- This topic has 80 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
BHA response –
BHA INITIAL STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO TOWCESTER’S REQUEST TO HAVE HANDS AND HEELS RACES
Paul Struthers, Head of Communications for the BHA, said:
"We only received Towcester’s request yesterday afternoon. This is certainly not something that can happen without the permission and agreement of the British Horseracing Authority.
“Racing is the most highly regulated of equine disciplines, and our rules are under constant review. Whilst the vast majority of riders comply with the rules and use the whip responsibly, we decided to review our rules relating to acceptable use of the whip some time ago, and certainly before Aintree and the subsequent media interest. Towcester’s request will be looked at as part of this wider review.
“We have already had several discussions with David Muir from the RSPCA about it and statistical analysis has been ongoing for some time. World Horse Welfare and the SSPCA will also be involved.
“We will be looking at the effectiveness of the existing rules and the penalty structure and also the appropriateness of the rules regarding what is deemed acceptable use. This will be a wide-ranging review of the issue, which will seek the views and input from various sectors within the industry. It will also take into account the views of those who watch and bet on racing as well as wider public perception, through polling and a survey.
“We are not in a position to put a timescale on when we will reach our conclusions. How the whip is best regulated within racing for the good of the sport is a crucial issue for the sport to get to grips with, and it is vital we get it right.”
Well racing really making a big deal about this when nobody else is.
I think that the whip was essential but now i don’t think it is. The amount of times i see horse give a bollicking to get their head in front to the detriment of guys who stick to the rules.
Maybe a situation where you can back hand but the days of the forehand drive i think should be gone away with just for the fairness perspective rather than anything else.
I see McCoy has come out and voiced his disagreement…
, no surprise their the way he used the whip in the past 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.
With regards to the keeping them straight, it really does work! I’m not sure how I can explain without getting really technical, basically most horses are slightly one sided, and they will drift or fall through a shoulder, and if used properly will discourage either of that.
I think the man issue with safety is fences. Showjumpers/eventers have the advantage of decent length of legs/spurs ect to support horses into fences. A lot of horses want help into fences, and it’s alot easier with a stick than without! Again I can explain this properly, but it will get quite technical.
Will be interesting to see how things go without them in the finish, and it’s worth looking at. Good on Towcester for giving it a go.
Lester Piggott said that all horses favoured one side or the other [a bit like people being right handed or left handed I guess]. Think he knew straight away which side any horse he rode favoured [although he didn’t have to jump fences with them]. Don’t know how jockeys control horses anyway, being perched on top of them the way they are! Feel free to explain as much as you can, Emma; you’re a wise head on young shoulders and what you say is really interesting [although I might not understand it!].
You’ve got to laugh at Paul Struthers comment stating that the BHA whip review will take into account "the views of those who watch and bet on racing as well as wider public perception, through polling and a survey".
When have they ever bothered about punters before? eg Did punters get consulted about reversing the draw on some of our tracks recently?
Are punters represented on the BHA board?Obviously the BHA have an agenda and are confident surveying tree huggers will produce the desired result for their requirements.
Maybe we could have a survey and poll about whether Paul Roy is doing a good job and should remain in his position?
With regards to the keeping them straight, it really does work! I’m not sure how I can explain without getting really technical, basically most horses are slightly one sided, and they will drift or fall through a shoulder, and if used properly will discourage either of that.
I think the man issue with safety is fences. Showjumpers/eventers have the advantage of decent length of legs/spurs ect to support horses into fences. A lot of horses want help into fences, and it’s alot easier with a stick than without! Again I can explain this properly, but it will get quite technical.
Please, please get as technical as you wish EmmyK
I put in a request on the main ‘Whip’ thread for those who’ve actually had the leg-up to explain how and why the whip is ‘crucial’ or otherwise; and for the difference between the racing Whip and the Crop carried by recreational riders
Which fell on deaf ears (blind eyes
) with the exception of Sean Boyce, who while he has riding experience may have been guilty of a little bias given the context of his posts on the thread at the timeGood post EmmyK.
The comment re-fences is certainly an important consideration.
But how big an actual issue is this?
Under the current Hands & Heels rules a jockey can use the whip to correct a horse approaching a fence/hurdle.
6. In Hurdle and Steeplechase races the whip may be used down the shoulder in the backhand position, with both hands on the reins when approaching an obstacle, i.e. within four or five strides of take-off.
Also there is clear provosion with the current rules to use the whip for ‘
safety reasons
‘
Personally, I’d keep the current whip rules as they are with the exception of banning its use after the last in a NH race and in the final or last 2 furlongs of a flat race (depending on the distance of a race) as I do believe some horses do need and benefit from having reminders during the course of a race.
- Total Posts 17716
The comment re-fences is certainly an important consideration.
EmmyK
‘s post is indeed a good one. So was
Mark Johnson
‘s blog – it’s too easy to dismiss his pro-whip welfare argument as "convenient". I’m a little surprised that Johnson’s integrity, both as a vet and a horseman generally highly respected within and without the Sport, can be so easily brought into question. Perhaps what you mean is that his reasoned argument is "inconvenient" for those whose feelings are against the use of the whip.
