- This topic has 21 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
This bloomin whip thing just will not go away , 15 day ban is very severe , to be honest I agree with it …hate to say it , I am coming around very slowly to Corm’s view , if they disqualified the horse yesterday , a lot of thinking would have to be done .. with Cheltenham coming up on the horizon
This looked bad , I hated it
imo
Some jockeys find themselves overusing in a finish on what I see as an unpremeditated basis. D Condon’s hearty and determined use illustrated that he had no qualms whatsoever – probably by nature/professionalism, whatever you want to call it, but the whip rules would not enter his mind. There are others like him in this regard.
Having said that, the whips these days inflict nowhere near the damage they did back in those all-out Cheltenham assaults of the 1970s. They are almost a different instrument completely, and the whip rules now are, effectively, cosmetic in my view – and rightly so.
With me it’s not the cruelty question, its the cheating – ignoring the rules and knowing you will keep the race. Compare with the penalty on Richard Johnson for a mistake taking the wrong course. It just doesn’t make sense; deliberate cheating and unintentional mistake, one with significant profit/benefit the other with none, very similar penalties. Just wrong.
By the way not pocket talk I had a nice win from Mr Condon.
I had a bit of a watershed moment yesterday actually watching the same race with my young daughter (I had a crafty failure on Clondaw Castle)
I’ve always given little thought or concern to whip use, especially if it was assisting to get me a winner. However my 7yo nipper was visibly upset at "that man whacking the horsey". Coincidentally "than man" was Condon. She now does not want to attend our annual Wetherby visit on a Boxing Day. She may forget / come around, she may not. Any which way, I feel quite bad about it and am unsure how to explain to here why it’s ok – because it isn’t really is it?
It was enough to make me see things another way, the innocence of youth often clarifies things in simple and concise fashion.
I agree with the OP – rules broken, thrown out. Even better, Big Mac rules – hands and heels.
Can anyone really argue why not? Let’s be honest it’s a load of rubbish about being a steering tool isn’t it? It only gets generally gets pulled when the jock wants more "effort", no?
for me it looked horrible ,,,rules or not , cheating or not , easy whip or not ….some things look horrible , this was one of them , I was disgusted to tell the truth , and cannot believe it made me feel that way
some of these guys are going to get crucified at chelters ,…unless the engaging of brain works …
End of rant ,
I’m surprised at you ricky, never thought you could be so naive.
steeplechasing has it in a nutshell which make the penalties imposed currently for the "offence" positively draconian.Which other major racing countries impose such draconian penalties on riders trying to win?
Not only Condon broke the rules but so did the second jockey so the race would go to the 3rd past the post, if the stewards have counted correctly. What a farce.
Jacob also used his whip too many times on Reve de Sivola but got away scot-free, the stewards must have used their discretion for that one
Yet some amazingly want to extend it to disqualification
British racing would be a laughing stock.If such a thing was imposed, turnover and levy would be decimated. Imagine backing a winner and not knowing you were drawing until faceless stewards had counted up whip strokes of each individual rider in a race, not to mention whether some were actual whip strokes or not. Do you think stewards are capable to do it? The game would be a farce and how long would it take to weigh in bearing in mind it would have to be done for every race?
And lets not even get into it being an open door for corruption both in the stewards room and out on the track. What better way to lose a race would there be than to break the whip rules?
Many of the doom-laden arguments against disqualification assume the current state would persist, i.e. the current level of rule-breaking would remain the same despite the increased penalties.
They would not.
Once the jockey loses his share of the prize, the trainer loses their share of the prize, the owners lose their money, the flat owners lose breeding kudos, most of the rule-breaking will stop. The odd mentally-challenged jockey who can’t count or control himself will find it difficult to get good rides.
The possible problems around betting confusion and the potential for cheating there can be avoided by bookmakers and exchanges having to pay on both first past the post and any amended result. Yes they will squeal but they take enough money out of racing they can toe the line on this if they want to stay in the game. Also, as above, after a few weeks of a new regime I believe transgressions would be very rare indeed.
Many of the doom-laden arguments against disqualification assume the current state would persist, i.e. the current level of rule-breaking would remain the same despite the increased penalties.
They would not.
