- This topic has 84 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
For the the Rules for the Hands & Heels Series (Jumps) see Here[/url:5sqa8pjc]
As can be seen every jockey MUST carry a whip and it may be used in matters of safety. I can’t see how NH racing would suffer if these rules were applied to all races with the exception of the current rules for reminders staying the same prior to the last flight or fence. I view this exception as an integrity issue.
My mind on this matter was made up once and for all when John Francombe stated on Radio Five last week that in his whole career he believed less than twenty horses responded to being hit.
Easy for Feancome to say he was a show jumping champion and one of the greatest jockeys ever, but won his races because he could make a horse jump better than anyone I ever saw………..he had one weakness…weak as hell in a finish…..wonder why
I think it needs something to steer this debate back on course. I conceded carrying whips as a compromise what seems ages ago and since then the same idea has been rehashed twice and absolutely nothing new has been added. Please just comment on the basic idea of hitting horses to make them run faster. The idea of a lazy horse is just a misconception – some horses are obviously more willing than others. There are numerous aids that can be used without resorting to hitting. There is also nothing wrong with the idea of more races being won by horses that are more willing to display their natural ability. Hands and heels would also put a greater emphasis on jumping ability which would be another plus.
The only two arguments I can see for hitting horses is that the public see it as ‘entertaining’ and jockeys will have to work harder riding hands and heels. Neither is very convincing in my opinion.
We still seem to be getting nowhere here, with those who haven’t thought out the issue repeating the old mantra that the whip is essential, but when asked why, they show, by their vague and silly answers, that they don’t really know what they’re talking about.
I ask again – and I think we need someone involved with the actual BHA rules to help us out here –
what is the purpose of the whip?
Some dudes say it is needed for steering; other lads suggest that any jockey, who questions the whole idea, is or was a weak finisher ( supposedly, because he didn’t flog away like a daft beggar.)
I can assure all who reckon they have sat on horses and all who have not, that repeated flogging is mostly a sign of weakness. You’ll see it more on losers than on winners.
What I am sure about is that the two things the whip cannot do are
a) stop a runaway
b) move a refuser ( in any way that would give the thing a winning chance).I didn’t see the incident mentioned above, but I saw ( via a betting shop screen) a good example of a horse pulling itself up on saturday.
Quite rightly, the jockey recognised the situation for what it was, and didn’t waste efffort in futile flogging. He just pulled the thing up. This was the proper thing to do and, obviously, there was something wrong somewhere.Sure, dckhds will scream and shout when one they’ve backed is pulled up or doesn’t get flogged to fk, but the game isn’t run for us punters, so nobody in power will be too perturbed.
The owners probably prefer not to have their animal ruined, and I guess they call the shots, in the final analysis.So, the two questions that remain are
1) is the whip essential for steering purposes
2) does use of the whip in the finish help us get more winners or not?
Personally, I have to admit that deep inside I really don’t care what the jockey does provided he gets up on one I’ve backed!
I know that’s a bad attitude.BUT, just because I want to win doesn’t necessarily mean that flogging should be allowed, or does it?
Btw, I’m not totally convinced that that ticklestick they use nowadays does much physical harm, when used to strike the acceptable parts. However, as all the wannabe jockeys will know, it’s the foul shots that have most effect. Hence pilots are prepared to do what it takes to get up and face the paltry punishments later. Playing the percentages, I suppose.
Then, when this happens over and over, we get more threads like this one that waste time chatting about whip bans and so on. The thing to do is work out what exactly is needed, and then act accordingly.
It strikes me that moving toward a "no need to carry a whip situation" may be the forward thinking move.
Of course, most folk in the racing game are backward -lookers, so they’ll naturally blurt out their opposition to anything novel, without giving the issue a second’s consideration.
And as a "150 yo", I’ve had plenty of time to give the matter due thought and consideration, I suppose.
