks back to a Jockey! Get REAL!I was wondering today of how many of the great races from the folklore of racing would have resulted in bans; Red Rum and Crisp, perhaps..Grundy and Bustino?
Yep KF – either he’d have been banned and/or he’d have ridden to the rules and the horse might or might not have won. You can’t justify striking the horse outwith rules because it wins. Would Davy Russell have been justified in hitting the horse that number of times if it had ended up not getting up and been third? I’m amazed by how often a ride is held up as ‘great’ simply because the jockey has hit the horse innumerably.
You are right, two days might be water off a duck’s back (which is presumably why the BHA set the penalty at five), but the idea is that once they’d been done once they wouldn’t want to be repeating the offence.
I was wondering today of how many of the great races from the folklore of racing would have resulted in bans; Red Rum and Crisp, perhaps..Grundy and Bustino?
All of those for sure Moe and 100’s more! What is so Pathetic is the fact those horses you name above all had a far tougher time of things than the modern thoroughbred and yet all had distinguished racing careers through grit and determination.Todays ‘mollycoddled’ racehorse recieves a friendlier Whip,lightweight shoes,better nutrition,climate controlled stables and finer bedding,All weather gallops and state of the art veterinary care,racecourses have also modernised courses/fences/railings/going etc just to accomodate the horse and yet there’s still muppets on here whingeing about a flick of a whip.
Yep KF – either he’d have been banned and/or he’d have ridden to the rules and the horse might or might not have won. You can’t justify striking the horse because it won. Would Davy Russell have been justified in hitting the horse that number of times if it had ended up not getting up and been third?
Davy Russell is a Professional Horseman,he used years of experience to make the decisions he did in order to win the race,he knows like we know that had he only hit the horse 8 times he would have finished 3rd,he used his whip exactly the amount of times required to win,he didn’t need to hit
Quito de la Roque
18 times because Davy judged everything to perfection.I use this race as the perfect example as to why our rules are Pathetic and come Gold Cup day,Davy Will do exactly the same again in order to win and funnily enough thats what the REAL racing fan wants to see! The only Rule that would stop ‘The best horse winning’ would be to disqualify the horse if that rule was ever implemented and an Irish horse,well backed won the Gold cup and was disqualified because the jockey went over the 8 strokes there would be Hell to pay!! Remember
Dawn Run
the scenes etc,that was REAL,long may it stay that way!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.