- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Would not have won without it.
I think the opinion of "he would not have won without it" is wrong.
Sure, without any whip use, he would not have won. But what is the evidence to suggest he would not have won with just 10 "encouragements"?I am not in favour of banning the whip either.
The racing whip is cushioned, used correctly it does not do any damage. Many in the anti camp might be comparing themselves being whipped. Horses have a thicker skin than we do, it is nowhere near the same.As Fist rightly says, horses like Tidal Bay would not be worth keeping in training. There’d be a smaller group of horses able to win races, as they have to be 100% genuine. A horse who idles in front would need to be put in front on the line: and even then may well say "No". Even horses like Big Buck’s would be far more inconsistent. Nowadays better than he used to be, but a couple of years ago, he hit a flat spot during a race and sometimes idled quite badly. If there were no correction method, he might have gone the wrong way temperament-wise. We’d lose a lot of horses careers like Big Buck’s.
Pace would be far more important, in a slowly run race, it would be far more difficult to make ground. Front runners would have a big advantage.Without a whip, trainers would need to make sure a troublesome horse does what they want on the racecourse, possibly by mistreating it at home.
Where would the line be drawn if jockeys were allowed to use it "for correction purposes" alone? Hands And Heels races are fine, but they are not worth much money. Little incentive to bend or break the rules.
If in the Derby a horse came up the straight on the outer: What is to stop a jockey from allowing the horse to drift down the camber? Allowing him to be whipped for "correction purposes" and getting an unfair advantage. A horse who keeps straight being unable to be "encouraged".
What happens if the first five in the Derby all get "encouragement", and the need in each case is borderline?
We’d have riots.Racing would be a totally different sport.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Many thoughtful points in the above, Ginger – and I’d have thought (in my innocence) little with which to argue.
I rather think that The Giant Bolster would not have got back into the race without the vigorous persuasion he received. We might argue on the precise number of slaps needed (that’s the trouble with the arbitrary arithmetic of the rule) but a good deal more than five for sure.
That aside, I’ve noticed a silence on my question as to the assumed moral superiority of
hands and heels
(kicking a horse repeatedly in the belly) to
the whip
(thrashing it with a stick). What does the scientific evidence have to say?
- Total Posts 17716
What these computer nerds fail to realise and you can ask any jockey who will tell you the same thing…If they don’t go for 1 they won’t go for 21.
Most jockeys ridng live by that rule and won’t repeatedly hit a horse who is not reacting to their urges.
Looking at it scientifically some do react because they understand a smack on the ass means wake up ya bloody big lump of meat we got a race to win.
- Total Posts 17716
One of the unrecognised points in the stupid survey was that the whip is used for different things at different points of the race. I’ve often seen fine horsemen such as McCoy and Walsh administering a few cracks early on (very much, I’m sure, with the subtext provided above by Fist) and those don’t seem to count towards the number of strokes given at "the business end".
Not all Greene’s strokes were at "the business end" either. Does not the flexibility built into the current system allow Stewards to decide when "persuasion to race" finishes and "the business end" begins? So where does that leave the rule?
- Total Posts 17716
Surely we have to say stuff the rule book to a certain degree and allow Stewards to use their own judgement.
We don’t want to get into a situation where the guy who was a fraction over the limit was hit by a guy drunk as skunk but both lost their driving licence and livelyhood….I hope Stewards never get to the stage where they can’t use their own discretion as no two situations are ver the same.
Flogging a beaten horse and hitting one that’s running for it just simply isn’t the same.
Greg Wood writes about the study.
- Total Posts 17716
Good to see that Mr Wood apparently read the thread here – his comments concerning the varied inadequacies of the "research" parameters mirror those of several of our own sages. Perhaps he’s been masquerading as
shellsuitrich
…
Good to see that Mr Wood apparently read the thread here – his comments concerning the varied inadequacies of the "research" parameters mirror those of several of our own sages. Perhaps he’s been masquerading as shellsuitrich…
Damned with faint praise there, Mr Wood.
Pity Greg Wood did not quote from the actual study. It makes his article all a bit pointless. All the vets have claimed from their work is: "This increased whip use was not associated with significant variation in velocity as a predictor of superior placing at the finish".
The non-scientific Greg Wood gives without any evidence his opinion for what it is worth as : "I suspect the result of a whipless race would indeed be just the same. But in some, without any doubt, it would not, because some horses will not keep running on without it. To suggest otherwise on the basis of five low-grade races is not just unscientific, it is plain silly."
No one has suggested that Greg – read the article.The article clearly states:
"Limitations to this study should be noted. Races were selected on the basis that they fulfilled a number of predetermined criteria and so were not chosen at random. To reduce variability, the study was restricted to one racetrack, and to narrow ranges of race distance, track conditions and penetrometer readings. Results of similar investigation in other racing circumstances, and in races with different prize money, might differ. However, before conducting further studies in other race conditions, it might be more important to further investigate the locomotory responses of racing Thoroughbreds to whipping by jockeys. Is there a locomotory mechanism that could explain a potential causative link between whip use and consequent performance? Such an investigation could consider use of suitable accelerometers and global positioning system (GPS) loggers to study gait and velocities, synchronous with whipping.Certainly, the use of more sensitive timing technologies merits consideration."
"Further studies with on-board sensors of gait characteristics are required to study responses to whipping in individual horses".
Nor did he bother to quote the referenced evidence from USA studies on quarterhorse racing which have found the same effect as University of Sydney vets.