Corm
: can you or any of the other people on the other side of the argument come up with practical, evidenced reasons as to why the current (highly modified and cushioned) whip is "cruel" or "distasteful"? That is – reason, scientific evidence, as distinct from horsemanitarian, Disney ethics.
All I’ve seen mustered so far is a sort of vague sense that Racing has to "respond to the perception of the wider public" – despite the fact that nobody here has claimed that this wider public has anything better than well-meaning prejudice to contribute to the matter!
Giving way to this perception in the first place was, as I said at the time, the thin end of the wedge. Now that wedge is getting bigger, to the point where it is threatening the viability of the Sport and its governance. And we have only ourselves to blame.
Unfortunately, forgot to record it – was this discussed on the Morning Line?
As for keeping horses straight and jumping a fence I was under the impression a corrective slap down the shoulder approaching an obstacle would not contravene anything and a jockey would be expected to keep both hands on the reins over a fence anyway.
Regarding Sean Boyce and riding experience I am not exactly sure what level he reached but I suspect it was a little below John Francome. In referring to the Towcester suggestion as ‘idiotic’ I think you can sense his level of desperation. Not sure why he keeps mentioning the Maktoum family in the debate either. Has anyone actually courted their opinion? Most of their horses travel on the bridle with their jockeys picking up minimal whip bans so they would probably benefit from the restriction. The biggest fear for the likes of Boyce who want the BHA to continue wasting time (in the hope nothing will happen) is that the Towcester experiment will be a success. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the pro-whip brigade are exactly the same people who were giving the impression the countryside would cease to exist when foxhunting was banned. I think it is still there as will racing after the restrictions. And as the RSPCA spokesman suggested accepting the restrictions would be preferable to a total ban.
- Total Posts 17716
And as the RSPCA spokesman suggested accepting the restrictions would be preferable to a total ban.
That’s
precisely
what was said when the thin end of that wedge was first given house room. The wedge is getting bigger. History repeats itself. Nobody seems to notice.
In my view, I would be keen to see the results of the Towcester experiment.
I think that if the whip is to remain part of the sport then those that gain an unfair competitive advantage from abuse of it need to be more effectively punished. It will never be properly regulated until excessive or improper use leads to disqualification of the horse as well as the suspension of the jockey. In that way connections that may be more accepting of over zealous riding are also not given an advantage over connections who may be less accepting. In this way jockeys are not under pressure to misuse the whip.
I think that a leaf out of Stan Mellors philosophy over whip use may benefit the sport as a whole (now there was a rider who didnt have to be a hoodlum on horseback !).Pinza –
I haven’t said use of the whip was ‘cruel’ or ‘distasteful’ and that’s not my rationale for abolishing its use other than for safety reasons.
I think I’ve laid out my argument pretty clearly in the David Ashforth thread if you’d care to have a read through –
http://www.theracingforum.co.uk/horse-racing-forum/horse-racing/david-ashforth-whip-article-today-post-t86288.html
To sum up – I think that use of the whip is unnecessary for anything other than safety reasons. I think it portrays the sport in a poor way to the general public (on whom the sport relies for its survival now and,more importantly in the future) as evidenced by recent events at Aintree where many people were appalled by the use of the whip by the jockey on the winner. Therefore, as I think its use is unecessary (which is my main point) and also portrays the sport in a negative manner I think it should be abolished. But there have also been some good suggestions on how to control the use of the whip without outright abolition and I’d be happy with racing looking at trialling some of those.
We shouldn’t simply bow to public perception/opinion, I agree, but we’d be very foolish to ignore it, whether you agree with it or not.
As far as Mark Johnston goes. Your sugggestion that his
integrity is being brought into question
is just ridiculous mischief-making. What I’m suggesting is that the comments he’s made on this issue shouldn’t simply be accepted at face-value. They don’t stand up to scrutiny/logic
in my opinion
and, Mark Johnston or not, I’m entitled to voice that. I would add (as I think I did earlier) that he is very credible and I have nothing but the greatest respect for him as a trainer, horseman and thinker.
When it comes down to hard evidence Pinza, both sides of this argument are, sadly, lacking I’m afraid,, which is one of the reasons its such an unclear debate.
Anyway, here’s a question to ponder. Another way of looking at it.
If racing currently didn’t allow whips, do you think for one single nano-second anyone in their right mind would consider introducing it?
Never in a million years.
- Total Posts 17716
Anyway, here’s a question to ponder. Another way of looking at it.
If racing currently didn’t allow whips, do you think for one single nano-second anyone in their right mind would consider introducing it?
Never in a million years.
As it happens
"a million years"
(or at least around 200,000) is about the length of time the whip
has
been used on horses! And the answer is, of course,
"yes they would"
– because of its benefits both for safety and welfare (c.f. the arguments of those better qualified to judge these aspects.) To return the question:
Why do you think it was introduced in the first place?
