- This topic has 102 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I remember watching a race and the partner of a friend of mine getting hysterical, nearly to the point of tears, and saying “why is he allowed to whip that poor horse like that?”.
The horse in question was being ridden out hands and heels without the whip ever being used. Many people have no idea what they are actually watching and go in with a pre-conceived bias.
I must admit though, I sometimes wince watching Luke Morris ride. If his whip went any higher in the air it would pop up on the air traffic controllers radar.
I can’t believe it doesn’t hurt and I can’t see that it’s necessary, whether you call it a whip or something else. If no jockeys were allowed to use it, they’d be on a level playing field. In my opinion, the better the jockey, the less the need to use a whip.
I’ve been going racing for decades and whip use still upsets me. They use it for the wrong reasons. How many times do you see a horse make a mistake at a fence or hurdle and the first thing the jockey then does, is hit him? Then the commentator says the horse has been given ‘a reminder’. My (non racing) sister on seeing that said ‘What’s the horse being reminded of? Not to make a mistake? How does hitting him make that work?’Where does this end? If you say the whip certainly hurts, how do you know if jumping a fence at speed does not? It is not natural for horses in the wild to jump over hedges.
How do you know if a jockey riding a vigorous finish under hands and heels does not hurt? It is making a horse run faster than it wants. How do you know if horses are going through a pain barrier or not?
If you are squeamish about the whip, is it possible to make an ethical defence of racing at all?
To some extent, I think the whip is a bit of a red herring. The strategy of the anti-racing side is clear to me:
Reduce the amount of times the whip can be used
Reduce the amount of times still further
Ban the whip
Abolish jumps racing
Ban Flat racingAnyone who thinks this isn’t the long game is being very naive.
That is why at some point I think you have to draw a line in the sand and say no further. At some point we have to stand up for the sport.
And racing is not just a sport. It employs thousands of people, directly and indirectly. It makes a significant contribution to the revenue. It is a huge part of the rural economy. Many racecourses are important places in their communities.
I do not think it is trivial to make this point. I doubt the anti-racing crowd think about it or care.
And this is despite the fact no one apart from animal rights extremists think there is any welfare issue!
I doubt those that want the sport banned give any thought/care to what then happens to the thousands of racehorses that then simply have no reason to be if the sport is banned. No doubt they would then go after other equine sports like showjumping/eventing which for the most part have been left alone due to racing being the much more viewed equestrian sport.
And they certainly couldn’t give zero you know whats about the thousands of people who work directly (stable staff etc) or indirectly (breeders) in the industry who’s livelyhood then becomes obsolete too.
When the previous whip rules came in which resulted in the debacle around Champions Day it made the sport look incompetent with the seeming lack of communication/implementation by the BHA and others but yet over time riding standards improved and whip offences dropped massively to the extent that personally I don’t think it needed revisiting had the BHA robustly defendied its position……this new review we were told wasn’t automatically going to mean the whip rules were going to change (a bald face lie that we all pretty much saw through) but what was not in any doubt (on all sides) was that the punishment for offences needed overhauling to be more harsh to stop a jockey’s thought that in the big race you would take a few days suspension if you went slightly over the whip use number to win.
Sadly those that went into this review already were of the mindset that the whip rules had to be changed regardless of the evidence not supporting that stance and also added in for good measure that jockey’s should not go above shoulder height with their action and only use the whip in the backhand position (both of which would somewhat restrict/compromise where the jockey could correctly use the whip on the horse….it was more likely to result in the whip striking around the back of the number cloth, which is a big no no).
I am tired of the public perception argument leading what rules/changes should be brought in as we all know that all evidence points to the vast majority of Joe Public being (at best) indifferent to the sport or if they do respond it is most likely going to be along the lines of it being an elitist sport unless you specifically ask them a leading question like…what do you think of the whip in racing? Which automatically will get the response the BHA seem to want in order to justify making changes they have proposed.
This new debacle will most likely lead to news reports of jockeys on jumping’s biggest stage being banned left and right for whip abuses (because we all know the story needs to be sensationalised for maximum impact by the press) and it will be all self inflicted and give even more ammunition to those who gleefully want the sport banned and are not even having to do any hard work because the BHA is doing it all for them.
