- This topic has 135 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
“I make it long odds on that whip use disappear in racing at some point in the next 10-20 years, and long odds against that the sport will be banned in the next 50.”
I agree with the first half of that statement (although I think it would be terrible for racing). As for the second half, I would price it up a bit shorter. I think the anti-racing lobby, while still small, is far larger nowadays. The anti-betting lobby is now very vocal, with a lot of support in the media.
If racing is not prepared to defend itself against its opponents, it deserves to disappear. The BHA should show some leadership. It would be far better off spending its money on ways to inform people about the sport, rather than wasting it on glossy videos presented by ex-footballers. But instead all we get is defensive statements like the one about Crowley, almost playing its critics game for them.
The Harrington regime has been a disaster. The sport needs someone to speak up for it, not apologise for it.
I couldn’t agree more, CAS – in fact, I’d go further, I wouldn’t spend a penny on trying to “inform” people whose minds you will never change and will never be fans of the sport.
Racing is no longer run by people with belief in the product – it’s full of people from other industries who privately probably think the whip is a bit cruel, jumping obstacles is dangerous, even Flat racing on quick ground is, and revenue from betting is a dodgy way of funding the sport.
Racing (and betting) isn’t, never has been, and never will be for everyone.
But endlessly trying to appease those who don’t like it is a sure recipe for self destruction.
The current whip rules do the job of the antis for them because it needlessly manufactures incidents like the Crowley one.
Either abolish the whip altogether (that’s the last race so many horses will ever win if you do) or stop restricting its use and generating this kind of conflict.
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"“The current whip rules do the job of the antis for them because it needlessly manufactures incidents like the Crowley one.”
That is the heart of the matter. The story should have been about an exciting horse race in which two horses and jockeys gave their all. Instead, the BHA has turned it into a story about a jockey breaking the rules in a way the anti-racing lobby can (and will) spin as cruelty and abuse. A spectacular own goal.
As I mentioned towards the start of this thread, how many people at Ascot would have been offended or upset. How many people watching on television were outraged? Remember, the BBC received far more complaints about Clare Balding mocking Liam Treadwell’s teeth than it did about Jason Maguire’s whip happy ride on Ballabriggs.
No one who backed Hukum would have been saying “put the whip down and push him out with hands and heels, Jim”. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to suggest Hukum was distressed after the race.
As other posters have said, why is the BHA trying to appease people who do not want to be appeased? Their defensive, apologetic stance lets down everyone in racing.
It would have been packed out at Ascot on Saturday. Goodwood will be similarly well attended. It looked like there were decent sized crowds at Worcester and Perth last night. All that shows racing is still popular. I don’t suppose everyone at those meetings follows the sport every day but many people clearly still enjoy a day at the races and a few small bets for fun. I doubt any of those people would be there if they were upset about the whip, nor will they be counting every time a jockey uses it.
Why doesn’t the BHA realise the sport still has a lot of support? Start caring about those people rather than what the sport’s opponents think.
I think that we need to be careful what we wish for when it comes to thw whip /pro-cush in racing.
In my view , there is simply no point in harkening back to rides given by Piggott in the last century , and drawing the metaphorical wagons round in a circle. That ride in particular , is no example on which to hang our hats , was decidedly questionable at the time , and society is now in a much different place to then.
Arguments relating to racehorses being bred to race , whilst accurate , also need to be badged appropriately ,as they are not bred to suffer animal abuse.
If we do not deal with this issue appropriately , we will have no sport in the form of horse racing in the future.
The rules (whatever they may be , going forwards) need to be explained to the general
public , and need to be complied with. The only way forward is to remove the temptation to commit the perceived abuse by automatically disqualifying the horse when the jockey breaks the rules.
I’ll put my tin hat on !.I am not anti-foreigner, if they are good at their job but the BHA seemed to have had plenty of foreigners at the top who aren’t that good, Brant Dunshea, Shaun Parker and who could forget that clown Jamie Stier. He wanted the jockeys to start counting whip strokes as they passed the furlong post.
