- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Cases of a horse being marked by a whip have been exceptionally rare since the new style of whip was introduced.
Everything I’ve read suggests that the new style of whip is ‘safer’ and that is to be applauded. But I don’t think you can state it is cause/effect related to whip design as you could also equally argue that cases of a horse being marked by a whip have been exceptionally rare since the new rules were introduced’
On that topic – I’m not sure what the stats look like in Ireland where the whip rules are different. Are horses routinely examined and are their any stats on whip markings there?
Anyone who has ridden or dealt with thoroughbred horses knows that it is an absolutely necessary piece of equipment to safely control and get the best from the vast majority of animals.
Agree re- safety and agree it should be carried for that purpose.
The tiny number of racing jurisdictions that bowed to pressure from uninformed public opinion and banned whips have experienced a wide array of unintended consequences, the most concerning being unethical training methods designed to heighten the flight instinct of horses in the absence of a whip as well as the rise to prominence of free-going tearaway horses that would not prosper in normal circumstances, which will have long-term negative ramifications for the thoroughbred breed in those non-whip jurisdictions.
Evidence required for those three claims I think. And is hitting a horse ethical in the first place? That is a moot point.
Of course, it is tricky from a perception perspective to get this truth across to a sceptical public that instinctively associate the term “whip” with pain and punishment. It also doesn’t help when a racing personality with such a mainstream presence as John McCririck continues to loudly broadcast his over-the-top and ill-informed personal opinions on whip use, referring to it as “barbaric” and comparing it to the beating of household pets and domestic abuse.
By changing the whip rules as they did, British racing essentially gave the high-profile impression that the whip is indeed a welfare issue and its use needed to be curtailed. This only reinforced the views of the innocently ignorant and, even more worryingly, the out-and-out enemies of racing who are actively campaigning to damage the sport and have it banned outright. Giving ground to these people is a massive mistake, as supporters of National Hunt racing in Australia found out when their efforts to appease the unappeasable eventually led to the sport being banned entirely for a brief period.
McCririck is entitled to his view and to loudly proclaim and publicise it, just as those who have the opposite view are. That first paragraph smacks of what I would recognise as an under-current that ‘racing personalities’ or anyone involved in racing should not criticise aspects of the sport openly. It is off-topic but we need more John McCriricks (well, you know what I mean!) and a lot less of those who stay quiet to stay ‘in’ (not suggesting Kevin Blake is one of those btw).
I also think McCririck is right to use the comparison with beating of pets. What racing condones, lets get it straight and factual, is the hitting of animals, in a very forceful manner, to ensure victory for prize money and kudos/glory. Would you be edified to see animals hit in any other circumstance? It’s hard to think of any, maybe a cow given a tap with a stick at herding time? Or if one was attacking you? Not much else. But in racing it happens every day, virtually every race, we hit animals to get them to ‘do what we want’. That is a fact, no escaping it and JMac is right to put it in those terms.
I know, of course, that there is the matter of intent. Beating a pet suggests a cruel mindset and I would wholeheartedly conceded that cruelty is not what drives racing to condone whip use.
And nothing wrong with ‘giving ground’ when it is right and fair to give ground. Should racing refuse to change just because it might give the impression that it is giving ground? Of course not. You give ground when it is right, you stand firm when it is right.
Not only are the British rules wrong in terms of the impression they give, their structure is very poor. Having a set number of whip strikes that trigger an enquiry (seven on the flat, eight over jumps), regardless of the distance of the race, is just plain silly. Allowing the same threshold of strikes for a five-furlong sprint as for a two-mile staying race is just not logical. Furthermore, there is a massive variety in the style, force and intention of whip strikes and setting a fixed number of permitted strikes as a trigger point only encourages riders to hit their mounts even harder than they would otherwise.
I agree that there should be a scale, with preferably fewer strikes in longer races where horses are likely to be more tired and more prone to errors and injury.
Style is covered in the rules. Force, you cannot measure so its pointless to try to legislate for.
I would agree that limiting strike count encourages harder hitting, one of the many reasons I favour a total ban.
The message should be put across loud and clear that the whip is not a welfare issue, but that there is a definition of what constitutes appropriate use.
And what, in very precise terms, would that definition be?
Personally, I have no great concern for how many times a rider uses his whip in a race as long as it is applied to the correct area of the horse with appropriate action/force and the horse is given adequate time to respond in between strikes.
What is appropriate ‘action’ – there are a wide variety of styles in use- and how on earth would you ‘measure’ force? A subjective assessment based on ‘how hard a hit’ it looked?
What would you define as adequate time, again, precisely? And how do you arrive at that figure?
it is very rare that comment is made about what is considered inappropriate whip use in an Irish race.
