- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There’s a simple common sense answer to this – allow the result to stand for betting purposes, but subsequently disqualify the horse and ban the jockey. Not on the day and not on the decision of the local stewards, but at a proper enquiry conducted after the event to ensure consistency, so far as that is possible.
For the owners, it’s the Group 1 success and the prize money (mainly the first for Coolmore of course), not the betting. So you deprive them of the benefits of the victory and they go to the runner-up.
There is of course a precedent for this, as it’s exactly what happens when the winner fails a drug test – or indeed when a result is changed on appeal weeks after the event.
There could also be an argument that at the lower levels of the sport, the betting would be the priority for connections. But so long as most bookmakers pay double result, disqualification before the weigh in for whip offences would be no deterrent. As anyone that has seen jockeys performing deliberate moves to hamper an opponent, safe in the knowledge that first past the post is all that matters, would testify.
There’s only one thing wrong with the whip and that’s the word, which has a meaning far removed from the reality of the instrument used by jockeys. But I suppose it would bring the sport into disrepute if the rules referred to excessive use of the feather duster!
Yes, that did cross my mind AP. Although, as a punter, if I’d had a hefty bet on a horse beaten a neck by one whose jockey had clearly over-used the whip and been referred, surely destined to lose the race subsequently, I’d be pretty unhappy. It might,for argument’s sake, even out in the end if I was to be the beneficiary on some other occasion but it’d still be unpopular with punters I reckon.
It’s a tricky one that’s for sure.
Corm , lets have a face to face discussion
I think your agenda is wrong , am happy to discuss on a personal basis
No intention to offend , just strongly held views completely opposite to yours …its not the end of the world
Forum is lively at best of times , but the whip issue is way too emotive and divisive , perhaps not the wisest move to resurrect
I don’t see a problem with whip use at all, in fact when ATR this morning put up the number of whip bans at Royal Ascot, I was taken aback that there were so few.
The jockeys who rode there should be highly commended for doing such a great job within the whip rules the vast majority of the time, in such a pressure situation.
Like most sports rules are occasionally broken but see no good reason why the race should be lost. Does the football team lose the match if there players break the rules? No they don’t and neither should the horse lose the race.
Think the problem here is with the people who actually perceive there to be a major problem with the current situation, most of them seem to have infiltrated this forum. There isn’t a major problem and I fail to see what they keep whining about.
Divisive indeed Ricky – but that shouldn’t preclude discussion so long as we treat the opposing views with respect, even if we disagree.
The thread was intended not to call for a ban, but to highlight the problem with the current rule.
While I would welcome a ban, from a welfare angle it is no longer the issue it was and I think the restrictions on usage plus changes to its design have, by and large, had the desired effect. For me it is still a massive problem as far as the PR of the sport goes, as we go into the future it’s hard to imagine that the world isn’t going to become increasingly opposed to the sight of animals being hit for the sake of sport and racing should be proactive in meeting that challenge before it is forced to.Regarding the current rule, Alan’s idea above is one way of addressing things. As is the idea of increasing jockey’s penalties in line with the prize value to avoid the situation where it is more profitable and attractive to disobey rather than obey the rules.
Yeats well said
in fact brilliantly put
Going forward racing will do well to attract more supporters , the perception of the whip in my humble opinion wont be a deterrent to making that happen
Which is where we differ Corm and I …but thats good , after all its a forum
ps
In the Far East , where horse racing is growing , betting is enormous , the industry is thriving ….I dont hear anybody calling for a whip ban as a gateway to the future for continued success
No Sirreeee
Just a figment of a few guys whom post on this forum
Its laughable really …but hey you have to respect the views of others ….
imo
ps
In the Far East , where horse racing is growing , betting is enormous , the industry is thriving ….I dont hear anybody calling for a whip ban as a gateway to the future for continued success
The only thing that’s laughable is that you believe that you can speak for an entire continent. I’m pretty certain that there are some anti-whip opinions available in all racing countries; there’s certainly a lot of talk about it in Mauritius, as I know from first-hand experience.
As you well know Ricky, I’m not saying that further whip restrictions would be an instant gateway to racing attracting hordes of new followers. But I am saying it’s a barrier. The world is changing and many things that used to be accepted are no longer deemed that. And racing needs to remove barriers, not cling to unnecessary ones.