New ideas welcome, all the same!I think it needs something to steer this debate back on course. I conceded carrying whips as a compromise what seems ages ago and since then the same idea has been rehashed twice and absolutely nothing new has been added. Please just comment on the basic idea of hitting horses to make them run faster. The idea of a lazy horse is just a misconception – some horses are obviously more willing than others. There are numerous aids that can be used without resorting to hitting. There is also nothing wrong with the idea of more races being won by horses that are more willing to display their natural ability. Hands and heels would also put a greater emphasis on jumping ability which would be another plus.
The only two arguments I can see for hitting horses is that the public see it as ‘entertaining’ and jockeys will have to work harder riding hands and heels. Neither is very convincing in my opinion.
The idea of a lazy horse is a misconseption???…………that a crock if ever there was one…..Horses are the same as any other animal or humans…They are indivuals all with diffent make up….I worked with horses for years………….some are placid others would kick you through the nearest wall as soon as look at you………some have to be given a smack just to get them to keep up on the roads……turn them round towards the stable they will be the first one home….lazy, ignorant, pig headed, vicous, smart, kind, stupid, you name it they have every trait you can think of.
If the whip doesn’t make a horse pick up and go faster you better go tell every jockey who has ever ridden in a race he’s been wasting his time………no one wants to see excessivive use ………I don’t, you don’t but neither do the Stewards……….I suggest you stick to your job and let them do theirs…you are debating something that has been a part of a jockeys equiptment for hundreds of years and they haven’t killed a horse yet by hitting him a few smacks………There are certain places a jockey is not allowed to hit a horse……If he does he is a certainty for a ban…….I am not out there riding and it’s hard for me to judge what is excessive use…..every horse is different….banning someone riding a lazy horse and banning someone for hitting a tired legless horse is two different ball games…very easy to be critical sitting in an armchair and doing so is laughable to those out their riding…racing is not a Pansy Potter sport it’s a tough game and some tough lads out there……..200 yds to go in the Epsom Derby if a horse is headed and his jockey doesn’t give all he can whip and all he wouldn’t be riding the next day with millions at stake…
…Lester Piggot, greatest jockey of all time was often whip happy…..Never onece did he win a Classic and the horse suffer from any ill effects that were noticeable the next time the horse ran……horses are a lot tougher than you think and simply some need more encouragement than others to give their best.
So now we are led to believe that the whip is needed for
"encouragement"?
Well, at least that’s something positive.
We now have
"steering"
" mastering"
and
"encouragement".Are these the essentials that the whip provides?
I would like to pose the question to the poster on here known as "Katchit".
As one of the owners of the horse called "Katchit", are/were you perfectly happy with the ride Robert Thornton gave your horse? Were the rest of the owners happy? Were you even aware of how ‘strong’ a ride Thornton gave the horse?
Presumably you have viewed the race since when you were not quite so emotional, what were your views of the ride when you watched it in ‘cold blood’?
Would you be happy if Choc rode him like that next time?
The horse is such a game trier did he even need the whip?
It has been said on this and other threads that the horse at the time he is involved in a finish hardly feels the whip, due to adrenaline surge and the air-cushioned whip, you have to ask why, if that is true, is the whip used????
I, along with others on here, have no great problem with proper use of the whip. I am not convinced that it is really necessary but will bow to those who have ridden and say that it is. However, I do have a problem with the jockey’s who you use the whip as a first resort rather than a last resort and those that flay away at horses that are obviously beaten.
I have always been a supporter of Robert Thornton, and like to think I played a part in him getting the job as first jockey to Alan King, but he fell into the latter trap, mentioned above, when still using the whip on Voy Por Ustedes when Master Minded had well gone.
I have to say after his two offences on day one and the effort in the Champion Chase he has gone down in my estimation. Perhaps the pressure of the Festival and the fact that he was defending top-rider at the meeting played their parts.
Colin
Close finishes at Cheltenham, like those in top races on the Flat, are not for the faint-hearted and watching them unfold is best done so in the company of a glass of Laudanum.