Perhaps some people have no knowledge of statistics and try to prove whatever their point is by harping on about 5 races. They always seem to ignore that the checks were on 48 horses in those races which does not seem such a small number as they selectively quote.
"There were 61 starters in five races, and there were 13 horses ineligible because they did not meet one or more of the criteria for inclusion in the analyses. 47/48 (98%) of horses were whipped in this study, indicating that the overwhelming majority were “in contention”. It is worth noting that no horse in this study was guilty of a breach of R.137(b). This implies that, in the opinion of the stewards, all horses included in this study were ridden in a manner that maximised their opportunity of good performance.
The data from the 48 horses was significant enough to show:
"From the REML analysis of section times the model with a variance changing across sections was significantly better than a constant variance model (P<0.001). The estimates of variance were 0.014 for S3, 0.028 for S2 and 0.113 for S1, representing an 8-fold increase in variance from S3 to S1."Does Greg Wood really think the grade of track or horse makes the slightest difference to the effect investigated? If so he did not give any evidence as to why.
The conclusion drawn by the authors of the study clearly states that whipping horses in the closing stages of a race is a fallacy and futile.
Anyone who watched the 4:50 at Kempton last Thursday evening knows this is
absolute
bollox.
I’m not really qualified to say whether the evidence is sound from a scientific viewpoint but I haven’t heard any of those who think it hasn’t (and it seems that virtually everyone is of that opinion) explain exactly why they think that is the case (in sound scienfitific terms).
http://horses.sportinglife.com/Video/Ra … 12,00.html
Is that scientific enough for you, cormack? The science of eyesight.
Anyone who has ever actually ridden a horse will tell you that they will try sometimes to mess you about. I have known horses that will change their attitude completely and go forward just because you have plucked a stick from the hedge. The application of a stick can have the effect of saying "Don’t mess me about!"
I agree that if there is nothing left in the tank, persistent use should be penalised, but I do not agree that it should be banished.If only for steering it should be retained.
Its use can make all the difference if the ability is there, although a very close eye must be kept on its use when there is no gas left in the tank. This MUST be closely monitored.People experienced with horses can tell the difference.
I agree that hands and heels should be enough for the most brilliant horse with the most brilliant jockey, but there are exceptions which can be enhanced by the use of a whip and I do not agree with banning it entirely.I think that if the whip had no affect then the majority of jockeys would not use them, after all they probably understand the horse more than us spectators. I would also like to believe that most (all hopefully) have an interest in the well being of the horse. As long as improper use of the whip is properly regulated and in the interest of the horse then there shouldn’t be a problem. My biggest problem with whip use is when a horse is clearly going backwards it is getting hit a few times, which almost never leads to the horse going any better. Are the jockeys afraid that they will be suspended for not trying?
However, the point I would like to make is that taking a single scientific study as fact is highly problematic. While a study of this nature may have been done well (not all aren’t and still get published), something like this still has a number of variables that come into play, which if altered can give a completely result. I haven’t read the actual paper but I think the claim is that the race is decided much earlier in the race. Most of us could equally do the same study by tipping who is going to win several furlongs out and getting a similar result. Of course this doesn’t mean to say that the whip is ineffective in some instances.
It’s an even smaller sample than the five races in the report Cav – but I hear you!!
I’ve read both again (the report and Greg Wood’s article) and I think people who have watched a lot of racing would intuitively feel that the limitations outlined by the authors themselves (and reproduced in Robert Gibbs’ excellent post above) were highly significant limitations.
Also, agree wholeheartedly with Robert re-sample size. The study was on 47 individual horses NOT five races. The sample size was 47 and the statistical models used take sample size into account.
But the key quote in the whole report is as follows –
The results in this study do not support a conclusion that whipping cannot affect velocity of an individual Thoroughbred racehorse during the final 400 m section of a race.
Again… they (the results) ‘DO NOT support a conclusion that whipping CANNOT effect velocity….’
So, in effect, their conclusion is the OPPOSITE of what has been widely latched onto – which has been, in essence, that the report says whipping doesn’t make horses go faster.
The problem I have with the report (and not the study itself) is the discussion section, which seems muddled and unclear. I think that the authors have perhaps been doffing their respective caps to their funders here, particularly in the final paragraph.
The authors conclude that, under an ethical framework that considers costs paid by horses against benefits accrued by humans [11], these data make whipping tired horses in the name of sport very difficult to justify.
That
all depends on which ethical framework you choose to consider (and they reference one based on a cost/benefit model which, given the vagueness around the actual cost to the horse is questionable at least).
I think it is an interesting study but one that is no more than a conversation starter. I would guess that non-racing experimental studies/experiments on the effect of whipping on racehorses could be carried out under more controlled conditions and be much more useful. Unfortunately they’d be much more expensive to conduct so, I’d guess, are unlikely to happen.
All of which means that this study may very well be the only evidence on the subject and, as such, will be continually pulled from the closet to justify any anti-whip argument.
Which is a shame really, as I think there are more logical arguments on which to base the abolition of the whip. I’m with Greg Wood on that, although Maxilon’s stance on it struck a chord with me – in as much as even though I instinctively feel that using whips is unnecessary, in as far as providing our ‘sport’ is concerned, I do somewhere inside know that it does provide extra excitement, perhaps on some gladiatorial level.
After all, Lester Piggott
is
my favourite ever jockey.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.