- This topic has 84 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Today’s whip bans:-
Walsh 6 days for two rides
McCoy 4 days
Flood 6 daysCertain satellite racing channel TV presenters were quick to condemn Pieux yesterday. I assume that they were as quick on the cases of the above plus Thornton and Scudamore on Tuesday or was it a case of attack the easy target, the Frenchman? Notwithstanding he certainly broke UK rules
There was no comparison Lingfield.
Piex hit Kasbah Bliss on every stride for the last half furlong. Although the other jockeys broke the rules and deserved bans, it was in no way as bad.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingCan we have just one thread about each subject.
We now have two about whip bans and three about how good or bad Denmans performance was.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingClearly the rules are openly trangressed at Cheltenham, where a win at all costs mentality exists and trainers like Alan King appear on TV accusing the authorities of ruining the sport by banning his stable jockey and others, at future dates.
Today’s bans were Walsh total 6 days
McCoy 4 days
Flood 6 days
Walsh transgressed on two separate rides so clearly didn’t take heed of the first ban.
I am not one of the bleeding hearts brigade but the sport is being made a laughing stock in relation to use of the whip and the series of bans for top riders is attracting media attention.AP makes some valid points alongside others that are not so readily enforceable.If Walsh had been banned today, would Clive Smith have been happy to allow a late substitute on Kauto Star with most of the top riders already jocked up in the big race.The stand in may never have sat on the horse.Perhaps someone like Liam Heard who was jocked off Nicholls’s third runner could have played the part of "supersub" , having ridden Denman and Kauto on the gallops in case the nominated riders were banned.
I am not in favour of disqualifications but feel there is merit in winning connections forfeiting their prize money which was won under false pretences having broken the rules and obtaining an unfair advantage. The horse should of course be penalised as a winner in future races.
Many of those banned this week will miss a wet Monday at Plumpton.How about the bans being served on days when there is a similar class of race to those when the ban was incurred e.g. Aintree?
Disqualification is also a non-runner.
Why is it?
If you bring in disqualification you could not pick and choose when to use it. You could have a ridiculous situation where two horses fight out the finish, both jockeys break the rules and the race is automatically awarded to a horse who might have finished twenty lengths behind. Nobody would accept that as a reasonable outcome.
Indeed they would not, Stilvi. As I understand it, this was the first suggestion McCririck floated earlier in the week, the one that Graham Cunningham dismissed as "imbecillic".
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Just to clarify, when I suggsted bans taking effect immediately, I meant next day, not next race. Although thinking about it, why not next race, since an injury can produce the same requirement on connections to find a new jockey at short notice.
And yes, I would suggest bans and loss of percentages combined and allow the stewards to apply either or both at their discretion. Clearly a ban in the Gold Cup would be less effective than one in the Champion Hurdle, but the financial hit would still be significant.
So for the same offence, they might issue a two day ban for the Champion Hurdle with no financial loss, but the reverse for the Gold Cup.
Anyone else share my feeling that Cheltenham are in a Catch 22 situation – softish ground reduces the risk of fallers and injuries, but increases the misuse of the whip as the finishes are more of a slog up the hill. Whilst I’m sure most of us would like to see injuries and whip misuse eliminated, given the choice, I’d prefer this week’s events to the past festivals with multiple fatalities.
AP
Anyone else share my feeling that Cheltenham are in a Catch 22 situation – softish ground reduces the risk of fallers and injuries, but increases the misuse of the whip as the finishes are more of a slog up the hill. Whilst I’m sure most of us would like to see injuries and whip misuse eliminated, given the choice, I’d prefer this week’s events to the past festivals with multiple fatalities.
AP
With jockeys only allowed to carry whips as a steering aid there is no Catch 22 and you get the best of both worlds.
Disqualification is also a non-runner.
Why is it?
If you bring in disqualification you could not pick and choose when to use it. You could have a ridiculous situation where two horses fight out the finish, both jockeys break the rules and the race is automatically awarded to a horse who might have finished twenty lengths behind. Nobody would accept that as a reasonable outcome.