In the heat of the moment whilst marvelling at the gutsy display by Katchit can anyone, hand on heart, say they were concerned by Thornton’s use of the whip on the horse? Sure on reviewing it in the cold light of day it is easy (and correct) to say he was overly hard, his whip usage was out of stride-pattern and some of the strokes were inflicted on the ‘wrong’ part of the body.
We can all make subjective judgements about the pain Katchit may/must have felt, how different his response would have been had he been subjected to gentler ‘persuasion’ or even simply pushed out with vigourous hands and heels. Fact is no one can know for sure.
This thread has run the usual course of ‘whip’ threads in that in the red corner we have those who say it is a crucial tool to the horseman/jockey that can’t and mustn’t be done without, and those in the blue corner who say it is unneccesary, with Sean Rua in the middle trying his darndest to elicit some hard fact from both camps.
I’m of the opinion that the only way to glean some objective assessment of the need or not for the whip in horseracing is to go along with the idea mooted elsewhere on this forum (sorry can’t recall who or where) that a regular series of ‘hands and heels’ meetings for senior jockeys – in both codes – be instigated, or perhaps even some where the whip isn’t carried at all. Races to be restricted to mature, experienced geldings. Once sufficient races have been run skilled race/horse readers, and the racing public-at-large will be in a position to at least form an opinion on how horses involved travel in a race and in a driving finish, how they respond to whipless urgings. Together with some hopefully unbiased feedback from the riders and trainers involved.
I do believe that rightly or wrongly the non-racing masses will at some stage demand an end to whip use and be granted their wish, so it would seem wise for those who actually understand horses and the racing of them to be prepared for that day by experimenting with the above.
A very sensible post, Drone, imo.
Now is the time to find out and set out.
Thoughtless Mr Magoo -style blundering will not be the solution to this or racing’s other problems.
For those who follow their normal stagger, from bar to keyboard, with the intention of loosing off yet another salvo of pointless bullshit, please read the thread about Yarmouth first.
Then, perhaps, even the staunchest of believers in the ability of UK racing ‘s insiders to sort things out and SAVE racing ( yes, it IS coming to this, even though we don’t like to think it) will realise that
thereracing has several serious problems that need sorting.It is always better to sort things out without being put under duress by bodies that may be less than sympathetic to our game.
Time to seize the initiative, imo.
Mr Maggoo………Yarmouth?……….mate you are in a very tiny minority who have this crazy idea of sending people to work without the tools of their trade………for hundreds of years riders all over the world have carried whips……….not just race jockeys. Why?
For all the reasons mentioned that’s why.
Do you think we are the first people on the planet to discuss this……do you think everone in racing is an idiot?
They have thought it out, bent it, twisted it, turned it sideways and come to the conclusion they can’t ban the whip……….it would be too dangerous to do so…………I have no idea what you think you will achieve by standing on a soap box saying let’s get together lads and go tell everyone in racing they are wrong and we are right………very silly Mr Maggoo attitude if ever there was one.
I do believe that rightly or wrongly the non-racing masses will at some stage demand an end to whip use and be granted their wish,
I’m amazed at the number of people on here who put up this sort of argument, obviously realising they don’t have that strong an argument themselves they deflect the argument to greater British public as though the wider general public have some interest in racing or whip use in a race, it is a myth. Where was the outcry from the non racing masses about Thorntons ride on Katchit? 99.99% of the non racing masses will not have even seen the ride, they don’t give a monkeys about racing or what happens in a race.
I just wish some people would concern themselves with proper cases of animal cruelty instead of this rubbish.
The only members of the wider general public concerned about whip use etc are animal rights nutters and of course the less you give to them the better as they would ban racing.PS ATR Ride of the Season as voted for by viewers – Andrew Thornton on Miko De Beauchene
99.99% of the public-at-large haven’t spent a day foot-following a hunt or watching a hare course, yet it hasn’t stopped that self-appointed ‘moral majority’ imposing their wish on a perceived ‘immoral minority’.