However I concede that the significance of it (the whip) as a ‘turn-off’ to potential recruits to the sport is unknown. Maybe, following the rule changes, it will never become the issue I think it is, or has the potential to develop into.
And I repeat I didn’t start this thread (if you look back on it) as a whip-ban platform. I started it to debate the ruling and penalties regarding mis-use under current rules.
Yeah Fair enough Corm , agree the rule as it stands is open to some adjustment …the 3000 and 7 day ban will be viewed as harsh though by other racing areas , ie France and Ireland
accept your point about the thread , all good
Ricky
Will someone please tell me what is wrong with the US approach.You cheat you get beat!
Will someone please tell me what is wrong with the US approach.You cheat you get beat!
Take a look at how Espinoza abused California Chrome up the home straight of the Belmont and you’ll realise what is "wrong with the US approach" Andyod.
Value Is Everythingagree Ginger , its way too much over there , we need a balance between that and what we have here , somewhere in between , Ireland is possibly a good example
But you get my drift …..the whip in america , is a real whip , and boy do they use it …. strangely enough nobody is asking for it to be banned ,,,not like the feather duster we have here
Imo
So excessive use of the whip should be gotten rid of here in Europe but it is a problem when others are allowed to ride without restraint? Exactly what is your problem with the whip?Too much or not enough? We should be dealing with the jockeys here in England rather than denigrating those overseas.
Following a short exchange of comments (friendly!) on twitter I said to Kevin Blake I’d respond a bit more fully than twitter’s 100+ characters allows. So here it is.
Kevin wrote an article in The Irish Field suggesting that British racing’s whip rules are wrong. Although I agree with some of his comments and views it’ll be no surprise to most of you that I am at odds with a lot of it.
Here’s a link to the article http://www.theirishfield.ie/kevin-blake-british-whip-rules-are-wrong-172007/
Below I’ll start dissecting it.
More often than not, what has rekindled the discussion has been the breaking of the rules by the winning rider in a high-profile race, leading to accusations that jockeys still ride to ‘win at all costs’ on the big days. Unfortunately this has often led to attention being diverted from the horses and their performances on the most high-profile of stages.
Jockey’s DO ride to win at all costs on occasion, not only in high-profile races, although he is right, that is what usually rekindles debate. It is not an ‘accusation’, it is a fact that they deliberately break the rules in order to try to win.
It is not unfortunate that this had led to diverting attention from the horse. It is extremely fortunate for the sake of the horse and his fellows as it ensures that the rules are being applied and that horses are being protected from unscrupulous riders. It is also erroneous thinking to laud the performance of a horse which has won after being ridden contrary to the rules, particularly if its chief rival has been ridden within the rules. You are, in effect, rewarding rule-breaking and not necessarily rewarding the ‘better horse’.
It also worries me that there seems to be an increasing number of people who believe that the only effective deterrent is to disqualify horses whose riders have broken the whip rules.
This view may seem logical and fair,
It does doesn’t it…but..
.
but think about the ramifications of introducing such a rule. Imagine how damaging it would be for the sport if the first and/or second home in the Aintree Grand National were disqualified due to their riders breaking the whip rules? It would be horrendous. Such a rule would only serve to make a rod for horse racing to be beaten with, not to mention souring owners, trainers and the betting public, who would undoubtedly feel aggrieved for being robbed of victory for no other reason than their rider tried too hard.
How damaging is it when racing’s biggest audience see horses whipped when exhausted at the end of a marathon such as the Grand National? The vast majority of the ‘non-racing public’ (i.e. the potential racing public) HATE seeing horses whipped. And I would guess a fair percentage of the current racing public feel the same way when the whip is used in a way that breaches the rules.
Then, not only to see them whipped but then to learn that although the rider broke the rules that are in place to limit the number of strikes the owner, trainer and jockey will still keep the prize? Despite cheating? Gaining unfair advantage?
What about the betting public who back a runner-up beaten by a horse who’s had some ‘extra’ cracks? Won’t they feel aggrieved? I’d be furious. And owners and trainers who would lose out if horses were dq’d – well they’d have only one person to blame, the jockey who broke the rules on their horse.
Finally on this point – they wouldn’t be ‘robbed of victory for no other reason than their rider tried too hard’ – they’d have been robbed of victory because their rider had BROKEN THE RULES AND GAINED AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER HIS RIVALS!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.