Thats a bit of hard luck though isn’t it? If you want something to work it has to be something that hurts.
Chuck the horses out and jockeys would stop breaking the rules, simple.
Molly coddling and soft penalties won’t solve anything.
Indeed they would not, Stilvi. As I understand it, this was the first suggestion McCririck floated earlier in the week, the one that Graham Cunningham dismissed as "imbecillic".
gc
People will because they simply don’t like tough penalties. There’s far too much of a liberal in many people.
It isn’t imbecilic at all. Question is would it stop the offences? Answer is – yes it would because it would hit jockeys / trainers / connections where it hurts.
There’s far too much of a liberal in many people.
Au contraire – there’s never enough of a liberal in any person!
gc
(Clegg voter)Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Despite the number you would have to look pretty hard to find news of these whip bans in the Racing Post. It would not surprise me if this is a deliberate editorial decision to give the subject as little publicity as possible. Hardly a step forward in my opinion and typical of those within the sport trying to pretend there is not a problem to address. Thankfully, we do not have to toe a party line on this forum.
Typical piece from Paul Haigh in the Post today basically making three points – Stewards should not apply the rules strictly at Cheltenham because it draws unwanted attention; those within the sport (god forbid anyone ‘jumping ship’) should not highlight the issue because it again brings unwanted attention and finally the use of the whip somehow makes the sport more exciting. Just now ATR have also ‘discussed’ the issue but Chapman, Harvey and Thornton are all expressing the same opinion – where is the balance? The mediocrity of the chat was summed up by Chapman asking if any jockeys go out to hurt the horses – was he expecting someone to say ‘yes?’ Idiotic.
There’s far too much of a liberal in many people.
Au contraire – there’s never enough of a liberal in any person!
gc
(Clegg voter)I’m sure I could make a Mark Oaten gag there but I shall restrain myself.
As I understand it. Animal Aid are currently preparing a campaign to start making complaints to the Police, which they shall demand be investigated whenever a jockey is banned for excessive use of the whip.
My understanding is it shall be argued that by definition any ‘excessive use of the whip’ has to result in a horse suffering either physical or psychology abuse. Whether this claim to abuse is true or not personally I have no idea but it would only take one sympathetic police inspector or lawer at the CPS for this to potentially become a criminal matter.
As I understand it. Animal Aid are currently preparing a campaign to start making complaints to the Police, which they shall demand be investigated whenever a jockey is banned for excessive use of the whip.
My understanding is it shall be argued that by definition any ‘excessive use of the whip’ has to result in a horse suffering either physical or psychology abuse. Whether this claim to abuse is true or not personally I have no idea but it would only take one sympathetic police inspector or lawer at the CPS for this to potentially become a criminal matter.
That is going too far it shouldn’t be a "criminal matter" nor should it have anything to do with the police.
However racing has only itself to blame for not addressing the issue correctly. Its Ok for those within the sport to constantly look at the issue from a jockeys point of view but the subject goes deeper than that. Whether or not a jockey goes out to deliberately hurt a horse is totally irrelevant as now to a degree is the interpretation of what whip abuse is.
The issue at hand now is that jockeys continually and deliberately ignore the whip rules in big races because they know that by doing so it increases their chance of winning and they know once they are past the post in first place the result WILL stand.
It isn’t right morally and it isn’t fair. What is the point of having rules if they are ignored?
If racing wants to ensure that the sport is run within the sport without police involvment then racing had better get its house in order and make sure that it hurts connections when a jockey ignores the whip rules. When the horses are disqualified, the owners lose prize money, the jockeys lose the race then it won’t pay jockeys to show such contempt of the whip laws.
Whether the race is given to the 2nd, 3rd or 7th horse past the post is irrelevant – jockeys will soon learn if they’re hit where it hurts.
I’m sure I could make a Mark Oaten gag there but I shall restrain myself.
I’m sure that’s not the fist time "Oaten", "gag" and "restrain" have appeared in the same sentence, either.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.