The bandwagon of sanitization has influential friends.
Should make it clear that no way am I anti-whip and certainly not a softie; the skin does thicken somewhat after thirty years of watching horses break their necks at obstacles. If anything I have the unsavoury hard, unemotional and detached character of one who regards the racing of the noble horse primarily as a punting medium rather than a spectacle (marginally admittedly) – but even after all these years do find it discomforting and unpleasant when an animal is subjected to a leathering; hence I’d welcome some experimentation with ‘whipless’ riding.
Quite agree that concern should focus on "proper cases of animal cruelty" much of which ends up in supermarkets frequented by the aforementioned ‘moral majority’
Mr Maggoo………Yarmouth?……….mate you are in a very tiny minority who have this crazy idea of sending people to work without the tools of their trade………for hundreds of years riders all over the world have carried whips……….not just race jockeys. Why?
For all the reasons mentioned that’s why.
Do you think we are the first people on the planet to discuss this……do you think everone in racing is an idiot?
They have thought it out, bent it, twisted it, turned it sideways and come to the conclusion they can’t ban the whip……….it would be too dangerous to do so…………I have no idea what you think you will achieve by standing on a soap box saying let’s get together lads and go tell everyone in racing they are wrong and we are right………very silly Mr Maggoo attitude if ever there was one.
I’m sorry but the main reason a whip is carried is not for safety purposes it is to encourage a horse to go faster. If it is for safety purposes then just use it when it is unsafe. As mentioned previously the hands and heels apprentice races seem to have gone by without anybody being injured and continue to be persevered with and would it be any surprise that current jockeys would be against banning the use of the whip for encouragement purposes ( not the banning of carrying a whip ) as it might show up the inadequacies of such jockeys who can only make a horse go faster by belting the thing. To say just because its been done for hundreds of years is lazy, I suppose you’re still shoving children up chimneys Fist
. By all means say that you pro using the whip for making horses go faster but don’t hide behind the safety issue because smacking a horse on the arse has bugger all to do with safety but all to do with making it go faster.I don’t object to the use of the whip however to go back to the title of the thread, the only way to stop jockeys overusing the whip without disqualifying the horse is to ban the whip from being used.
Yes, as expected, we’re getting nowhere.
Personally, I’m not objecting to anything yet, including foul shots, which I know are effective. That’s why we see them used , time and time again.
What I’m trying to establish is
what is the purpose of the whip, and, does it achieve this purpose?
So far, the few , very poor ,replies that pooh-pooh the very idea of even thinking about the subject in a rational way, haven’t even convinced somebody like myself of any good reason why the whip is carried at all.
When I say somebody like me – as opposed to the politicians and lawyers who actually make the laws and WILL make the laws that affect us – I’m talking about someone who is not averse to shooting dead a horse when I’ve thought it the best thing to do.
I remember this colt foal, years ago. His mother was away ploughing a field, and he was happy enough mooching about the yard.
However, when he saw his mother returning, he took off like a mad cat and tried to leap over the hedge.
Unfortuneately, he didn’t make a good enough jump, but became impaled on a sharp old splintery stake that was sticking up. It was the most hateful of horrible situations.
Miles out in the country, and not able to afford the vet, my uncle fetched his old gun. Something had to be done to stop the misery, but I felt even worse, when he handed me the gun and told me to get on with it!
It was some test, I can tell you, but there was little choice. Though he ordered me to shoot between the eyes, I was so upset that I actually shot the poor critter between the ears from behind, even though my whole body was shaking like a leaf.
Even though the misfortunate thing was wriggling and squeeling, this action did put an end to the matter.I wouldn’t claim to have done good that day, but I don’t think there was much option.
And neither do I think that, just because the use of the gun was essential that day,then everybody should carry one, just in case.Now, back to the subject, it could be that carrying the whip in racing is essential, and it could be that it’s not. I haven’t thought about any aspect of cruelty yet. Perhaps, I should consider that side of things, too, now that somebody has mentioned it above.
