- This topic has 80 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Lots of horses need waking up.
Or take the wrong direction, because they ‘re one eyed for example, or because they feel a little pain, or because their left pair of legs is a bit stronger than their right pair and the track curvature makes them move off.
Also the whipping in the last furlong is a standard sight we see.We have some hands and heels races, usually at the time of the year graduation from the jockey academy takes place, when there are many new apprentices together.
Those races are appalling and not worth looking at.
Now I count 4 or 5 likely champions among the last bunch of Greek apprentices, but those early races with the five taking part plus some others, were terrible.It’s a bad decision and the experiment will prove it.
The horses have lots more bad things done to them when they show reluctance to enter the stalls. Tails are pulled, teeth are pulled. What do we do then ? Abandon the race ?The so called animal lovers know nothing.
They should be looking at what happens after horses are retired.
We have seen some very bad treatment of retired horses indeed and a great deal of indifference.- Total Posts 17716
As we are being asked for facts here is the only one relevant to the argument. If you don’t hit a horse with a whip you cannot possibly inflict any pain. No need for any time wasted on long drawn out pointless surveys.
Sounds simple, doesn’t it? Unfortunately for your idea, if you read Mark Johnson’s blog you’ll find that he for one disagrees with your basic premise. He states that it is less good, from the veterinary and biological point of view, for the horse’s welfare when it is
not
encouraged to keep going by the whip towards the end of a race.
Meanwhile, I find that this initiative from Towcester tells us much about the BHA’s lack of control over the sport, when one small racecourse can declare UDI in such an important area of jurisdiction. I for one will be astounded if the BHA feel they can afford to let this happen, unaltered, after the course’s failure to consult with them first.
Meanwhile, I find that this initiative from Towcester tells us much about the BHA’s lack of control over the sport, when one small racecourse can declare UDI in such an important area of jurisdiction. I for one will be astounded if the BHA feel they can afford to let this happen, unaltered, after the course’s failure to consult with them first.
I don’t think there’s any way in the world that The BHA will allow this to happen, and I’m sure they’re less than amused by another publicity-seeking stunt by the noble Lord Hesketh.
A much more laudable attempt to declare UDI by the equally eccentric Sam Morshead, who a couple of years ago wanted to introduce EasyFix hurdles at Perth, was summarily dismissed by the authorities. At least Sam’s idea had the virtue of being genuinely beneficial to equine welfare, unlike Towcester’s attempt simply to curry favour with the "general public".
Meanwhile, I find that this initiative from Towcester tells us much about the BHA’s lack of control over the sport, when one small racecourse can declare UDI in such an important area of jurisdiction. I for one will be astounded if the BHA feel they can afford to let this happen, unaltered, after the course’s failure to consult with them first.
This is just a warning shot across the bow. Owners are sick of the way the BHA run racing, trainers are sick of the way the BHA run racing, punters & racegoers are sick of the way the BHA run racing.
It stands to reason that some of the courses might be getting sick of the way the BHA are running racing too.
In four or five years time, there’ll be a breakaway like Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket, the PDC in darts, the Premier League in football. The BHA will have to adapt or die. I’m absolutely certain of it.
- Total Posts 17716
This is just a warning shot across the bow. Owners are sick of the way the BHA run racing, trainers are sick of the way the BHA run racing, punters & racegoers are sick of the way the BHA run racing.
It stands to reason that some of the courses might be getting sick of the way the BHA are running racing too.
If someone’s trying to push the BHA towards removing fixtures from a group of poorer courses, to improve average prize money, this is precisely the kind of antic to convince them to go for it.
And I think we can guess which racecourse will currently be top of their hit list!
["Sure you can pilot this. But don’t expect us to fund those fixtures"]
He states that it is less good, from the veterinary and biological point of view, for the horse’s welfare when it is not encouraged to keep going by the whip towards the end of a race.
I’ve commented on that in the other whip thread. Gist is that if it is good for the horse’s welfare (to be kept balanced as they tire at the end of teh race) then we’ll be happy to see those out the back of the field being ‘welfared home’ with a crack or two. It’s no more than a convenient argument, peddled to justify the status quo.
Get the feeling this was a bit of a bombshell for the BHA
I think you can take that as given. I worry about the BHA. They were unprepared for the GN fall-out and they are unprepared for the whip debate in general (hence you get people, such as Towcester, feeling they have to act in isolation). As said elsewhere not having a go at the comms team, who do a brilliant job in a leaky boat with the bail-out bucket, but the problem lies with the lack of co-ordinated, joined-up leadership. The guys at the top seem to be, largely, awol.