The BHA still have a chance to arrest this slide into oblivion but I fear that entirely too many of the wrong people are steering the good ship straight into the iceberg, which everyone else (including Stevie Wonder) can see as clear as day but they are seemingly blind, deaf and dumb to.
I don’t have strong views either way about the whip but it’s unfair and incorrect to say that only “animal rights extremists” have welfare concerns. As racing supporters we regularly have discussions about welfare issues (including the whip) on this forum. Problem as I see it is that racing authorities are (generally) out of touch with the wider population. I don’t think that most people can even tell if the whip is used or waved so the whole “number of strikes” rule is pointless. Meanwhile jockeys continuing to drive exhausted beaten horses go unpunished, horses too unsound to even complete their 2yo careers are retired to stud and the question of racehorse fate after racing is barely addressed.
Squeamish CAS? Could that be any more patronising? There’s a difference between being ‘squeamish’ and not liking to see an animal – any animal – hit for what is just entertainment for us, just sport. The horse is almost always already doing it’s best.
And it’s certainly not just animal extremists that think it’s wrong, it’s also ordinary people, in and out of equine sport.
Like it or not, there’s a lot wrong with racing and defending the indefensible won’t help in the long run.
“The horse is almost always already doing it’s best.”
“Almost” is doing the heavy lifting in that sentence. We all know lots of horses are not.
Yes, there are things wrong with racing. I agree with Tonge about the issues in the breeding industry. The weakening of the thoroughbred through breeding for speed and over watering ground is a very serious issue.
It is not my intention to patronise anyone and I genuinely apologise if that is how it came across. But I do not think it is unreasonable to ask how someone can watch racing if they find the use of the whip so objectionable. With the exception of the apprentice hands and heels races, the whip will be used in every race.
This is why the airbrushing out of the whip from the Cheltenham publicity is so dishonest. Unless Galopin Des Champs wins the Gold Cup on the bridle, the likelihood is that whichever horse wins the race is going to get at least a strike or two from the whip.
This ‘we help the horse do his best, or, ‘it’s not unreasonable for punters to want a horse to do its best’. Intentionally or not, that is doublespeak for, ‘I want the horse I own/I’ve backed to win using all legal assets available’
A horse who only responds to the whip, is already giving what it is willing to give. Some give their all and would do without a whip – Many Clouds a classic example. If a horse is running as fast as it wants to, no matter the reason, then whip use is coercive/punishing. One of the benefits of banning is getting the most willing horses’ genes into the bloodline.
If a whip is acceptable to get a horse to do its best, why aren’t spurs, buzzers etc?
Most racehorses are bred to be better then they turn out to be.
The reasons why they aren’t are various: some simply didn’t inherit the right genes, others have the ability but have physical issues, and a fair few develop their own ideas about the game, the overriding “idea” being they cba.
A lot of failed, ungenuine, Flat horses end up over Jumps, where they bump into stores bred for jumping, and some of these along with failed ungenuine stores end up Pointing.
The lower you go in grade, the more likely you are to get “squiggle” or even “double squiggle” horses.
I’ve seen finishes where both horses involved weren’t so much unwilling to get on top as both actively trying to pull themselves up!
Some run in snatches too – I remember one of Peter Easterby’s called Pulse Rate who used to come on and off the bridle, be getting reminders a circuit out, yet run on under christ knows how many “reminders” to win races.
Abolish the whip and it’s the end of winning opportunities for such horses, but I’d argue none of them was ever going to stud anyway, and I have my doubts if abolishing the whip would improve the overall genuineness of the breed as “squiggle” horses seldom make it to stud anyway.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"“If a whip is acceptable to get a horse to do its best, why aren’t spurs, buzzers etc?”
Don’t you think some training yards might use them if the whip is banned?
As for spurs, I remember when they could be used. I don’t think they should be. But even today, you still hear jockeys interviewed after the race talking about “giving him a kick in the belly”. Should that be banned too?
I object to the way the whip is used – too much, too hard, in the wrong place, hitting a horse when it’s a long way clear and not going to be caught, hitting a horse when it’s a long way out of contention and isn’t going to get any nearer and hitting a horse as a punishment because it’s made a mistake (the ‘reminder’). Which I think is probably jockey panic to a degree.
