- This topic has 54 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Ultimately there is only one question needed to be answered :
Q) If the whip was banned would horses still run? Would there still be a winner and losers?
Ok two questions in one but the answer to both is clearly YES therefore the whip really isn’t needed is it?
Carry for safety reason by all means but other than not it isn’t an essential instrument. In the end it WILL be banned, just a matter of time.
It’s just not acceptable any more to hit a horse to make it go faster.
Not to you. Please don’t speak for most of us racing fans.
So horse racing fans like to see horses hit with a stick?
Doesn’t make great reading, does it?
Every argument I see for the whip just strengthens the argument against it.
So horse racing fans like to see horses hit with a stick?
Every argument I see for the whip just strengthens the argument against it.
And calling it a "stick" lessens your arguement DP.
Racing fans might like to see a horse "encouraged" by the use of a covered, cushioned instrament. Equating it with a hard, wooden object is lunacy. Not even one splinter of wood in this tool.
It is strange that some people want to see the back of a covered, cushioned, encourager. Yet have no objection to see a horse run at speed, over a large, hard object, made of wood, birch etc. On ground that may be dangerous if the horse is unfortunate enough to fall.
Value Is EverythingA terrible instance of the whip today.
Mark Johnston horse that won the Vase. De SOuza whipping the horse and dragging the 2nd horse all over the track because he was unable or not a good enough jockey to let his horse win by straight running. On the other hand Queally on the 2nd horse who was the rightful winner was buffed all across the track because of de Souza lack of jockeyship and intimdating the other horse.
Horse Racing is where the best Horse and the jockey steer the horse to victory. De Souza on today showed why the whip needs to be gotten rid of. It was most frustrating.
De Souza went for home and then found his horse idling. Had he kept straight, the horse would have continued to idle and lost the race. As it was he took Namibian over to Queally’s horse, and his mount found extra because of having something to race with. Good ride I’d say. Both jockeys had their whips in the wrong hand. De Souza physically pulled the horse away from Solar Sky at one point. The only contact, if there was any on the line; after the race is won. I thought Queally remained pretty straight until the line. No interference worthy of demotion.
If the whip were banned entirely then a great many horses who idle in front won’t win a race.
And if it is only allowed for correction purposes; then in this case De Sousa could use his for correction, yet Queally could not because Solar Sky wasn’t doing anything wrong.How "fair" is that?
Solar Sky the rightful winner? Nahhh, yur ‘avin a larf.
Rightful winner was the one with my money on.
Value Is EverythingI get you point. But if a horse idle’s surely that means he is getting lazy on in front but will always find if a horse comes to him. I just hate to see a horse drifting all over the place getting the victory compared to a horse that kept straight. Surely that is when real jockeys come to the fore?
I think De Sousa wanted the rail to keep the horse straight. That is where he was headed in his bid for victory. Only when Namibian idled did he change course. Needing company to stop the idling, but without the rail to keep straight.
I do agree though, the wronged party should get the benifit of any doubt eg a 60-40 case. I’d be in favour of a rule change there. Just don’t see this as one of those times. May be I am biased.
Value Is EverythingA terrible instance of the whip today.
Mark Johnston horse that won the Vase. De SOuza whipping the horse and dragging the 2nd horse all over the track because he was unable or not a good enough jockey to let his horse win by straight running. On the other hand Queally on the 2nd horse who was the rightful winner was buffed all across the track because of de Souza lack of jockeyship and intimdating the other horse.
Horse Racing is where the best Horse and the jockey steer the horse to victory. De Souza on today showed why the whip needs to be gotten rid of. It was most frustrating.
The thing is De Souza was not penalised for his misuse of the whip only 3 days for careless riding, this is what we’re up against, not only incompetent BHA but incompetent stewarding.
Dettori was penalised 9 days for superb rhythmic use of the whip in a finish because it only involved counting to 24 and nothing else.
