Home › Forums › Horse Racing › Whipping horses – time to do away with it?
- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by Steeplechasing.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 21, 2014 at 13:46 #483549
Ok, how do I go about that?
You don’t, BHA/Stewards do.
Value Is EverythingJune 21, 2014 at 14:20 #483553I
nteresting to read some of the previous threads again, if only to remind me how objectionable Pinza was.
#
This is a cowardly post ….Pinza has been banned for ages , to make a comment like this show you in your true colours…the man cannot reply , utter rank bad form SirBanning horses for whip rule breaches …is walter mitty material , will you guys please get a grip !!!!
S
ee what you started Corm ….the only go
od thing is your wish will never , ever . be granted
imo
June 21, 2014 at 14:42 #483554Just imagine a Derby winner winning by 3 lengths easing up; yet because he needed to be encouraged early on – disqualified for being encouraged 1 tap over the limit.
See: I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
If all jockeys, owners, trainers, journalists, punters and racegoers knew that you WILL get disqualified if you hit your horse more than the agreed number of times, there can’t be any argument. In your scenario, the horse clearly shouldn’t have been a Derby winner, anyway, as he’s too bloody lazy and needs a lot of early cajoling to rouse his interest. Just geld him and send him hurdling.
Oh dear,someones lost the plot completely!
June 21, 2014 at 17:38 #483563How many people commenting on here actually ride or have ridden horses, it would be interesting to know?
I think banning the whip on the flat would be a good move, but jockeys would have to lengthen their irons and use their legs like other horse riders do. I did notice on my most recent visit to Newmarket that most of the work riders rode with long leathers like regular horse riders. If this was adopted (longer but not long like dressage or hacking) then the whip could be consigned to history.
It would also make racing more acceptable to a wider group of people. No one should want to see a game horse being thrashed at the end of a race.June 21, 2014 at 17:52 #483565Ironically, the more responsive a horse is to the whip, the more sympathetic the view of the stewards on overuse.
June 21, 2014 at 20:42 #483591Stewards already change results if a rider does something like swerve in front of his rival on the run in. They have to decide if the horse would have won without the interference.
This sort of decisions made in Stewards Enquiries fairly often, and in the main the positions remain unchanged.
The same logic should apply to whip misuse.
If the horse has won 10 lengths going away then the rider gets a ban, if the horse has only won because of whip abuse then reverse the result.
June 22, 2014 at 07:32 #483627Oh dear,someones lost the plot completely!
If TAPK disagrees with me, you
know
that I’m right.
June 22, 2014 at 07:53 #483629Stewards already change results if a rider does something like swerve in front of his rival on the run in. They have to decide if the horse would have won without the interference.
This sort of decisions made in Stewards Enquiries fairly often, and in the main the positions remain unchanged.
The same logic should apply to whip misuse.
If the horse has won 10 lengths going away then the rider gets a ban, if the horse has only won because of whip abuse then reverse the result.
What an excellent point. It would in effect bring the overuse of the whip into the remit of a Stewards Enquiry.
I’ve not heard a better suggestion.
Mike
June 22, 2014 at 08:08 #483630Personally I would like a total ban of the whip, but whether this is the correct thing to do is another matter. I do not have to or have any intention of riding a horse at 4mph let alone 40. So I can understand why those in the business don’t as it is perhaps a way of controlling the horse.
So if the whip is here to stay, I would not want any reversals of results for over-excessive whip use, but to deter the jockeys would give much stiffer penalties.
June 22, 2014 at 09:11 #483637Ironically, the more responsive a horse is to the whip, the more sympathetic the view of the stewards on overuse.
Evidence? So Leading Light was totally unresponsive to the whip?
June 22, 2014 at 09:57 #483645Stewards already change results if a rider does something like swerve in front of his rival on the run in. They have to decide if the horse would have won without the interference.
This sort of decisions made in Stewards Enquiries fairly often, and in the main the positions remain unchanged.
The same logic should apply to whip misuse.
If the horse has won 10 lengths going away then the rider gets a ban, if the horse has only won because of whip abuse then reverse the result.
What an excellent point. It would in effect bring the overuse of the whip into the remit of a Stewards Enquiry.
I’ve not heard a better suggestion.
Mike
I’m sure stewards would be flattered by your confidence in them adjudicating over such an issue and getting it right. Unfortunately I fear this would not be shared by lots of punters and racing people.
Some stewards have trouble deciphering horses running in straight lines (Stratford ones) let alone deciding to what effect whip use has had on the result of a race.
