The final whip thread?

[Eclipse First]

which is why I wouldn’t have claimed it was down to the New Rules had "Steeps" mentioned them. So stop that giggling at the back and pay attention.

Incidentally though … having watched the race it is arguable that the ban – which may or may not have resulted in a similar punishment under the "old rules" as he might have been only cautioned for misuse –

was in fact

caused by the boy’s fear of flouting the stroke-count. He kept his powder dry but used too many on the run-in.

So in that sense (though this was not "Steeps" initial crow) he’d be right if he admitted not only that he was quite wrong in his opening claim, but also that the "new rules" played their part in the ban he failed to spot.

Of course you wouldn’t claim that the new rules were to blame, but your supposition does seem to contradict your initial statement. Then your belief has remarkably been turned into indelible fact by Paul Daniels I presume.

[cormack15]

Ok Pinza – let’s put it another way –

Yet another day when there were no whip bans incurred as a result of the new rules over the jumps.

Proving, once again, that jockeys are perfectly capable of abiding by the rules.

[Cav]

Pork Bad

Lamb Good

Beer Bad

Lemonade Good

Skirt Bad

Hijab Good

9 strokes Bad

8 strokes Good

….leave it to the fundamentalists Pinza, for their unreachable.

aren’t they all

[robnorth]

Or perhaps

70mph – Good
71mph – Bad

?

[Cav]

Look up the meaning of the word "fundamentalist" in terms of its application to creatures as different and individual as humans or horses, Rob.

Speed limit my hole.

[seanryan]

With a 99.25% compliance rate under the old rules/arbitrary hit limits I would think most reasonable people would accept the jockeys can comply with rules.

It just seems normally tests of reasonableness went out the window when the review group came to formulating their opinions.

[robnorth]

Speed limit my hole.

And a Merry Christmas to you sir!

Your comments pretty well sum up why I’ve generally dipped out of this argument for the last few days. Ironic that you mention your ‘hole’ given that it really isn’t worth taking the s**t dished out for daring to hold any opinion contrary to yours.

Rob

[ricky lake]

Nice one Cav …agree in entirety

topic starting to irritate now , we have our positions,

Let the Hare sit !!!!!(Cav will get this insta )

Ricky

[Cav]

Your as entitled to your opinion as much as myself or anyone else on here, Rob. When you want to be glib with others peoples opinions expect a reply (from me anyway).

I don’t like black and white applied onto a subject as complex as to how you get the best from creatures as unique and individual as each human or each racehorse. Its an enormous grey area. Black and white stops thinking, stops interpretation, reduces the value of experience, craft, know-how and expression. Its why the Islamic world has produced the square root of **** all for a thousand years. Its why America produced Steve Jobs.

Granted the racing issue is almost inconsequential in comparison but I abhor the encroachment of the uneducated "elders" into our sport with their edicts and fatwa’s. The logical continuation of this blind appeasement of the "elders" will lead in time to the cessation of racing as we know it. As a punter I don’t mind the new rules, I’ll even live with a sensible limit if that’s whats eventually decided but I’m very surprised that some on here think that welfare issues disappear with the new whip rules and that the sport is not now in a weaker position to defend itself in future. No big picture there in my opinion.

rules are rules you must follow the rules….

If the BHA are so concerned about the opinion of their masters at the gutter press, the animal right wing and housewives who have a hundred more important things to think about 365 days a year, they should take a camera down to Kempton tomorrow night and ask the skinny soaked to the skin girl leading around the skinny soaked to the skin horse, why she’s gets up at first light?, why she frequently makes 300 mile round trips with the skinny animal?, why she only gets six hours sleep a night, why she hauls the skinny horses s*** sack around a yard?, why she puts up with the accommodation? why she does it all for minimum wage?…I’ll guarantee you somewhere in the skinny girls reply will be the word

love

. Repeat that process a hundred times you’ll hear the

L

word a hundred times. This is the message that Roy should be sending out, but it wont happen, he’s not capable.

If I thought for one second that racehorses were being abused with the whip I’d stop following the sport tomorrow. Thats not the case, and anyone with any

real

interest in the sport knows it.

Anyway, enough from me on the subject, in fairness we’re going round in circles now. Lets hope some common sense finally prevails, otherwise I’ll fully support a jockeys strike.