It was quite clear on the BBC pictures of the Queens Vase (i player 1hr 46 mins) that De Souza used his whip in the wrong place, ie he repeatedly hit the horse in the ribs, no wonder the horse darted to the left but this was completely missed by the stewards.
9 days for Dettori
0 days for De Souza
It just doesn’t add up.
- Total Posts 17716
I haven’t been reading every post this week, but has anyone commented on another self-inflicted foot wound?
Namely, the three-day whip ban given to Jamie Spencer for riding
Fame and Glory
to victory in the
Gold Cup
.
I remember someone mentioning it Pinza, but in my opinion they had no optionto give A ban (surprised it was as much as 3 days. Spencer kept slapping Fame And Glory on the shoulder in the last 100 yrds. Not just once but many times.
As far as De Souza is concerned, stewards will miss the odd infringement; I missed that one. Everyone makes mistakes.
Value Is EverythingAs far as De Souza is concerned, stewards will miss the odd infringement; I missed that one. Everyone makes mistakes.
Come off it, Mister Magoo would have seen that. It’s not as if they weren’t looking at the ride from every angle anyway due to the interference and stewards enquiry. The whip use stood out.
If there was no stewards in the first place you may have a point but it just goes to show local stewards should be deciding as little as possible not more.I thought De Souza was lucky to keep the race to be honest. It reminded me of Special Duty / Jaqueline Quest in last years 1000 Guineas.
It was De Souza and his horse that drifted quite away accross the course if that horse loses a neck by doing that it is their (horse / jockeys) own fault. Solar Sky and Queally had no option but to drift too, had that horse been allowed to run in a perfectly straight line while the other horse drifted Solar Sky probably would’ve won.
Richard Hughes said it best …
"The last jockey to use the whip usually wins the race"
The only solution to me is to dispense with the whip altogether. How feasible that is is another debate.
It is entirely feasible RD – but you are right that is another debate entirely.
Anyway – here is a link to Richard Dunwoody’s latest exclusive TRF article which features, as it happens, Richard’s views on Frankie’s ban.
http://www.theracingforum.co.uk/horse-racing-forum/horse-racing/frankie-barzalona-and-pour-moi-richard-dunwoody-views-t87148.html
Richard Hughes made a suggestion (not sure if it was on BBC or ATR that if a jockey gets done for overuse of the whip he should have the whip taken off him for a certain period of time. Sounds good to me.
Richard Hughes made a suggestion (not sure if it was on BBC or ATR that if a jockey gets done for overuse of the whip he should have the whip taken off him for a certain period of time. Sounds good to me.
Pretty pointless really. I mean, put some thought into it. You are an owner of a horse and you’re looking for a jockey. Shall I go for this jockey, the one that is banned from using the whip, or shall I use this jockey, the one who can use the whip?
All it will result in is the jockey that is banned from using the whip for x amount of time not getting any rides. So basically it will be the same as getting a ban from riding.
I can’t speak personally for a horse, but being whipped really doesn’t hurt them in my opinion. I can see both sides of the coin however. It doesn’t look good when Frankie goes ‘overboard’ with the use of the whip, but by the same token, without Frankie’s ‘overboard’ use of the whip, a horse – in this case Rewilding – would not have won a very prestigious race.
The only solution I can see is what Ian said very early in this thread. If whip rules are in place, then anyone who breaks them should have their mount disqualified. Owners will soon start saying to jockeys, "Don’t you dare get dq’d because of overuse of the whip", and the problem with in no time at all will be solved.
Didn’t someone else make that suggestion (a certain W,. Carson) earlier in the week.
After listening and immersing myself in this debate for months (years) I’ve come to conclusion limit whip to between 3-5 cracks (but be specific) and impose meaningful bans under totting up procedures for offenders. And a ‘flick’ counts as a ‘hit’.
1 offence – 3 days min (depending on number hits)
2 offences within 3 months – 8 days min (as above)
3 offences wihtin 6 months – 15 days min
4 offences within 9 months- 3 month ban minMore than 4 offences within a year – withdrawal of licence and attendance at Monty Roberts Horse Psychology seminar.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.