- This topic has 54 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
"OneEye" wrote:
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.
But it would serve two purposes OneEye. It would discourage jockeys from overuse of the whip due to fear of not being able ride, as with suspensions. However, it’s not as if these jockeys will get no rides whatsoever without the whip, and we may be able gauge how much of an effect the whip has when there are jockeys racing with and without whips in a race.
PS: I don’t know why I’m unable to quote anything properly
- Total Posts 17716
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.
… and Punters who’ve backed the disqualified horses will start saying to themselves, "to heck with this for a game of soldiers" and leave the Sport in droves. So in no time at all there will be even less funding for Racing.
This DQ idea has been dismissed as impractical, inequitable and unworkable by just about all the interested parties, I am glad to say. It’s a simple solution in the same way that a nuclear bomb is a solution for Slough. (My point, by the way, for residents of that fine town, is that there’s no
need
for a solution!)
- Total Posts 17716
I think Dettori was rightly banned
And for muppets like Big Mac who thinks the current racing public only know 1 jockey and only go there to see him are deluded and should be put in their place imo.
Can someone please explain why they considered Dettori produced the ‘ride of the week’? There didn’t appear any brilliant tactical move and basically Rewilding just outstayed So You Think in what was effectively a two-horse race.
Personally I find it strange that anyone should receive plaudits for hitting a horse so many times, many out of stride – does it really matter if it was 23 or 24? It is another example of a jockey out of control in attempting to win a major race. In the heat of the moment they simply don’t count and the last thing on their minds is horse welfare. Unless we want more of the same there is only one answer and that is to take away the temptation completely. No arguments about disqualification or length of bans.
- Total Posts 17716
Personally I find it strange that anyone should receive plaudits for hitting a horse so many times, many out of stride – does it really matter if it was 23 or 24? It is another example of a jockey out of control in attempting to win a major race. In the heat of the moment they simply don’t count and the last thing on their minds is horse welfare
With respect, I think you are perhaps confusing the Whip Guidelines with Horse Welfare.
Whether or not anyone would be so bold as to accuse Dettori of cruelty to Rewilding (which of course couldn’t be proved one way or the other until we find a way of asking horses how much pain they feel and how it affects their psyche), his punishment was
not
for hurting the horse, but for smacking it more than the guidelines allowed.
The punishments for injuring a horse are far greater, and nobody on here (I think) would argue that such rules should be strictly enforced.
To confuse the two issues is emotive, and dangerous – especially when so much of the general public’s perception of the "issue" is so misinformed.
- Total Posts 17716
What’s the difference between this and Mike Smith on Zenyatta?
Here are some good TRF threads on Zenyatta – will be interesting to compare some peoples thoughts between the two.
To confuse the two issues is emotive, and dangerous – especially when so much of the general public’s perception of the "issue" is so misinformed.
I agree it is an emotive subject, and the perception is a misinformed one. But how are we going to change this misconception?
Fact is the rules are not working. We have jockeys deliberately flouting them. We need hard rules so everyone knows where they are. Seems like every big race featured outside the sports press is hijacked by the whip issue.
The public are not going to put up with animals being "flogged" (as they see it) for the "pleaseure" of humans.
I can’t see any amount of education is going to change that misconception. Therefore we have to change the rules to something which could be acceptable to the masses; before it is banned altogether.
What do you think Pinza; of Sir Mark Prescott’s idea of allowing up to 3 "encouragements"? Any more than that you’re disqualified.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
What do you think Pinza; of Sir Mark Prescott’s idea of allowing up to 3 "encouragements"? Any more than that you’re disqualified.
When the Whip Guidelines were first introduced, I felt that the Sport had gone over the top edge of a slippery slope.
Far from ending controversy, the introduction of compromise Guidelines which were (a) acceptable to the Sport’s professionals, whilst providing (b) a sop to the misconceptions of the masses, has predictably only caused the debate to spiral out of control.
*
With RSPCA approval (they participated in the design) we have a cushioned whip now which has to be applied with considerable force if it’s to be felt at all.
*
We have calls for a complete ban of the whip.
*
We have calls for keeping it only for necessary "corrective" and "safety" reasons.
*
We have calls for keeping the whip, as a positive contribution to "horse welfare" (Mark Johnston).
*
We have calls for reducing the number of strokes.
*
We have calls for disqualification of any horse whose jockey exceeds the maximum number of hits.
*
We have calls for a complete ban on this "cruel" sport.
*
We have a wide spectrum of views from professionals within the Sport, most of them in despair at the mistaken, false perception of the masses.
