- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Since 2000, the no-pain whip invented by the late Jim Mahon has been endorsed and promoted by the British racing authorities. It is now looked upon by authorities worldwide as a gift from heaven: a whip that encourages but does not hurt.
The exception appears to be Jamie Stier, the BHA regulator. He managed a committee that, in 2010-11, produced a new set of rules that apparently suggests that the no-pain whip is the work of the devil.
The new code decreed the horrors of whip abuse could be accurately calculated by counting hits, and that this evil could be eliminated by a level of punishment out of all proportion.
These nearly brought racing to a grinding halt in 2011. They were condemned as flawed and amended. Sadly the flaws are still there, and Mr Stier is still there.
As a result, almost every time good jockeys use the correct amount of whip when contesting the finish of an important race the next day’s press coverage concentrates less on the race and more on bans and fines, creating a false impression jockeys have been so brutal even the authorities are disgusted.
Soon the BHA must choose: disown the no-pain whip or disown this disastrous contribution to the rule book”.
Andrew Simpson
East Kennett
WiltshireShould really have ignored this.
Why is this excellent? It is no different to the other pro-whip arguments.
The anti-whip side never wanted a given number a of strikes either. Zero strikes takes away all the concerns raised above. You then actually know the horse isn’t being hurt. Until you find a talking horse anything else will remain pure speculation. You also get rid of the tiresome arguments about disqualification and how much nicer the make-up of the current whip is. Yes, jockeys would have to have to work a bit harder. That for me is a price well worth paying.
Of all opinions for and against, I would be more inclined to listen to what the vets have to say. I was listening to the Sunday Forum on ATR this morning and Andrew Thornton claimed that the vets were happy with the whip. If say 90% of vets are happy with the whip then I wouldn’t argue against it.
They will pull a horse out of a race if they are not happy with something at the click of a finger. If they really had the view that a horse was in any pain when receiving a hit then I believe there would be no argument at all and the whip would have been discarded a long time ago.That’s not to say that any other opinions on the matter are invalid but surely these are the people we should be listening to intently, not Jockeys, not Trainers, not activists and not the media.
Just happened to see a race at Lingfield a week or so ago in which I noticed that one of the runners was First Mohican (ridden by T Queally) and because of his previous connection to Sir Henry Cecil I decide to actually watch the race rather than switching over (not a fan of all weather racing in any way shape or form).
Turning for home he looked in with an outside chance of winning and in the straight for some unknown reason I just happened to count the number of times Queally used his whip – the total count was six so he was under the limit set out within the current rules and he had put his whip down someway before the line.
However, it was plain that five ot the six strikes were all above shoulder height which meant that he had in fact broken one of the whip rules (I knew this because as a matter of curiosity a few days prior I had visited the BHA website and actually read through their whip rules). You could also argue the point as to whether in the relatively short Lingfield straight he had given the horse enough time to respond to each stroke.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I don’t remember hearing anything about him getting a ban for this breech of the rules and I could only come to the conculsion (rightly or wrongly) that because he hadn’t exceeded the number of strokes allowed he hadn’t triggered any Stewards Enquiry – does this mean that they are only interested in the jockey’s rides when they have exceeding the whip count?
The following link to the PJA highlights why I think there should be a centralised stewarding panel making decisions as this would ensure that there is no marked difference meeting to meeting in how one set of stewards interpret the rules from another.
Just happened to see a race at Lingfield a week or so ago in which I noticed that one of the runners was First Mohican (ridden by T Queally) and because of his previous connection to Sir Henry Cecil I decide to actually watch the race rather than switching over (not a fan of all weather racing in any way shape or form).
Turning for home he looked in with an outside chance of winning and in the straight for some unknown reason I just happened to count the number of times Queally used his whip – the total count was six so he was under the limit set out within the current rules and he had put his whip down someway before the line.
However, it was plain that five ot the six strikes were all above shoulder height which meant that he had in fact broken one of the whip rules (I knew this because as a matter of curiosity a few days prior I had visited the BHA website and actually read through their whip rules). You could also argue the point as to whether in the relatively short Lingfield straight he had given the horse enough time to respond to each stroke.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I don’t remember hearing anything about him getting a ban for this breech of the rules and I could only come to the conculsion (rightly or wrongly) that because he hadn’t exceeded the number of strokes allowed he hadn’t triggered any Stewards Enquiry – does this mean that they are only interested in the jockey’s rides when they have exceeding the whip count?
The following link to the PJA highlights why I think there should be a centralised stewarding panel making decisions as this would ensure that there is no marked difference meeting to meeting in how one set of stewards interpret the rules from another.
Might not have been as clear cut as you may think. e.g. Luke Morris’s whip action routinely appears high and not easy on the eye.It attracts a lot of comment. However his action is presumably within the rules.
Might not have been as clear cut as you may think. e.g. Luke Morris’s whip action routinely appears high and not easy on the eye.It attracts a lot of comment. However his action is presumably within the rules.
[/quote]
It was pretty obvious if you were watching him, which is why I think the stewards don’t call jockeys on it otherwise suspensions would be given out like sweets (I don’t remember hearing of any jockey being banned for that particular offence). Hopefully, the following link is viewable:
http://www.attheraces.com/atrplayer-replay-overlay/VOD/918632/true
If it doesn’t, the race in question is the 2:45 at Lingfield on 8 January
Should really have ignored this.
Why is this excellent? It is no different to the other pro-whip arguments.
The anti-whip side never wanted a given number a of strikes either. Zero strikes takes away all the concerns raised above. You then actually know the horse isn’t being hurt. Until you find a talking horse anything else will remain pure speculation. You also get rid of the tiresome arguments about disqualification and how much nicer the make-up of the current whip is. Yes, jockeys would have to have to work a bit harder. That for me is a price well worth paying.
Agree 100%. And to reiterate what I have said on here before, even if it is to be assumed this cushioned whip causes no physical pain (which I do not happen to agree with) who is to say that the mental scars on the horse are not every bit as painful?
No whip = no whip transgressions. Simple. Plus an immeasurable benefit to the public perception of a sport which currently seems obsessed with preciesly that, and how it is to attract new fans.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.