Who is this unnamed BHA spokesman who is always quoted, why can’t he put his name to the quote?
Of course Julie Harrington has been a poor leader and can only be a matter of time before she moves on.“Arguments relating to racehorses being bred to race , whilst accurate , also need to be badged appropriately ,as they are not bred to suffer animal abuse.”
But they are not suffering abuse. Is there anything to show Hukum was harmed on Saturday?
If anyone thinks it was abuse, the onus is on the BHA and Hukum’s connections to show the horse is perfectly all right.
Crowley broke the rules and deserves his punishment as the rules stand. Whether or not the rule is right is another issue – because it could be argued he has been penalised for trying his best to win.
“I’ll put my tin hat on!”
No such headgear required where I am concerned, Coggy, yours seems a perfectly-valid point of view to me.
Obviously Piggott on Roberto wouldn’t be the best example of humans caring for horses in racing history, but I purposely chose an extreme example because the fact Roberto didn’t curl up and never deliver a Group 1 performance again demonstrates that humans continually project their own values and sensitivities onto an animal population who might well be unfazed by it.
Public perception matters because politicians hang on it and adverse public perception can lead to legislation against you.
But the industry needs to be run by people who understand its historical appeal and that is manifestly no longer the case.
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"Greg Wood’s opinion in “The Guardian”. Spot on, as usual.
I would add that Crowley has been given a 20 day ban for doing his best to win on a horse that was a willing partner. Whereas Marco Ghiani has just received a 13 day ban for using his whip on a horse when it was in last place and with absolutely no chance.
I believe Ghiani’s offence was far worse but the enlightened BHA believes jockeys who produce great winning rides deserve more severe penalties. Absolutely crazy.
‘The rules (whatever they may be , going forwards) need to be explained to the general public’
This is spot on, the racing authorities need to be proactive, not reactive. Seize the narrative, control it. If they don’t, Animal Aid or whoever else will.
As I have already stated would they really have gone the whole nine yards and demoted Hukum if the whip had been employed ten times, can you imagine the furore if it had happened.
The more I know the less I understand.
It’s the word that causes the perception.
Whip Verb To strike with a slender felxible instrument, esp as a punishment.
Whip Noun An instrument consisting of a lash attached to a handle, used for driving and controlling animals and for punishment.
At every opportunity for the last 30 years, I’ve tried to get people in racing, including those in authority and in the media to stop using the word ‘whip’ and find an agreed alternative.
But the end result can be summed in three other words from the dictionary – sand, head, stuck.
Agree AP. But when I suggested here earlier this year that “pro-cush” should be used instead, one prolific poster about racing mocked the suggestion and said it was taking the public for fools because they still know it is a whip (apparently).
If racing enthusiasts insist on using the word “whip” and hint that a horse has been abused, what chance does the sport have?
I’d call it a riding crop.
I have a large collection of themRefuse to Bend – Yes, that’s the rules, if the authority’s don’t kick a horse out the rules wouldn’t be worth the paper they are written on and would open a can of worms for future law breaks. Next time someone goes 11 will they get a DQ when would it end
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
While I would not mock your suggestions CAS, I don’t think the pro-cush terminology is ever going to gain widespread use. It’s not intuitive and feels too much like a euphemism.
I agree it is an awkward word but what else can it be called? It is not a whip, at least in the conventional way that is understood. Jockeys often refer to it as a “stick” – but saying you are striking a horse with a stick does not sound good either.
I wish I had an answer but the BHA has to do more to explain about the modern racing “whip” and emphasise it is not a fearsome implement which routinely hurts horses.
Just been looking at the ProCush and it is a BHA requirement they are microchipped, is this how they count it’s use if so I never knew this.
The more I know the less I understand.
Even in its sanitised modern form, the whip is being used to make the horse run faster due to a reaction to pain or fear. That’s why it is so difficult to come up with a more palatable name for it that remains credible. As I say, my preference is to do away with it rather than struggle over what to call it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.