- This topic has 63 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There is a place for the whip in controlling and, yes, "encouraging" horses.
The rules defining the use of the whip are fairly clear.
Correct, an excellent start paul, shame you spoiled it with the rest of your post
One thing I do find a bit puzzling is the number of people who find the whip so objectionable yet continue to be involved and supposedly enjoy the sport. Is any hypocrisy involved I wonder?
Andrew,
I have made my opinions clear in another thread that is quite similar to this one. Can I just say that most animal aid agencies would like horseracing banned due to the cruel nature of the sport. Anybody on this forum who does not see that there are many elements to the sport that are cruel are burying their heads in the sand. Making a stance on the whip is just toothless IMO.
If you cannot accept the dangers and perhaps the unnatural way horses are treated, you should perhaps stick to cricket.
JohnJ.
As it happens, I haven’t particularly stated an opinion one way or another. This is not a debate that I have a particular interest in. What concerns me is that yet again, another discussion has descended into anger and bitterness. This used to be a forum in which people felt free to discuss ideas and opinions. In recent months it has become all about ego.
unless you have ridden a horse in race conditions then your opinion on the use of the whip is pointless.
Utter rubbish. At the risk of repeating myself, who are you to say that other people’s opinions are pointless? They me be less well informed than some, but pointless? To use a cricketing analogy, none of us have faced a ninety mile an hour bowler aiming at our head, but are we not allowed an opinion on bodyline?
Can I just say that most animal aid agencies would like horseracing banned due to the cruel nature of the sport. Anybody on this forum who does not see that there are many elements to the sport that are cruel are burying their heads in the sand
Taken from the BHB website on ‘promoting the sport’ presumably.
If you cannot accept the dangers and perhaps the unnatural way horses are treated, you should perhaps stick to cricket.
Well, first of all, I haven’t expressed an opinion, one way or the other, on the use of the whip in this thread, so you are barking up the wrong tree. But a useful glimpse into the thinking of one section of the horse-racing community. We like our cruel sport just how it is, thanks, and we don’t need outsiders telling us what we should do. Fortunately, horse racing is indeed not my only sporting interest, so I will have something to fall back on when the sport is banned.
There is a place for the whip in controlling and, yes, "encouraging" horses.
The rules defining the use of the whip are fairly clear.
Correct, an excellent start paul, shame you spoiled it with the rest of your post
One thing I do find a bit puzzling is the number of people who find the whip so objectionable yet continue to be involved and supposedly enjoy the sport. Is any hypocrisy involved I wonder?
Excuse me but where in my post do I say I find the use of the whip objectionable?
What I do find objectionable is excessive use of the whip, outside of the published rules.
What is wrong with that or are you arguing that jockeys should be allowed to whip the horses as hard and as often as they want to?
I would presume you are not taking that stance in which case what remedy would you suggest for jockeys who break the rules – a slap on the wrist?
The fact jockeys are still picking up bans for whip abuse, albeit there are fewer, show the current punishments are not a sufficient deterrent. Hit the jockeys and connections hard for rule breaking – cheating and that is what it is – and the misuse will be all but eliminated.
I have no problems with the whip being used correctly – I have a major issue with the whip being abused and with races being won by cheating.
Racing, like any other activity, exists within a societal context which changes over time. Either it takes steps to make itself acceptable within that context, or Parliament – eventually – will. Personally, I would regret the latter as much legislation has unforeseen or unintended consequences that, on occasion, create problems much worse than those they purport to address.
The proper enforcement of current rules re the use of the whip would be a good first step. The horse of any jockey found in breach should be automatically disqualified, just as it would be if the jockey was found to have carried too little weight. Then the current practice of jockeys happily accepting brief bans because the rewards of winning prestigious races are so great would be ended, and the "handicap" on those riders not willing to cheat in this way would be removed.
Reading though this thread, it’s pretty easy to see why the racing game has problems, imo.
I’m quite sure that none – on both sides of the slagging match above – is currently a top-notch jockey of racehorses.
I am still trying to get a good definitive statement of the purpose of the whip, so, till then, there is no way I could make my decision, one way or the other. I did ask some dude who was posting from the " Old Mid West", but he/she managed to get banned a good while ago.