From memory (and it’s too late to check tonight) I think there have been several threads or posts commenting on whip use in Irish races on this very forum in relatively recent times – I’ll check.
the British racing authorities would do well to take a leaf out of the Irish book on the whip issue before more damage is done to the reputation of British racing because of their ill-advised whip rules.
What damage (quantifiably or evidentially) has been done to the reputation of British racing by the whip rules and how does that damage manifest itself?
Kevin makes some interesting points but I’m not sure what the structure of his argument actually is.
The whip rules are wrong? I’m not sure there’s any evidence for that laid out in the piece at all.
However, he is of course right, they are wrong.
What are they designed to do? They are designed to protect the horse AND to protect the image of racing.
I’d argue that in their current form they perhaps do the former – it is unarguable that whip markings have drastically declined and that is to be applauded, whether by the softer whip or the ‘new’ rules or a combination. But the image of racing, it’s all-important image which will dictate its future to an immeasurable degree, suffers not because rule-breaking riders are disqualified from races they’ve won unfairly and not because somehow unless we whip the horses to the limit we won’t see ‘the best’ of them.
No, races would still have winners/losers, great horsemanship and great, willing horses without a whip.
What hurts the image of racing to the non-racing person, the racing person of the future, most of all is seeing whips being used on horses.
More and more I hear people complain about horses being hit in racing. You could argue that it is because we are becoming a softer society, or whatever, but it is there, a definite moving of public opinion against the hitting of horses for prizes, glory and betting. Racing can fight against that (by educating on why it is not a welfare issue any more) but I don’t believe it’ll win that fight in the end, I don’t believe there is a hope of winning that fight. Or it can be proactive and rid the sport of the great anachronism that is the ‘stick’.
We don’t need more lenient rules, we need tougher rules and we need tougher penalties when those rules are broken.
In fifty or a hundred years people will look at whips in the racing museum with the same eyes we now view spurs and the like.
And they’ll read the pro-whip arguments from these times in disbelief.
Jeez – look what I found –
"There will be a sting in the tail for Davy Condon, I reckon he hit Bayan 16 times, but I reckon he’ll take his punishment with a wry smile!"
A wry smile indeed…
You’re bang on David, he’s got it wrong and as is often the case approaches the argument from the wrong angle.
It’s a rules/cheating/integrity issue, whether the limit is 1 strike, 10, 50. If the limit is 50 it ALSO becomes a welfare/marketing issue, but it’s two arguments – the right limit to improve the popularity of the sport AND how to enforce the rules whatever they are and prevent cheating.
And the same old argument "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". Yes it would, and it would NOT HAPPEN. Imagine the stupidity of a rider knowingly throwing away the Grand National!
To impose draconian punishment, I think you’d need to remove the ‘counting’ aspect for jockeys.
How about ‘When the last jump has been negotiated or, in flat racing, the two furlong pole passed, the whip must not be used behind the girth.’
I don’t think commentators, pundits etc do much favour with their use of language.
Would have thought some PR guru would have drove home the idea using terms such as hit, smack, strike etc don’t really bode well for public perception.
Ok Corm , you can calm down now
Its a good job you run this gaff , otherwise some folk might think your views are a bit OTT
Crikey mention whip and Corm wakes up
Anyways ….prepare for more of same at Cheltenham …
Big races and big bans and fines will continue , until the jockeys walk out in protest ,,,then there will ber another rule change
Rest assured disqualification of horse and rider will not be on the agenda
However I am in agreement the present set up is plainly not working
but I dont know the fix ,,,,then again thats what the BHA and the PJA are paid to sort out
Let them do it FFS
You’re bang on David, he’s got it wrong and as is often the case approaches the argument from the wrong angle.
It’s a rules/cheating/integrity issue, whether the limit is 1 strike, 10, 50. If the limit is 50 it ALSO becomes a welfare/marketing issue, but it’s two arguments – the right limit to improve the popularity of the sport AND how to enforce the rules whatever they are and prevent cheating.
And the same old argument "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". Yes it would, and it would NOT HAPPEN. Imagine the stupidity of a rider knowingly throwing away the Grand National!
A whip limit will not improve the popularity of the sport, which is very popular by the way, did you not hear about all the tracks heaving over Christmas and the New Year? The same applies throughout the summer, it’s the second most popular spectator sport in the country.
There is no cheating in the game, connections of horses beaten by a jockey breaking the whip rules rarely if ever complain, which is as it should be.
How would a jockey know if he was throwing away a Grand National? Aidan Coleman hit Emperor’s Choice 14 times when winning the Welsh National yet received no whip ban. Was he psychic? Would he have received no whip ban under every set of stewards in the country?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.