[seanryan]

Agree with all that CR. In particular …

I’m very surprised that some on here think that welfare issues disappear with the new whip rules and that the sport is not now in

a weaker position to defend itself in future.

No big picture there in my opinion. rules are rules you must follow the rules….

The BHA have set themselves up to fail – any less than 99.25% compliance is failure – success cannot be defined.

[Anonymous]

Cav

, thank you for that most eloquent and honest post, which cuts through most of the nitpicking, snide sniping and pig-headedness which has increasingly infected this debate, not least on this Forum.

Of course I happen to agree with every word of it. I found myself moved by your picture of the girl and horse at Kempton, and why they keep doing what they do. That

"L"

word has slipped out of sight during the last few weeks, with all the accountants’ talk of

stroke-counts

,

short sharp shocks

and

"culture change"

.

Speaking for myself, I am surprised by my own resolution on this question. I am naturally a pragmatic, establishment groupie; and the

"rules are rules are rules"

argument is one I’ve used myself quite a bit in past spats and debates.

What’s different here, is that I’ve come to feel that the Sport’s Elders have removed themselves so far from the coal face that they are no longer able to hear the voices from below, and seem genuinely amazed that anyone should feel that they need to be held accountable, or to justify what they’ve done.

The silence behind the closed doors at High Holborn is becoming deafening, whatever "private talks" are going on (if any). Their resentment at the MPs’ well-meaning desire to at least talk openly about the self-evident problems was palpable. I hope that tomorrow’s informal meeting may force BHA to come clean about their agenda, about the pressures they’ve endured from Muir and the RSPCA, about the contradictions between the contents of their Report (the positive welfare facts and the stats) and its Recommendations (i.e. the draconian "new rules").

I also hope that the PJA can use tomorrow’s opportunity to recover some of the credibility they’ve lost (not least with their own membership) in the course of the last month.

Finally, I’d like to add to your post one other factor which has taken me aback. The way the jockeys have consistently been presented as the scapegoats for what’s gone wrong in the last month – the idea that they must be either stupid or mendacious, or both – has amazed and shocked me.

Steve Cauthen

‘s words yesterday on the subject were clear and to the point, and I only hope that in the calm light of day nobody will seek to brush the opinion of this respected Elder Statesman under the carpet as they have those of Walsh, McCoy, Buick, Murtagh et. al. After what he’s said, I hope we’ve heard the last of the

"can’t they count?"

sneers. Though I’m afraid I very much doubt it.

I hope that will be

my

last post on the subject today – a hope which I’m sure will be universally shared!

[Drone]

First-class post CR

Has this familiar quote appeared somewhere in all these whip threads?

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men

If not why not? It seems wholly applicable to whip usage

The determination of the abuse/pain/cruelty – call it what you will – a horse suffers from being whipped cannot possibly be objectified by a hard-and-fast rule – count. To repeat what I’ve repeated

ad nauseam

: it’s the manner in which each individual strike is applied and with what force.

The interpretation of this is of course wholly subjective, and so it should be. "Wise men" viz the Stewards (professional in an ideal world, but that’s another matter) should have at their disposal guidelines from which to work from and refer, from which they can formulate an educated opinion of a ride and act accordingly

Mention has been made of the ‘no time to respond’ argument regarding rat-a-tat-tat whip usage at the culmination of a race. It seems to be generally agreed that this is always a no-no and always warrants suspension. Again, I would suggest this should also be open to interpretation on a case-by-case basis.

Rightly, no one today would want to see a Piggott machine-gunning of Roberto and The Minstrel and such heavy-handedness deserves punishment. However is the application of three or four rapid flicks/taps/wafts to a horse’s hindquarters at the end of a race in which it hasn’t felt the whip at all deserving of the same punishment? No in my opinion.

I’d go further by saying that I would rather see a horse nursed around with hands and heels and given a few rapid light cracks in the shadow of the winning post than I would seeing a horse given a series of stiff reminders at regular ‘time to respond’ intervals throughout the race

Going further again, I would also suggest a light rat-a-tat-tat at the end of an otherwise whipless race may galvanise a horse more effectively than regular cracks throughout the race. The unexpected startles, the expected doesn’t

[Anonymous]

Gosh

Drone

, that’s such a good post that you’ve made me break my resolution

already

!!