Corm
, you can’t have it both ways. Either you believe Mark Johnson has integrity or he hasn’t: and if you do believe he has it, then your characterisation of his pro-whip rationale as
"convenient"
is contradictory. You’re saying he’s either being dishonest, or stupid, or possibly both – neither of which adverbs fit with "integrity" for one moment.
I apologise for trying to put words in your mouth. But I’m baffled now. If you don’t judge the whip
"cruel"
, and don’t find it
"distasteful"
, then for the life of me I cannot understand why you find it
"unnecessary"
, given the evidence-base for its necessity, from the huge majority of horse racing professionals.
Racing itself is
"unnecessary"
. You and I are
"unnecessary"
. Even this Forum is
"unnecessary"
! But all these good things, I hope, add to the flavour and zest of life.
As King Lear said:
"Oh reason not the need"
. The whip is a part of racing, a part of the spectacle, as well as an aid for safety and against recalcitrance at various stages of the race. It also gives its name to one of the oldest races on the Calendar.
It was the 17th c. Duc de Sully who famously said that
"the English take their pleasures sadly"
(to which one might add the Scots and Welsh, though
never
the Irish!) This stupid business is yet another example of the truth of Le Duc’s epigram.
EmmyK has a good point about eventing and racing styles. Why do jockeys – jump and flat for that matter – ride so short? Yes, I know they’re getting their weight over the horse’s shoulder so he can carry the weight more easily, but event riders do the same and they manage to ride quite well with a longer stirrup length. And when things go wrong they have a much better chance of staying in the saddle. Has it ever been proven that being scrunched up on the back of a horse makes it go faster than the normal riding position? Part of the reason for having the whip in racing has become to substitute for the lack of being able to use your legs properly. You can’t effectively push your horse along with your legs (I discount the frantic back and forth action you often see as being that effective) so you need the whip as a substitute. Event riders carry them, but rarely need to make use of them because they can use their legs to urge a horse on and over a jump.
The whip question is not one that should stand alone either. The whole question of riding out for a place needs to be looked at. Yes, if a horse is close up in the last furlough or two and might make the first 4 (or 5 in the big field races like the National for bookmakers) then by all means ride out the finish. But often you see horses miles out the back being pushed and scrubbed along (and sometimes also whipped quite strongly) with absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near a place. Why, because of the non triers rule – jockeys need to ride out for any place they can get to. It seems absurd that all horses need to be pushed when there’s no chance of getting into a top position. I’m not saying that horses can’t come from a long way behind – they can – but jockeys also know when they have no realistic chance of a place, yet still have to keep pushing their mounts to try and get past one more opponent. This is a problem brought about by betting on races rather than racing in itself, but I think it’s something that needs to be looked at along with any restrictions on the use of the whip. How many tired, fatal, falls have we seen over the years because jockeys feel they must keep going. New guidelines need to be formulated to address this, but it’s a fine line to draw between non triers and pulling up for the welfare of your mount and because he/she has no chance of getting into the finish.
- Total Posts 17716
Anyway, here’s a question to ponder. Another way of looking at it.
If racing currently didn’t allow whips, do you think for one single nano-second anyone in their right mind would consider introducing it?
Never in a million years.
As it happens
"a million years"
(or at least around 200,000) is about the length of time the whip
has
been used on horses! And the answer is, of course,
"yes they would"
– because of its benefits both for safety and welfare (c.f. the arguments of those better qualified to judge these aspects.) To return the question:
Why do you think it was introduced in the first place?
Corm
, you can’t have it both ways. Either you believe Mark Johnson has integrity or he hasn’t: and if you do believe he has it, then your characterisation of his pro-whip rationale as
"convenient"
is contradictory. You’re saying he’s either being dishonest, or stupid, or possibly both – neither of which adverbs fit with "integrity" for one moment.
I apologise for trying to put words in your mouth. But I’m baffled now. If you don’t judge the whip
"cruel"
, and don’t find it
"distasteful"
, then for the life of me I cannot understand why you find it
"unnecessary"
, given the evidence-base for its necessity, from the huge majority of horse racing professionals.
Racing itself is
"unnecessary"
. You and I are
"unnecessary"
. Even this Forum is
"unnecessary"
! But all these good things, I hope, add to the flavour and zest of life.
As King Lear said:
"Oh reason not the need"
. The whip is a part of racing, a part of the spectacle, as well as an aid for safety and against recalcitrance at various stages of the race. It also gives its name to one of the oldest races on the Calendar.
It was the 17th c. Duc de Sully who famously said that
"the English take their pleasures sadly"
(to which one might add the Scots and Welsh, though
never
the Irish!) This stupid business is yet another example of the truth of Le Duc’s epigram.
Top drawer, Pinza.
But does a jockey know that they’ve no chance og getting thrd or fourth place if they’re a long way from the leaders? How aware is a jockey of what is happening in front? I know this sounds daft but could some sort of klaxon be sounded when the first third [or fourth in a big handicap] have passed the post, so jockeys further back can just ease their horses down and not ride out to the line [or not jump fences unnecessarily.
, no surprise their the way he used the whip in the past 
) with the exception of Sean Boyce, who while he has riding experience may have been guilty of a little bias given the context of his posts on the thread at the time
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.