So
Ginger
, you can hardly expect me to find Sir Mark’s latest compromise idea any better or worse founded than any of the other ideas floating around. Even if his, or our, thoughts had any likelihood of stopping the tide of dissatisfaction.
When the rules in
France
and
Ireland
seem to work so much more smoothly, and without any of this tsunami of noise swirling around them, I’d be for
harmonising our rules to fit in with them
.
That means
relaxing
the Guidelines as they stand, and going back to sensible, pragmatic Stewarding based on
Horse Welfare
.
Unfortunately, it is not the French or Irish that we have to worry about, it is the British public that matters to British racing. If you don’t compromise now, you’ll end up losing the whip altogether.
There’s no point sticking our heads in the polytrack. The public’s opinion of the whip is only going to get worse. I believe we must act now.
Of course there will be "calls for" all sorts of things, it’s a debate.
How do you "relax" the guidelines?
Value Is Everything*
we have a cushioned whip now which has to be applied with considerable force if it’s to be felt at all.
What evidence have you of this?
Why do you think a horse needs to be hit hard?
A normal whip action and the noise "snap" of the cushioned whip is enough to encourage a horse. We need an instrament that is well cushioned for injuries to be at an absolute minimum.
Value Is EverythingWhen the rules in
France
and
Ireland
seem to work so much more smoothly, and without any of this tsunami of noise swirling around them, I’d be for
harmonising our rules to fit in with them
.
Do they? Great let’s allow our horses to be hit more often just like they are in Ireland and France. If you really think the BHA are going to follow that idea you must be in cuckooland.
I really thought you had already dug a big enough hole for yourself but clearly you can’t resist getting that spade out time and time again?
Unfortunately, it is not the French or Irish that we have to worry about, it is the British public that matters to British racing. If you don’t compromise now, you’ll end up losing the whip altogether.
There’s no point sticking our heads in the polytrack. The public’s opinion of the whip is only going to get worse. I believe we must act now.
Of course there will be "calls for" all sorts of things, it’s a debate.
How do you "relax" the guidelines?
The public don’t give a ff about racing or whip, they are just being fed a non stop diet of bad publicity about it through the BHA’s blatant incompetence about the issue.
If you think the public care, ask yourself why they are not up in arms in Ireland, France and America where their whip rules are either non-existent or far less strict than ours.
Animal Aid scum advert on page 26 of last Saturdays Daily Mirror was headed "The best chance in years to secure a whip ban"
Ask yourself why that appeared?
I rarely if ever agree with Chapman about any issue in racing but he was totally correct about everything he said about this whip nonsense on Get On today (still available online on the ATR website)
Think the BHA should be done for bringing the game into disrepute, can we sack the ****ards?- Total Posts 17716
When the rules in
France
and
Ireland
seem to work so much more smoothly, and without any of this tsunami of noise swirling around them, I’d be for
harmonising our rules to fit in with them
.
Do they? Great let’s allow our horses to be hit more often just like they are in Ireland and France. If you really think the BHA are going to follow that idea you must be in cuckooland.
Stilvi
, I appreciate that you are passionately committed to banning the whip. So leaving aside your emotive vocabulary about hitting horses, and how immoral Ireland and France are for not getting hot under the collar about this peculiarly British issue (and c.f.
Yeats
‘s post for a proper riposte to this Good Old British Tabloid Imperialism!) you should be respectful enough to recognise that I am at least proposing a workable solution.
That is, to
harmonise
what we do with the other major European Racing Nations and tell the UK tabloids and Animal Aiders to get stuffed until they can convince the Irish and French to get steamed up about it too.
You can’t negotiate a compromise with people who have only one agenda: that is, to ban the whip – and ultimately Racing – completely. And they love fifth columnists within the Sport itself.
If we make any more concessions, it will merely encourage the lobbying to go further until that total ban is inevitable. Then they will work towards banning Jumping, and ultimately the Flat. That’s why we need to seek strength and common cause with our sensible European friends on this tiresome Whipping campaign against Racing.
Do you not believe that the line has to be drawn somewhere? And do you really think that a total whip ban will satisfy the opposition?
Just as you say some people are confusing not wanting change with wanting whip abuse; it seems you are confusing cow towing to Animal Aid with wanting change.
We should do nothing for the sake of Animal Aid. It is the British people we have to listen to. If we do nothing then they will eventually turn against racing. A significant part of the younth already have.
Of course the likes of Animal Aid won’t want to stop at just a concession on a whip ban; or even a total whip ban. They want to obliterate our sport completely. But the fact is it is not only extremists we have to worry about.