I think most horses are doing their best because I think a lot of horses don’t necessarily realise they’re meant to get over a line they can’t see, first. Maybe they do, but I think not all racehorses want to be racehorses – they weren’t asked. And they’re not all Kauto Star or one of the other exceptional ones.
I work in an office of over 100 people – a handful of us are into racing, a couple into show jumping, eventing etc. The bulk of the rest of them think it’s cruel. When you question them as to why there’s not a lot of fact or logic to their arguments. It’s almost all perception. These are the same people who enter the sweepstake for the National then give me grief (like it’s somehow my fault) if a horse is killed in it.
But these people are in the majority countrywide and can and will influence what happens to racing, like it or not. Seeing whip use or media reports about what happens to horses after racing, matters. People relying on the industry, and that’s what it is, don’t come into their radar. Because it’s not right that animals are ill treated for ‘entertainment’ and that’s how a lot of people ‘in the street’ see it. Whether you, I or anyone else agrees or not.
I agree with most of your first paragraph, Bonanza. I do not like seeing the whip used in those circumstances either.
The only point on which I slightly disagree is the “reminder” after a mistake. Another such mistake might have the potential to break both horse and jockey’s necks. Is it that unreasonable to use the whip in those circumstances if it does act as an aid to concentration?
But when used correctly, I genuinely believe the whip is not a welfare issue. Racing’s authorities should at least make an effort to explain about it – not airbrush it out.
“These are the same people who enter the sweepstake for the National then give me grief (like it’s somehow my fault) if a horse is killed in it.”
Tell me about it! I often had to put Grand National bets on for my grandmother who then refused to watch the race because she thought it was cruel! She still accepted the money if she won.
In those circumstances a horse has just made a mistake, sometimes the jockey has made a mistake. I don’t see how hitting the horse ensures it remembers not to make that mistake again, particularly when it’s probably had a fright or shock because of said mistake. I think the ‘reminder’ comes across as punishment, which is exactly how my sister, who doesn’t watch racing, she just came into my house when it was on, immediately saw it.
But regardless, when racing has a governing body which is so totally inept, you feel there’s not a lot of hope.
“The only point on which I slightly disagree is the “reminder” after a mistake. Another such mistake might have the potential to break both horse and jockey’s necks. Is it that unreasonable to use the whip in those circumstances if it does act as an aid to concentration?”
To concentrate on what? Horses know no better than other animals why, out of the blue, someone hits them. I’ve seen horses given that ‘wakener’ 4 or 5 paces after landing after ‘their’ mistake. If they could talk, their first words after that would surely be, ‘What was that for?’ Was it for the last stride I just took, was it for the head turn I had to do to help regain balance, was it for landing in some wrong area of ground, was it for me hitting the fence after you gave me the wrong signals on the way in?
My comment to this Steeplechasing is context.
“A 2020 study showed that horses’ skin is just as sensitive as humans’ by comparing skin samples under the microscope and exploring any differences in their skin structure and nerve supply. It found the outer layer of horses’ skin is no thicker (or more protective) than in humans.”
Three weeks ago while playing football, I received a hard knock on my knee from a challenge. I felt the contact, but didn’t think too much about it and carried on with the game.
The knock must have been substantial enough, because I still have the faint remanence of bruising.
My point is, that the kick happened during a game when the adrenalin was flowing and I felt very little. Had somebody come up to me while I was standing in the street and delivered exactly the same kick, I’m sure the pain would be considerably more.
Wouldn’t that be the same for the whip on 1200lb racehorse racing to the line, regardless of skin structure and nerve supply?
Is the issue actually horse welfare, or perceived horse welfare?
In my view, CAS is absolutely correct with regard to the anti-racing strategy and it should be resolutely challenged based on fact, not perception.
‘In my view, CAS is absolutely correct with regard to the anti-racing strategy and it should be resolutely challenged based on fact, not perception.’
And therein lies the problem. You can throw as many facts at people as you want but actually getting them to come round to your way of thinking is difficult, especially when the being in question can’t talk to us about it. What they see is a horse being hit with a stick for our entertainment. Good luck convincing them that it doesn’t hurt.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.