Mr Maggoo………Yarmouth?……….mate you are in a very tiny minority who have this crazy idea of sending people to work without the tools of their trade………for hundreds of years riders all over the world have carried whips……….not just race jockeys. Why?
For all the reasons mentioned that’s why.
Do you think we are the first people on the planet to discuss this……do you think everone in racing is an idiot?
They have thought it out, bent it, twisted it, turned it sideways and come to the conclusion they can’t ban the whip……….it would be too dangerous to do so…………I have no idea what you think you will achieve by standing on a soap box saying let’s get together lads and go tell everyone in racing they are wrong and we are right………very silly Mr Maggoo attitude if ever there was one.
I’m sorry but the main reason a whip is carried is not for safety purposes it is to encourage a horse to go faster. If it is for safety purposes then just use it when it is unsafe. As mentioned previously the hands and heels apprentice races seem to have gone by without anybody being injured and continue to be persevered with and would it be any surprise that current jockeys would be against banning the use of the whip for encouragement purposes ( not the banning of carrying a whip ) as it might show up the inadequacies of such jockeys who can only make a horse go faster by belting the thing. To say just because its been done for hundreds of years is lazy, I suppose you’re still shoving children up chimneys Fist
. By all means say that you pro using the whip for making horses go faster but don’t hide behind the safety issue because smacking a horse on the [expletive] has bugger all to do with safety but all to do with making it go faster.I don’t object to the use of the whip however to go back to the title of the thread, the only way to stop jockeys overusing the whip without disqualifying the horse is to ban the whip from being used.
Now your just getting damn silly and twisting things round……someone should shove you up a chimney….what kid of idiotic thing is that to say?
Are you trying to tell me this idea of banning the whip is revolutionary…..some great idea someone just thought of? .they were still sticking kids up chimneys when they first started debating it.
My point was that should they wish to ban the whip they simply can not
because you are totally 100% wrong when you say it has has bugger all to do with safety ……..wtf makes you think that…….First time there was an accident every jockey in racing would be up in arms.you’ve obviously never sat on a horse in your life making a silly staement like that.
Sure they could say use it for correctional purposes. However it is generally felt by jockey’s that racing would suffer badly without it. Maily because it does make horse sit up and pay attention to the job at hand.
Here’s an idea… If someone wants to do something to help racing for Pete’s sake come up with something constructive and new not the oldest argument in the book.
I would suggest they get themselves along to the racing and ask a few jockeys what they think about banning the use of the whip as ameans of encouragement…..they’re the ones who would have to do without it…..I would bet anyone 100 quid to a can of coke 95% of jockeys would tell them to bog off and don’t be so damn silly.
Yes, as expected, we’re getting nowhere.
Personally, I’m not objecting to anything yet, including foul shots, which I know are effective. That’s why we see them used , time and time again.
What I’m trying to establish is
what is the purpose of the whip, and, does it achieve this purpose?
So far, the few , very poor ,replies that pooh-pooh the very idea of even thinking about the subject in a rational way, haven’t even convinced somebody like myself of any good reason why the whip is carried at all.
When I say somebody like me – as opposed to the politicians and lawyers who actually make the laws and WILL make the laws that affect us – I’m talking about someone who is not averse to shooting dead a horse when I’ve thought it the best thing to do.
I remember this colt foal, years ago. His mother was away ploughing a field, and he was happy enough mooching about the yard.
However, when he saw his mother returning, he took off like a mad cat and tried to leap over the hedge.
Unfortuneately, he didn’t make a good enough jump, but became impaled on a sharp old splintery stake that was sticking up. It was the most hateful of horrible situations.
Miles out in the country, and not able to afford the vet, my uncle fetched his old gun. Something had to be done to stop the misery, but I felt even worse, when he handed me the gun and told me to get on with it!
It was some test, I can tell you, but there was little choice. Though he ordered me to shoot between the eyes, I was so upset that I actually shot the poor critter between the ears from behind, even though my whole body was shaking like a leaf.