Once the jockey loses his share of the prize, the trainer loses their share of the prize, the owners lose their money, the flat owners lose breeding kudos, most of the rule-breaking will stop. The odd mentally-challenged jockey who can’t count or control himself will find it difficult to get good rides.
The possible problems around betting confusion and the potential for cheating there can be avoided by bookmakers and exchanges having to pay on both first past the post and any amended result. Yes they will squeal but they take enough money out of racing they can toe the line on this if they want to stay in the game. Also, as above, after a few weeks of a new regime I believe transgressions would be very rare indeed.
Absolutely correct aji. And it’s not like interference which can be debateable whether a race was won or lost because of this. If the strikes are greater than permitted then the race is lost, even if the horse may have won without the extra strikes. I think the enquiries would be a very rare occurrence from Day 1.
The sport’s whip problem now hinges on the name of the implement imo. They cannot suddenly begin calling it something else. The BHA, perhaps through its Racemakers programme, ought to get 20 or 30 whips on display at every big meeting, and let the public handle them. They really are lengths of spongy material and not much more. If you could compare the old whip of the ’70s to a gun – these are not even water cannons.
Seeing them on TV makes little difference to perception: you really need to handle one.
Yes, horses respond to them. They’d also respond to a slap on the rump if a jockey’s arms were long enough.
Bans are for cosmetic/political purposes. A whipless finish would suck much of the drama from racing, while being of no benefit to the horse.
But something must be done, and I don’t envy the BHA in trying to do it. The wholesale public perception of the whip itself will need changing, or the punishment for overuse must be seen to be one that ‘satisfies’ the public and the animal welfare people. Politics, I’m afraid, but unavoidable politics all the same.
On a welfare point, no journalist seems to have picked up P Nicholls’ blog comment that, ‘arguably, all horses should wear tongue ties’. I think that’s an astounding admission that horses working at racing speed need an artificial aid either to breathe properly, or to breathe ‘beyond properly’ for the benefit of connections/punters.
I suspect that breathing/bleeding problems in horses are much more of a welfare issue than the whip. But they’re invisible to the public…so all is well, eh?
Eddie , you are right of course , its a bloody pipe dream , will never happen …so I’m not advocating that at all
All Im saying is this …for some reason this race was a turn off for me , the horse got hit too many times , with hardly any let up , I felt sickened , because this is not the game I love so much , for me the horse is everything , and should be respected a little bit more than that , thats the long and the short of it
I don’t know the solution , the remedy , the fix , but this was ugly , and if it got to me, then how many others did it ring alarm bells for , after all we need new customers , new followers , this display did not help that cause
Its just a bad experience , racing is meant to be enjoyed , and for the most part it is , sometimes though its cringeworthy
The whip rules, despite views to the contrary, are still not ‘right’. Bittar’s knee-jerk reaction to being held to ransom by the jockeys was an over-correction.
I’d ban guys like Condon for longer, although even that wouldn’t stop some of them.
However, I’d avoid that by banning the use of the whip entirely. I honestly think racing would be none the worse for it and all the better. There is no argument for keeping it, none, other than safety and I have no problem with them being carried for that purpose only.
As sporting events, hands and heels races are a joke though aren’t they David? Without the whip you’d have to endure most horses finishing on the bridle, the less enthusiastic but still talented horses rendered unable to show their true ability and a massive bias towards front-runners in flat races.
Reve De Sivola wouldn’t have won the Long Walk without the whip in my view.
At risk of starting WWIII – so what if Reve De Sivola hadn’t won the Long Walk? Then Zarkandar would have won it.
I repeat a comment I’ve used before – from Willie Shoemaker – ‘more races have been lost by the whip than have ever been won with it’
Zarkander is a dog , out and out …so that would have been bad …imo
I think Corm …your wish wont ever happen , until folks stop betting on it , the bookies and the bookies rep wont ever allow the sea change you so badly crave
I agree with you on one point , I would have given Condon a ban of 30 days minimum , plus a mandatory course with young trainee jockeys at the Irish horse racing school
See how you like that Mister
I’ve also thought the term "dog" a puzzling one, when used in derogatory fashion against a horse accused of not obeying his pilot.
A Dog is surely the most genuine, loyal & obedient animal of all towards humans?
Sorry to go off on a tangent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.