As it is – the whip is fueling Animal Aid’s ante-racing rhetoric. If we act now to reduce the use of the whip to 3 "encouragements"; then people will just laugh at extremists. We should have some faith in the British public to see through Animal Aid.
Pointing out other countries rules will not be seen as a good enough excuse. If we keep things roughly as they are or follow the Irish / French scheme, they will think "these Animal Aid people have a point".
Value Is EverythingI think you have to be very careful when changing rules regarding the use of the whip. If you tighten up the guidelines on whip use, or introduce actual rules, then it would be very embarrassing and difficult to go back on those rules if it doesn’t work out or isn’t practical. It would also be a perfect platform for those who want the whip, or racing, banned as they could say ‘they’re making it easier to beat horses’. So whatever route the BHA take, they have to be very careful it is workable and that they don’t go back on it.
- Total Posts 17716
As it is – the whip is fueling Animal Aid’s ante-racing rhetoric. If we act now to reduce the use of the whip to 3 "encouragements"; then people will just laugh at extremists. We should have some faith in the British public to see through Animal Aid.
Pointing out other countries rules will not be seen as a good enough excuse. If we keep things roughly as they are or follow the Irish / French scheme, they will think "these Animal Aid people have a point".
Ginger:
You’re quite right: indeed the Whip Debate is fuelling Animal Aid, who see it as the next bridgehead to gain on the route to extermination of Racing.
I wish you were equally right about how the British Public would respond to a further reduction in the number of strokes, and its codification in Rule as opposed to Guideline. But I do not share your optimism about Tabloid (as opposed to Human) nature. After all, we’re all agreed that the majority of people don’t think about this as an issue at all until they’re asked the question (as they repeatedly are, and will be)
"Do you agree with beating horses with a whip?"
.
There’s a parallel in
King Lear
, that wisest if least comfortable of plays. The old British king resigns, but is allowed to keep 50 retainers for his personal comfort and security. Little by little, the two daughters with whom he is lodging produce good rational reasons as to why that number should be reduced – they’re expensive, they’re noisy, people are angry about them (the PR’s bad), he’ll be well looked-after without them… and gradually the number goes down to 40, 25, 10, 5 … until one of the daughters puts the question, that as there are now so few and things seem to be going swimmingly:
"what need of one?"
King Lear, realising very well that the loss of the last retainer means the end of the game, and is not in his own interest at all, replies simply:
"Oh reason not the need"
.
That’s what we should be saying now on this issue. And that’s why firm alliance with our major International Racing neighbours is the only thing which will put a stop on this whittling away at the roots of the Sport.
Dusty
is right: the BHA (like King Lear) are in a tricky corner, albeit one of their own making. Unity with the French and Irish will enable the BHA to say to the tabloids and the broadcasters (and therefore the General Public)
"We do the same here as in Ireland and France. You’ll need to convince those countries for the need for change before we need to look at this issue again. Meantime it has been put to bed."
Result: maybe a little xenophobia about "Whacky Paddies" and "Horse-eating Froggies", but then … blissful silence. That’s a workable solution based on
realpolitik
rather than an appeal to that most fickle of human qualities, the rationality of the sentimental British Public!
An excellent letter on the issue in todays RP from an Andrew Simpson of Wiltshire.
"Regarding Rewilding’s victory and Frankie Dettori’s suspension, I understand the modern whip has been designed specifically to be noisy but harmless, and an 8st jockey perched on a horse travelling at 35mph surely cannot maintain the rhythm of his encouragement and hit a horse hard at the same time.
Dettori’s rhythm was, as always, superb, which made it perfectly obvious he was not belabouring the horse in any way. The BHA’s report makes no mention of any veterinary report suggesting the horse had been abused.
This leaves one with the numbers game – the 24 strikes – which is the stewards justification for suspending Dettori.
I understand the rules specify the number of times a jockey may hit a horse, but that the number is recommended rather than mandatory. The stewards can therefore excercise discretion in their decision-making.
Finally there is apparently no distinction as far as the stewards are concerned between a flick and a full-blooded crack, although there is a monumental difference between the two as far as abuse is concerned.
Experienced horsemen can distinguish between the two visually, modern technology could help the less expert, and a horse’s coat will more often than not provide some evidence how it has been treated.
As things stand, however, the ability to count to 24 seems the only qualification that empowered the stewards to pass judgement.
The interpretation of the whip regulations is constantly winning the sport horror headlines that it simply does not deserve. they should be scrapped.
If the BHA wants to improve racing’s image in this area it should make better use of technology and common sense, improve the quality of stewards generally, and make proper use of their discretionary powers".
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.