Even though the misfortunate thing was wriggling and squeeling, this action did put an end to the matter.I wouldn’t claim to have done good that day, but I don’t think there was much option.
And neither do I think that, just because the use of the gun was essential that day,then everybody should carry one, just in case.Now, back to the subject, it could be that carrying the whip in racing is essential, and it could be that it’s not. I haven’t thought about any aspect of cruelty yet. Perhaps, I should consider that side of things, too, now that somebody has mentioned it above.
So what is it your want to hear? I think you’ve flipped you lid mate…..what do you suggest a jockey should do if a 2 year old or any horse fr that matter starts veering all over the place…….horses run all over the place when they are tiring for one and a quip slap helps the keep straight……..jockeys do it on the flat every single day………so what if they don’t have it what should they use……..FFs open your mind up and think what you are saying……….a two year old could work that one out.
Does a whip make a horse go faster………has anyone ever chased you with a cane or a stick when you were a kid and smacked you on the ass with it…….doesn’t take much working out does it?
Of course it makes a horse go faster if it is possible he can.The way I feel is if a horse is out on his feet and a Jockey persistantly hits him then he deserves a ban………however if the horse has ever chance and is perhaps not giving his all a jockey is simply doing it to impress upon the horse the urgency of the situation is within his rights to do so.
If he abuses the rules he gets a ban….I don’t particualry agree with bans I think there should be fines and stiff ones at that. Punishment should affect the offender only and not his empoyer or the owner IMO…..The money from these fines should perhaps go towards a worthy cause like subsidising the care of injured horses……how they would wok out the level of fines I have no idea but if they were very stiff for constant offenders it may reduce the amount of cases.
If you ban it because of offenders many many jockey’s who have never offeneded may also suffer because they are not big strong lads like AP McCoy………there are more reasons for not banning it than there is for getting rid of it and IMO it will never happen.
My point was that should they wish to ban the whip they simply can not
because you are totally 100% wrong when you say it has has bugger all to do with safety ……..wtf makes you think that…….First time there was an accident every jockey in racing would be up in arms.Please explain how smacking a horse on its ar5e more often prevents rather than causes accidents / interference. Also please detail all the serious incidents in the Hands & Heels races
you’ve obviously never sat on a horse in your life making a silly staement like that.
Yes I have sat on a horse, went weekly for a whole summer with 4 or 5 others and not once carried a whip. To be true I wouldn’t have known what to do with it anyway or held on to it as well as the reins and the saddle!
Sure they could say use it for correctional purposes. However it is generally felt by jockey’s that racing would suffer badly without it.
Why ? Possibly because the jockey would have to use more skill and potentially more effort to get the best out of the horse rather than raising his arm and hitting it ?
Maily because it does make horse sit up and pay attention to the job at hand.
In other words it is used to make the horse go faster.
Here’s an idea… If someone wants to do something to help racing for Pete’s sake come up with something constructive and new not the oldest argument in the book.
Maybe it keeps getting mentioned because some people have a real issue with whipping horses solely to make them run faster.
I would suggest they get themselves along to the racing and ask a few jockeys what they think about banning the use of the whip as ameans of encouragement…..they’re the ones who would have to do without it…..I would bet anyone 100 quid to a can of coke 95% of jockeys would tell them to bog off and don’t be so damn silly.
Only 95%. Blimey this anti-whip brigade could be building up some momentum.
As posted previously I have no real problem with the use of the whip, but to say the whip is carried mainly for safety is absolute rubbish. Its main use is to make the horse go faster. As also previously mentioned the title of the thread is Whip bans are no deterrent. You are obviously OK with the fact that one person breaking the rules can gain an advantage over someone who doesn’t. You’re not an ex athletics coach by any chance?
I know that’s a bad attitude.
. By all means say that you pro using the whip for making horses go faster but don’t hide behind the safety issue because smacking a horse on the arse has bugger all to do with safety but all to do with making it go faster.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.