It may well be a publicity stint from a maverick operator but it brings the whole debate nicely into focus. It’ll be fascinating to see how the BHA react.
Paul Struthers is a real nice guy, and a real professional. At times you feel the whole public perception of the BHA would simply fall apart if he wasn’t there and I think he enjoys his job. But he must be scratching his head tonight wondering what the heck is coming next.
Well I’ve been to the Middleham Open Day and Mark Johnston was asked about the issue and re-iterated that to cease using the whip in a race would create more injuries for the horse due to more pressure being put on the front of the horse by the jockey compensating for not using the whip, front legs he said would be especially susceptible.
I would imagine this is something Towcester and their publicity stunt as well as many of the posters on this thread have little understanding of.Did he have any actual evidence to support that assertion? Again, sounds like a convenient argument. Lots of ‘hands and heels’ winners and we don’t seem to see hordes of injured horses as a result of not having had a crack to keep the adrenalin levels up or frpom the jockey putting too much pressure on the front of the horse. That kind of comment (the Johnston one cited in that post) should always be challenged for legitimacy, no matter the source.
All this ‘keeping them straight’ is a smokescreen too. From visual evidence it’d be very long odds on that the application of the whip is more likely to have them swerving over the track than would be the case without the application of the whip. Not saying you don’t keep them for use in proper safety situations. Just that using them as an encourager blows any safety argument for their retention out of the water.
- Total Posts 17716
Well I’ve been to the Middleham Open Day and Mark Johnston was asked about the issue and re-iterated that to cease using the whip in a race would create more injuries for the horse due to more pressure being put on the front of the horse by the jockey compensating for not using the whip, front legs he said would be especially susceptible.
I would imagine this is something Towcester and their publicity stunt as well as many of the posters on this thread have little understanding of.There will be injuries from bad tempered horses swerving about.
If the hand and heels race is truly ran and not like youth apprentices do we are likely to have accidents, to humans and horses.
Higher up I forgot to mention the use of the whip to bring horses to straight line. This too is a standard everyday spectacle. Go and pick a video at random to see.………..I have read every word written in response to this thread and despite some I’m sure very sincere efforts ( and some frankly comical ones : ‘more injuries to front legs of horses due to use of jockeys’ bodyweight etc etc
I remain absolutely convinced that absolutely nothing but good can come from this initiative….dare I remind some people that this is a trial and I have serious suspicions about anyone in racing who can’t see the merit in having a trial…well done Towcester.Why do people keep quoting Johnston as if everything he says is somehow gospel? Take a look at his site. He is the biggest bag of hot air in racing, appears to consider punters akin to vermin and is childlike in the face of any criticism. Hardly the best advert for racing if you like to consider the full picture.
From my blog
David Muir, the RSPCA consultant who works closely with racing on behalf of the charity, has been in the news lately. David very kindly gave me twenty minutes of his time yesterday to record the following interview.
“Recent media coverage seems to have given the impression that excessive whip use has suddenly become an issue because of the Grand National and Jason Maguire’s suspension. The fact is the RSPCA and myself have been concerned about incorrect use of the whip in racing for a long time, and I have done a lot of work on the issue with a number of people.
“Although the RSPCA have always taken a pragmatic view on the whip, and indeed on racing, things are now getting out of hand. Unless something is done about excessive use of the whip, I can see it being banned completely and that is something I don’t want to see. The whip is needed for safety and discipline in races but how do you quantify encouragement? That’s the area that needs addressing.
“I’ve read Mark Johnston’s piece where he says that horses need to feel the whip as they tire towards the finish, for their own safety, to keep them running straight in a balanced fashion. To a degree Mark has a point but what you can’t do is defend the indefensible. If the application of pain is a necessary ingredient for racing, then I see racing going into an area that’s problematic.
“The whip is a work in progress. The one used now in racing bears no comparison whatever to the whip used five years ago. If I’d have hit myself hard on the back of the hand with a whip from five years ago, I’d break all four fingers. I could do it with the current whip and not even leave a mark.
“The current whip has a cylindrical core covered with foam. As it tapers down to the part which strikes the horse, it flattens out into a foam covered paddle which gives on contact with the horse and the reduction in pain, compared with the old whip, is dramatic.
“Used in the backhand style, the whip is perfectly acceptable, it’s when jockeys change to the forehand there is an implication that they want to apply as much pain as possible, and that’s where I fall out.
“We need to make sure that the correct balance is reached in whip design and in its use by jockeys. Doubling the foam-covering for example would make the whip useless for correction and discipline purposes. But used in the backhand position, I can never see a point in the future where I, or the RSPCA, would have a problem with the whip and that is the way I think the BHA will go with this.
