- This topic has 34 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
New BHA Rules.
Article from Greg Wood:
It sounds like the disqualification rule will be invoked about as often as the dangerous riding rule, i.e. never.
If Richard Hughes was still riding he’d have them change it within a week..😂
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Right, I’d like to see the first disqualification coming in a tight G1 sprint.
It won’t help much, if the neighbours (FRA, IRE and even GER) will still apply different rules. Frankie should have won the German Derby two weeks ago when beaten a short head and a head with the first two jockeys being suspended for excessive use of the whip. Will this ever happen???? Can’t really see it coming.
Just do away with the whip.
Will make racing (a bit) more acceptable to younger generations as well.
I assume you would allow the whip to be used for safety reasons, just not for trying to make a horse go faster?
In those circumstances, it is a more logical system than the currently ridiculous rules? Why is 7 the number permitted? Why not 6? Or 8?
However, I think if you get rid of the whip, it will become competitive riding and will no longer be racing.
Look at the Scandinavian countries. The “racing” there is boring.
No, CAS, I mean get rid of it completely.
And isn’t everything in Scandinavia boring? 🤔
Only allowing the use of the whip (or pro cushion as a lot of presenters are saying now) in the backhand position for me is problematical, watch any finish (under both codes) and you will always see jockey(s) striking horses (with the whip in the forehand position) in or around the area of the back of the number cloth which from my understanding is the incorrect position…..which never seems to be picked up on.
Restricting the use to the backhand position will restrict the range of movement a jockey has when using the whip and could mean more jockeys end up striking their mount in the same number cloth position.
At the end of the day the ‘public’ that the sport is trying to placate simply think the whip should be banned full stop and a continuation down this current road will find us in the very near future running out of any wiggle room and end up at an outright whip ban and then those exact same ‘public’ will move onto horse racing should be banned because we shouldn’t be forcing horses to race for our sport/enjoyment and then we effectively will have a breed of horse (30K+) with no actual purpose.
I think ‘horse education’ should be aimed more at the public for a change because a lot of them are applying the logic that whips = evil/no place in human society and when it comes to humans that is true but we are talking about working animals not domestic pets.
Why boring? Look at Ryan Moore winning on Tenebrism just under hands and heels. Or him on Above The Curve also in a G1 in France where they simply trash their horses. Those two rides are the best possible adverts for Horse Racing, imo.
Isn’t that last paragraph illogical, LD? 🤔
There have been numerous attempts over the last decade or so to educate the public about the new whip, but it doesn’t seem to sink in.
Besides, a horse has no choice if it gets whipped or not, whereas a Tory MP does.
Very little I hear on this subject makes sense.
“The modern whip doesn’t hurt.”
Why have a limit, then?
Why do jockeys even use it? What’s making horses respond?
“The noise.”
So they’re scared of it. It makes a flight animal run away?
“Only jockeys should be punished – not fair on connections to disqualify.”
Who benefits most when a horse wins by cheating (overuse of the whip).
And who do you think encourages the jockey to do it and covertly financially compensates the rider?
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Glad – I really don’t think the sport has tried hard enough on the educate the public front personally – yes there will be a certain element of the public that are not going to hear anything said against their point of view (even if the only time they have seen a horse is on the TV). But reading a piece on the RP website today, this particular paragraph (although only a small sample size) was rather eye opening on how a mind can be changed:
A survey of 1,119 British adults, conducted by public opinion specialist Ipsos UK in April 2022, showed 55 per cent of people “supported a ban on use of the whip”. However, the figure dropped by 12 per cent when further explanation of the whip’s design and use was offered.
This sport gets battered with the public perception angle all the time as to why changes must seem to always be made on this subject, when I think that angle is more of a ‘complex’ held by the sports governing body rather than with said public……
Oh and if those Tory MPs did actually respond to the whip in the same way most horses do, who knows maybe the country might not be in the state we currently are……
Isn’t the ruling that dq will only happen when its 4x the limit or is it the limit +4 times? Wording isnt very clear to me, they are vastly different.
I’m very concerned about the direction of travel here. Starts off as this but I can see the whip going completely in 10 years or so. Pandering to a market that isn’t there imo but I accept others don’t feel the same.
BHA need to start looking at the other stuff that is fast turning racing fans off. Too much racing, dodgy going descriptions etc I can’t see myself still being a racing fan for long under Harrington etc they haven’t got a clue.
Interesting survey LD73. Do you know how the question was worded? Even without explanation & education, I don’t believe the whip is the main focus for people who might regard racing as “cruel”. My non-racing friends never talk of the whip (aside from the odd extremist), though I daresay if offered a “ban it” or “keep it” option most would opt for the ban. Their issues with the sport are fatalities on the track and the fate of horses after racing. Both of these require serious research and funding to assess the scale and cause of the problems, hence the BHA choose the easy (and cheap) whip option.
Personally I don’t have major concerns about whip use other than when it’s used to drive an obviously exhausted or potentially injured horse (which ought to carry far greater penalties than is currently the case) but I agree that the penalty should be disqualification. There is no point having rules if they aren’t enforceable. That said, I fear CAS is right given they rarely even enforce the dangerous riding rule.
Disqualification has to be the ultimate sanction , and I believe that it will work. Punishing the jockey alone will never succeed , when he (or she) can be covertly rewarded by a billionaire for getting his horse some black type , from breaching the rules.
However I cannot see the logic to breaking the limit by 4 uses. If the limit is agreed at 7 (or whatever number), then that is the limit that should be enforced.
As Tonge outlines above , I think that more people find other issues to be even more odious , such as fatalities on the track , and the treatment of horses after their careers are over.I can see the logic in disqualification of a horse where the jockey has breached the whip rules. If there is a rule (whether it is the right rule is a separate issue), why would you not enforce it with a proper penalty? Jockeys are happy to go over the number, especially if a big race is on the line. A few days holiday is a price they are willing to pay.
Punters would probably be aggrieved at first but I think they would get used to it. However, I am not sure punters would be quite so happy about no whips at all. Say if a lazy horse who was not putting in the effort got beaten a short head? A lot of punters would still think one or two smacks would make the difference.
If the whip was banned, isn’t there a danger that trainers would try to find out how fast horses could go by other means of “encouragement”?
Is doing away with the whip altogether feasible? I thought it was always said they were needed for safety?
I share LD73’s fear. Removing the whip altogether just to appease people who do not want to be appeased looks like the first step down the road to abolish racing. I realise our generation is not entitled to tell future generations what to do. But if racing is ever abolished on the grounds that it is cruel, I think that would be wrong. I would not have supported racing for so long if I ever for a second believed it is inherently cruel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.