My question then was about rodeo and barrel-racing, which, when it comes to contol of the horse, I thought was relevent.
Of course, my inquiries led nowhere, but, to the guy who asked about Ben Hur, I can say that I do remember some other, more sepia -tinted Hollywood productions, which involved some right cowboys and their four-legged friends. These guys were able to gallop the fastest I’ve ever seen, and
no sign of them carrying a whip, but they were darned good with the six-gun, and their spurs sure did jangle, when they walked into the saloon.My grandchildren did try to tell me that this was only fiction, and that things have moved on since then, but, having read through this thread a few times, I sometimes wonder.
Sunbolt lost his life yesterday. I saw this race on ATR Uttoxeter 4.25 and I believe if the whip had not been used in excess, this poor horse would still be alive.In reality Sunbolt ran under the whip until he broke down
.Sean Rua, the whip is used as an ‘artificial aid’.
In riding terms, there are natural aids (legs, hands, voice) and artificial aids (whip, spurs, elements of tack such as martingales).
All of the aids are used for basically the same thing, to help the jockey tell the horse what to do. None are used purely for one thing, such as to make a horse go faster, they are also used to slow a horse down, encourage them to move in a certain direction or to make them concentrate.
Whips are used in exactly the same way as the natural aids – a kick of the jock’s legs to go faster, a shout of encouragement, a shake of the reins. The stick has to be used skillfully in conjunction with the other aids to tell the horse the same message – keep going.
In a race, more so than with other riding, the whip is a valuable aid. Jockeys ride shorter than normal, so the leg is often ineffectual as an aid for direction or encouragement. The noise in a race, particularly a finish, can make the voice a difficult aid to use (particularly if the jockey is out of breath!). Hands in a race are important, but when at full stretch they are more useful for stopping than anything else.
The problem with banning the whip is not so much that horses will stop, or that they will misbehave. It is more that they will not be able to understand what their jockey is telling them to do, which is a problem when they are travelling at 30mph.
I’ve never ridden in a race, so maybe you will think all these points have no validity – this is purely from years of pony-girl experience and subsequent non-riding racing involvement.
I still believe the answer is education and attitude change – which will be slow. I don’t think disqualifying is the answer – enforcing existing penalties fairly, with maybe an additional fine for jock and trainer as an additional disincentive.
Perhaps there should be a sliding scale of penalties for misuse of the whip?
Maybe increase the length of the ban, the higher the class/value of race?
I see you’re out of the thread Underscore but have to answer this (sorry about the delay, just returned to this thread).
“i really do not understand why a site called The Racing Forum would have members (and for that matter its Chief Moderator) that are anti-whip”
I don’t think you’ll find I’ve said I’m ‘anti-whip’ and nor am I anti-whip.
I’m just questioning whether, on the basis that many people who might hitherto be attracted to the sport are put off by that single issue, it actually makes any difference whether jockeys use whips or not.
Every race will still have a winner (the horse who, er, runs fastest) and I’m not entirely sure that judging the ‘best’ horse by the criteria of which one responds most urgently to having a sharp pain inflicted on it’s rear end adds to the sport.
Zorro’s point that the horses will be doing as they like is belied by simply watching a few races. The vast majority of horses run their race and are never touched by the whip.
The only issue may be the issue of safety. I understand that the whip may be a necessary aid in instances where a horse is misbehaving in a way that presents danger to others.
Thank you, Sal, for a comprehensive reply about the whip; most of your points concur with what I had thought, though, according to a relative of mine, there was one important omission.
That will not be disclosed here.
In my own view, I tend to feel that the hands, the knees, and the boots are very important factors in race riding. My opinions are probably influenced by my liking for Fallon , Fortune, and Murtagh, whom I believe are three very strong jockeys.
I could be quite wrong, but I think these three would still be at the top of the pile, whatever rule changes may come about.
Sunbolt lost his life yesterday. I saw this race on ATR Uttoxeter 4.25 and I believe if the whip had not been used in excess, this poor horse would still be alive.In reality Sunbolt ran under the whip until he broke down
.Whilst I concede young Mr Murphy was not exactly light in his touch, I think you are being sensationalist here. He struck the horse six times.
I don’t particularly like the tone of your post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.