- This topic has 29 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
He knows the rules and therefore got exactly what he deserved. What on earth is the point of hitting a horse 12 times without giving it time to respond ?
Disgraceful
He should never be allowed to ride a horse in public again and that is regardless of whatever whip rules may be in forceOn that basis would you also have advocated the same regards Frankie after his ride on Rewilding? That he should never ride a horse in public again?
Yes – but this thread is not about Dettori
So on the Dettori thread did you make that point?
Read the brief report and thought he got everything he deserved, however, have just seen a reply. He obviously wasn’t using his brain, but the mere numbers paint a much worse picture than the reality. Questionable how many times he managed to touch the horse and of those that did how many the horse actually noticed.
Unquestionable that there should be some sort of ban as he broke the rules, but there should be some consideration as to the impact it had on the horse (which was most likely much less than professional jockeys would make with their allowed
.To some extent more unnecessary bad publicity.
So on the Dettori thread did you make that point?
No – because the thread was degenerating into a slanging match and I could not be bothered getting involved.
Plus I generally tend to avoid flat racing discussions.
Put a dampener on a great day for the jockey, his first winner for 12 years, no wonder he got a little carried away! I didn’t see one post or comment anywhere on the day saying there was anything wrong with the ride or anyone was upset by it, just comments on what a great moment it was for the jockey to get the win under his belt!
I also see Robert Winston has fallen foul again and picked up a ridiculous 22 day ban….3 of the strokes he says were to correct the horse and prevent an accident….after that he was just attempting to get his horse to win!….Only in horse racing, you couldn’t make it up!
"paulostermeyer")
He should never be allowed to ride a horse in public again and that is regardless of whatever whip rules may be in force[/quote wrote:
On that basis would you also have advocated the same regards Frankie after his ride on Rewilding? That he should never ride a horse in public again?
Yes – but this thread is not about Dettori
I suppose we should just be grateful then, you’re not in charge of the sport and presiding over the total collapse of British horse racing.
Latest poll from the Racing Post:
Do you agree with the 52-day whip ban given to Robert Cooper?
Yes 20%
No 80%Very heartening result again.
Maybe they should have asked should the ban have been longer or shorter, unless you think it is ok to hit a horse out of rhythm without giving the horse a chance to respond?
Or maybe it was the same 5 people responding to the other survey that gave you the meaningless statistic you posted.
Of course he has to be banned but i also think the ban is very very harsh. Let him learn his lesson and get on with his career. Oh and also give him some mathematics classes….
On the subject of the whip rules, I’m assuming Cooper would have broken them in the old days too.
Anyone know how much a ban he would’ve got pre October?
The long running saga of the new whip rules is now more or less ‘old news’. Many views have been aired publicly and privately in a number of forums and outlets. But this issue will not go away.
Almost daily in the trade paper, whip bans and rule breaches are eluded to in the most prominent pages and with the news of a modern-era-record-breaking 52 day whip ban for amateur Robert Cooper, this ruling once again calls into question both the righteousness and effectiveness of these harsher penalties.
What is the priority here? I would like to think that, as with everything racing does, the welfare of horse and human is paramount. Every horse – and human for that matter – is however a very different entity. Bad enough is it to apply blindly a number of strokes for every national hunt race, from a 1m 4f bumper to the four and half mile Grand National, but as punters up and down the land will testify what has happened once is not guarantee to happen again. If past performance is no guide to future events, how can the intricacies of a horse race be dictated so steadfastly by rules which are frankly impractical.
Did Mr Cooper abuse his horse? Did it show signs of distress, emotional or physical? Was it marked by his air cushioned ‘persuader’? In short, no. Yes, he hit the horse too much and yes it looks bad. But not as bad as it is. The penalties should fit the breach, but Cooper did not butcher his horse. Making an example of him will not serve any positive purpose in the eyes of the racing public, nor those anonymous ‘non-racing’ people we are hoping to convince to grace the turf.
Fifty two days is a lifetime in racing for anyone, but for an amateur jockey who harboured dreams of professional riding it may well be a killer blow to a career not yet begun. It seems it is he that has set a new record this season for longest ban, quite far from the records we were hoping to see this term. 300 winners for McCoy anyone?
The fact is some horses need more aggressive encouragement to show their merit than others – they are all, as I said before, separate entities. A specific number of eight strokes will be more than some horses need in three miles and not enough for some over the first few fences. That is part of the fascination with these animals. Should we not protect the personalities of these varying individuals? It is what punters bet on, and in doing so fund the sport to a large extent and it is also what makes for the spectacle of the sport. Let’s show both these two factions some acknowledgement and respect.
This Uttoxeter example is by no means an isolated incident and indeed the whip furore is not confined to racing longer distances over the sticks. Flat jockey Robert Winston has been handed a 22 day suspension – following on from a 7 day ban back in October – for excessive frequency and hitting his horse down the shoulder in the forehand position in what he insists were ‘corrective measures’.
Corrective measures can be interpreted as actions by jockeys taken to ensure the course of a race passes as safely as possible for themselves, their mount and their opponents. Such action is of course open to interpretation and the nature of the beast is that it is the jockey themselves who are best placed to judge what ‘corrective measures’ to take and when to take them. Let us remember they are horse riders. It is what they have done, in most cases, for many years and how they etch a living in a challenging financial climate.
With prize money comparatively very poor and costs of transport and of everyday living soaring in a seemingly never ending upward spiral, racing needs to protect its own. Instead of banning jockeys and disillusioning punters with stringent regulations, why not allow them the respect and flexibility to do their own job.
No one wants to see horses abused, but the with the modern whips it is almost impossible to abuse a racehorse such is their cushion based specification and why not focus efforts to educate the public and ‘non racing fans’ of all the good that racing does instead of pandering to them with unpopular and unjust regulations. It is not the non race goers who finance the sport in neither money nor affection, and racing should prioritise the needs of the riders as well as those of the horses they serve with.
I shall reiterate – no one wants to see horses abused in the name of racing but by judging each ride on its merit with some flexibility, transparency and discretion to match the ever changing landscape of race riding, horse racing can regulate what happens on the track far more satisfactorily. So in the dawn of a new tenancy at the head of the British Horseracing Association, lets call time on these rules and revert to common sense among those qualified and experienced enough to know ‘excessive frequency’ when they see it and be able to quantify and punish it with some perspective and professional interpretation.
Racing seems to be obsessed with the approval of those who don’t even watch the sport and in an ‘image is everything’ PR world strives to gain recognition for good work by simply stirring more bad headlines, instead of looking after one’s own and allowing the sport to be played out by those who know the game best. When will racing realise it can do both?
Deserves every day of it. And more. I’d get sacked for doing my job as inadequately.
He should never be allowed to ride a horse in public again and that is regardless of whatever whip rules may be in forceDid you actually see the ride Paul? It certainly didn’t look like abuse, the total number of his may have been high but viewing it live it didn’t look like he was hitting the horse, it just looked like he was waving the whip. The stewards have the benefit of many views but the contact must have minimal.
I have seen horses given much much harsher treatment from others, like Barry Geraghty, Jason Maguire, Tony McCoy, etc.
Deserves every day of it. And more. I’d get sacked for doing my job as inadequately.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you a little here. He is an amateur so does not get paid. The whip rules and bans would be more fair if they assessed them in accordance with any potential harm to the horse rather than just pure numbers.
Yes he deserves some sort of ban but in this case it would be more effective if there was a scheme of retraining. As I mentioned in an earlier post (not sure where the smiley came from in this) any harm, physically or mentally, to the horse was undoubtedly less than a professional jockey riding within the law could ‘achieve’.
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.