On the spectre you raise of Piggott’s rides on

Roberto

and

The Minstrel

, I hope I can make a couple of comments which have nothing to do with the current

fracas

, and should not be read by critics in that light.

First, times change. Piggott’s whip was an entirely different implement to the lightweight modern version. People did of course criticize Piggott’s severity at the time, but the majority of the racing (and one-bet-a-year

non

-racing) public saw both as great rides – "our hero" once getting the job done where, as they felt, every other jockey would have failed.

Last, was either animal harmed by the experience?

Roberto

‘s most famous and greatest triumph (over

Brigadier Gerard

at York) was still to come.

The Minstrel

went on to bag the

Irish Derby

and the

King George

in the months after his gruelling Derby win.

Whatever the initial physical response, we can say that neither horse was frightened or put off racing by the strong treatment they’d received from Piggott in

The Derby

.

[Gingertipster]

… but I’m very surprised that some on here think that

welfare issues disappear with the new whip rules

and that the sport is not

now in a weaker position

to defend itself in future. No big picture there in my opinion.

rules are rules you must follow the rules….

If the BHA are so concerned about the opinion of their masters at the gutter press, the animal

right wing

and housewives who have a hundred more important things to think about 365 days a year, they should take a camera down to Kempton tomorrow night and ask the skinny soaked to the skin girl leading around the skinny soaked to the skin horse, why she’s gets up at first light?,

If I thought for one second that racehorses were being

abused

with the whip I’d stop following the sport tomorrow. Thats not the case, and anyone with any

real

interest in the sport knows it.

It is all about keeping it "real".

Welfare isssues certainly do not "disappear with these new whip rules", I don’t think anyone is saying that Cav. It was encouraging that stewards stepped in when a horse was not given time to respond yesterday (yet within the new "limits").

Agree, the sport is now in a weaker position than it was before. But had the BHA not acted, Racing would be in an even worse position. If the "animal right wing" you are talking about was Animal Aid, I’d agree, we should not take any notice. But unfortunately it isn’t. The RSPCA and WHW are not "right wing". Racing is in danger of losing the support of these two reputable organisations. Both do some brilliant work to help stop cruelty to animals and have widespread support of the general public. Whether you agree with them on this ussue or not (and I am nowhere near fully in line with their views) to lose them would be a disaster for British Racing. If the RSPCA come out and say "racing is cruel", then that would affect public opinion dramatically. And a vast number of Joe Public would take their lead from the RSPCA. If the Public turns against racing it loses its non-bookmaker sponsership. Even pro-racing sponsers would have no choice but to stop. Because sponsering a sport the majority / significant minority of the public sees as "cruel" is economic suicide. Also, St John’s Ambulance Group would find it difficult to continue to support a "cruel" sport. If they withdraw from jump racing it would be difficult for jump racing to have adequate medical cover.

So yes, our sport is in a weaker position than it was, and yes we should do more to educate the public. But we’d probably be in a far worse situation by ignoring these two "middle ground" (not right wing) charities. There may be a time we have to take them on. However, making these charities enemies now, when there is still a good chance of an agreeable formula being found – is risking total breakdown.

Like you Cav, and everyone else on this forum (including Pinza) I’d walk away if I thought horses were being "abused". I know for me getting interested in this great sport of ours was a gradual thing. Starting with Red Rum when still at junior school, then Troy, Shergar etc. But how many of us would have turned away before we got so hooked – if we knew the RSPCA said it was "cruel"?

Value Is Everything

[yeats]

I think one of the key things from the Roberto era to now is the different type of whip used but the people who they say they are trying to appease with these new whip rules do not take that into account, even if they were bothered in the first place.
What have the BHA done to try and educate these people about the different type of whip used? Sweet FA.

[Gingertipster]

What have the BHA done to try and educate these people about the different type of whip used? Sweet FA.

What would you like them to do to "educate" these people Yeats?

Is there any "education" that would be effective enough to do the job?

Value Is Everything

[ricky lake]

Ginger , just stay quiet , Cav’s brilliant post said it all

If you have no class and want to keep squabbling , then now is your chance to lose even more credibility

For goodness sake absorb the post and leave it , if you want the last word and stay with the bha/rspca view regardless of the consequences , then you are less wise than once perceived

Carry on tipping , you are pretty good at that , racing politics and the bigger picture seem to be lost on you

thanks

Ricky

[Author]

Posts