Horse racing is about who gets to the winning post first, the less stewards decide the better.
As Ricky Lake says, It will never happen, so dream on. Even the BHA aren’t that stupid.
June 22, 2014 at 10:36 #483651I’m sure stewards would be flattered by your confidence in them adjudicating over such an issue and getting it right. Unfortunately I fear this would not be shared by lots of punters and racing people.
I sort of agree Eddie. But it’s the
threat
that’s important. You
can
lose the race, you
can
be disqualified (and yes, you can be banned as well).
It would only need one high-profile race to be lost and there would be a predictable storm of protest about ‘bloody stewards’ and racing making a fool of itself etc etc.
But I tell you what – I doubt if it would happen again. And if it did, you’d find the blame soon moved from the supposedly ‘idiot’ stewards to the real culprit in the saddle. It would create a culture of whip use within the rules. And it would do it quickly.
Corm is right. What’s the point in having a rule that’s allows cheating with no effective sanction, particularly in big races? The threat of losing the race has to be there.
Or we ban the use of the whip altogether..!
Mike
June 22, 2014 at 11:14 #483656It would only need one high-profile race to be lost and there would be a predictable storm of protest about ‘bloody stewards’ and racing making a fool of itself etc etc.
But I tell you what – I doubt if it would happen again. And if it did, you’d find the blame soon moved from the supposedly ‘idiot’ stewards to the real culprit in the saddle. It would create a culture of whip use within the rules. And it would do it quickly.
Corm is right. What’s the point in having a rule that’s allows cheating with no effective sanction, particularly in big races? The threat of losing the race has to be there.
Or we ban the use of the whip altogether..!
This is absolute nonsense , am massively surprised at the post
In the real world , racing is funded out of punters betting , racing is losing punters each year to other forms of sports
For the love of everything that’s holy , do you really think this would help ???….it would lose even more customers to racing , for certain
as for banning the whip altogether , thats pure dreams
Can we please keep it real ….Corm is wrong , dead wrong , and we should keep reminding him of that each time he tries to float another thread to have the whip banned
IMO
June 22, 2014 at 12:35 #483663But I tell you what – I doubt if it would happen again. And if it did, you’d find the blame soon moved from the supposedly ‘idiot’ stewards to the real culprit in the saddle. It would create a culture of whip use within the rules. And it would do it quickly.
Exactly – but there is zero appetite for throwing ‘winners’ out so the answer lies in your second suggestion Mike. Ban the blessed instrument. Allow them to carry for safety only (Then watch how quickly they dispense with it for that purpose, on the flat anyway, btw IMO).
June 22, 2014 at 14:27 #483673Ironically, the more responsive a horse is to the whip, the more sympathetic the view of the stewards on overuse.
Evidence? So Leading Light was totally unresponsive to the whip?
I’m not sure what you’re seeking evidence for, Eddie. I’m talking about the whip rules in general:
When examining cases of Excessive Frequency, the Stewards will consider all the relevant factors such as:
Whether the number of hits was reasonable and necessary over the distance they were given, taking into account the horse’s experience;
Whether the horse was continuing to respondThe irony, imo, is that stewards take a more lenient view of whip use so long as the horse is responding. A horse who is responding is gaining ground on its rivals therefore every stroke puts those rivals at a further disadvantage.
Some horses give their all without being whipped. Some don’t. The latter category therefore has an advantage when even one stroke is administered. Because the horse continues responding, even beyond the legal limit, the stewards take a more merciful view of ‘misuse’…kind of upside down thinking imo.
June 22, 2014 at 14:28 #483674E
xactly – but there is zero appetite for throwing ‘winners’ out so the answer lies in your second suggestion Mike. Ban the blessed instrument. Allow them to carry for safety only (Then watch how quickly they dispense with it for that purpose, on the flat anyway, btw IMO).
There you go chief , you have managed it ….have the whip banned , your agenda all along
Sad and delusional
nuff said
imo
June 22, 2014 at 14:45 #483679Not an
‘agenda all along’
Ricky, however you try to contrive it. Although it is a view I’ve long held and argued for.
Happens to be my view, an opinion. I’m entitled to that. And I’m also entitled to express it.
And I’m not sure what’s ‘sad’ or even ‘delusional’ about it, although I appreciate you’ve chosen those words to be as confrontational and antagonistic as possible rather than them being representative of how you view my opinion.
Perhaps you could explain why banning the whip altogether is ‘pure dreams’ – and if you could do it in in ‘pure logical’ terms without the personal barbs that’d be appreciated my friend.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.