“The only alternative I can see to that is that the whip is to be carried for safety and correction only, as in the current hands and heels races.
“The whole point of me, and the RSPCA working side by side with racing is to try to help understand both sides of the issues as we work to improve the welfare of horses. It’s alright standing outside and criticising racing but when you are working with racecourse management and the BHA, as we do, you see the problems they face.
“For example, I’m working closely at the moment on a hurdle design project with students at Southampton University, which is due to finish next month. For a year we’ve been looking at hurdle design. Along with four graduates, we’ve been examining design to see if we can improve safety in hurdling and reduce fatalities. I’m not in racing simply to criticise, I’m there to work with those involved to try to improve things”.
On the question of disqualification of a horse if its jockey is found guilty of improper use of the whip, David said:
“The Jockey should be disqualified, not the horse. Disqualifying the horse affects many other people; owners, trainers, punters, the whole system of betting. Just imagine a jockey who wants to actually lose a race, he knows excessive use will get the horse disqualified”.
I asked David if he was involved in the decision to ask jockeys to dismount immediately after the Grand National. He said:
“This is another issue that’s been taken completely out of context. I’ve been involved with the National now for fourteen years. When I first went there I fought like billy-o to get loads of water and I’ve got it now, about a hundred buckets and big tanks full of water with ice-bags in them.
“When the horses come in after four and a half miles, they’re very hot. Tim Morris (equine science and welfare director for the BHA) gave an instruction this year to jockeys to get off as soon they got in, get the saddles off and get water on the horses to cool them down. It wasn’t just the winner that got the treatment, I must have thrown water over twenty or thirty horses. It’s a welfare issue and a good thing for racing to do".
Asked about the image the hurried scrambling with water gave to the public, David said, “I think there was a major PA problem there. They should have explained what was going on. It’s a bit like when the screens go up on the course; everybody just assumes it’s a dead horse but that’s not always the case.
“Racing needs to take another step forward in explaining things. The whip is a classic example. Most people don’t know about the structure of a whip and how it behaves in use. We need to be more open and help people understand things much better".
We touched on the situation in Australia where the RSPCA were instrumental in getting NH racing banned in all but two states. David made the point that there’s almost no resemblance to jump racing there and in the UK, in the quality and type of horses used. He said:
“I can never see a situation where the RSPCA would support a call for the banning of National Hunt racing in Britain. Remember, what we are about is the prevention of cruelty and the definition of cruelty is ‘the gratuitous application of pain for the enjoyment of the person who’s doing it’. Now where in racing does the term ‘cruel’ fit? Tragic? Yes. Cruel? I can’t see that. The RSPCA does not try to justify the deaths of racehorses, but we will work tirelessly to reduce them. It’s a high risk sport and the RSPCA’s position in it is to help make it as risk-free as possible”.
On Towcester’s decision to have only ‘hands and heels’ races from October 5th onwards David said, "It’s a brave and positive way forward and I congratulate them on their courage and tenacity in the face of these recent concerns about whip use".
Somewhere in the depths of the various threads on the whip or the National someone (Drone I think) mentioned how lucky racing was to have David Muir working with racing on behalf of the RSCPA.
Reading that it would be impossible but to agree wholeheartedly.
Thanks for posting that Joe, excellent stuff and how refreshing to see the pragmatic stance adopted by the RSPCA. That (their pragmatism and common-sense) is why the public support them but baulk at supporting bodies such as Animal Aid.
Did he have any actual evidence to support that assertion?
Why does he need evidence? It’s his opinion as a vet and trainer. In any case shouldn’t the onus be on those who want change, to produce the evidence that the change will benefit both horse and the sport?
As Johnston is now a director on the BHA board they will have plenty of time to discuss it with him in the coming months whilst doing their study.He needs evidence, Yeats, because he needs to substantiate his view in hard facts. As I said earlier, comments like the one about jockeys putting more stress on the horse’s forelegs, which intuitively don’t make a lot of sense on public evidence, need challenging. Science wouldn’t have got far if it hadn’t challenged the accepted views of the establishment.
I have a lot of respect for Mark Johnston, he is intelligent and thoughtful and God knows the BHA neeeds some of that, but he is a forceful character who sometimes comes across as a ‘steamroller’.
‘Steamroller Johnston’ I think I’ll call him.
In fact I’m going to invite him to a TRF Q&A on this very issue.
I remain absolutely convinced that absolutely nothing but good can come from this initiative….dare I remind some people that this is a trial and I have serious suspicions about anyone in racing who can’t see the merit in having a trial…well done Towcester.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.