- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Excellent work Cormack. I haven’t cared much for this ATR gravy trainer ever since he published a book graciously advising us all how we can follow his example of being successful punters. Like all of the "pro punters" we hear about on the racing channels one always has to ask if they are such successful punters why are they doing shifts on the racing channels?
Kevin Blake is Irish. I seem to recall a certain Cheltenham festival in 1980 when Irish riders, Tommy Ryan (Drumlargan, Sun Alliance Hurdle)) and Joe Byrne (Batista, Triumph Hurdle) both received
three month
bans for what were described at the time as "sickening" examples of whip abuse in extremely testing going. I also recall Ted Walsh also cutting Daring Run in two at the same meeting to finish runner up to Slaney Idol in the Supreme Novices. All three races are on youtube so feel free to see what certain Irish "horsemen" are capable of when left to interpret whip rules for themselves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoC5kM7LAaE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0IL3-CidyA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UhGpFxlbu4
Whilst a lot of the talk at the time was of a British witch hunt against the Irish jockeys, Sir Peter O’sullivan noted in his Telegraph column that: "I found Irish press room colleagues firmly sharing the hope that Irish stewards would take the lead from their English counterparts, and act to reduce employment of the whip, before the support of a great part of the racing public is forfeited".
Ted Walsh has long been a fan and staunch defender of the whip, and given his family’s high standing in Irish racing circles one can probably forgive this new kid on the block Blake for towing the line. However when one listens to Ted Walsh speak about horses down the years it is difficult to think he has little if any affection for them – they are simply tools of the trade. Compare this to the way the likes of Sir Henry Cecil and Nicky Henderson speak about their animals.
My missus often complains to me when we are watching Irish racing about the extent to which jockeys are allowed to whip their horses.
It is a cultural thing, but Kevin Blake would do well to keep his nose out of our business. If the Irish racing community are happy with their current rules then so be it – its not pretty for the rest of us to watch but I don’t read any UK journalists complaining about the state of their sport in this context so what gives him a divine right to start complaining about ours?
Yeats has a point – the popularity of the sport seems to have little to do with the whip/welfare issue. But that is an erroneous argument – how many people gladly eat meat without a care about what happens behind the scenes in abattoirs and factory farms?
I would rather listen to Sir Mark Prescott’s very well informed views than those of a pseudo "pro-punter" who hasn’t the balls to mention Sir Mark by name in his article (doesn’t want to upset his ATR paymasters should Sir Mark react badly one imagines). He is of course happy to mention Big Mac, an easy target – however Blake would do well to consider a comment once made by Big Mac’s former C4 colleague and arguably the best National Hunt jockey ever to sit on a horse John Francome: "I doubt that more than one horse in a hundred runs faster for the whip".
As Sir Mark has sensibly argued for a long time now, the fairest playing field is one with no whip at all, then there is no grey area. By all means carry whips as a safety measure but stop them being used by some to gain an advantage which is outside of the rules – or, as Sir Mark puts it, cheating.
Ivanjica – Kevin Blake is a pundit I have a fair bit of time for, he understands the game well enough I think, and is articulate and interesting.
And I think that historical stuff is not really relevant 30 odd years on.
But I agree wholeheartedly about McCririck. Every time (it seems) people support use of the whip they cite McCririck’s support of abolition as if to say ‘if that loon supports getting rid of it folks then you know it must be the wrong thing to do’.
McCririck is often right though, not just on this but on a variety of issues.
And you are also right in that they conveniently never mention the support of Francome, O’Sullevan and Prescott for strict whip regulation and/or outright ban and stiff penalties for offenders. Or Willie Shoemaker – "more races have been lost by the whip than have ever been won by it"
And you are also right in that they conveniently never mention the support of Francome, O’Sullevan and Prescott for strict whip regulation and/or outright ban and stiff penalties for offenders. Or Willie Shoemaker – "more races have been lost by the whip than have ever been won by it"
What whip was Shoemaker referring to though? Are they all the same? Had Shoemaker ever seen let alone used the whip currently in use here?
Prescott is a hypocrite who loves bull fighting and hare coursing.
As for Francome, he frequently likes to go against the grain but if he thought only 1 in a 100 horses go for it why did he use it so much and effectively when riding. He’s never been the sort of person who would do something just because he was expected to.
What exactly have you got against the whip currently in use here cormack? It’s a tool used to encourage horses. Do you think it hurts the horses?
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.
If there’s no cheating how can a jockey break the rules ?Corm
You have to be realistic with the politics of today …there is nil chance of the whip ever causing a winner to get disqualified
Forget pie in the sky ..it will not happen …as long as we have bookies , who run the show , they will not ever risk alienating customers , just plain no chance
I reckon we will have a few big races with a sting in the tail for winning riders , just enough to appease the non racing public
Winning connections will probably make the fine adjustable anyway
…we will still be listening to you ranting on this time next year again …..Grasp the nettle Corm , nothing drastic is going to happen , your pipedream is just that
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.
If there’s no cheating how can a jockey break the rules ?Obviously you have a different interpretation of cheating and consider a foul in football to be cheating and a team who commits one should be disqualified in the match.
I would consider a player who dives to con the ref to gain a penalty is cheating but even then their team does not concede the match.
As for a racing I would consider doping or riding deliberately to lose a race as cheating but not minor offences such as whip use or interference but good luck to you if you do.
My problem with it Yeats is that I feel it is wholly unecessary that we employ the whip in racing. Why would you? Tell me why it is required, other than for safety?
It presents an
appalling
image of the sport to many potential supporters and I think that situation will get worse as people become more and more attuned to the rights of animals, as has happened over the last 30 years. Attitudes have, and are continuing, to change.
People see horses being hit to make them run faster in the name of money, entertainment and kudos. Now you might argue that those people are un-winnable in as much as the type of person who hates the whip will also be the type of person that doesn’t like seeing horses raced full stop. Yes, I think there are some of those will never come round but I think a significant number will.
I think racing will face increasing pressure over the ethics of racing and jumping horses at speed and I think it should be proactive. It is very difficult to defend the ethics of racing horses against each other for entertainment or commercial gain when you are hitting them in the process, especially when you don’t actually need to.We HIT HORSES for the purpose of entertainment. At the moment it is integral facet of the sport, and doesn’t actually need to be. Factual statement and very, very hard, if not impossible, to defend IMO.
(PS: to those who say the whip has no ‘hurt’ effect and that it is the ‘crack’ noise that puts the horse into flight response to make it go faster, why not just give the jockeys some kind of small noise generator to simulate a crack (inexpensive and easy? It’ll never happen because only the very naive beliee that to be the case). It may not leave a mark, but it surely imparts some kind of discomfort. I applaud that fewer horses are being marked and more permanently hurt by the whip, and I appreciate that the ‘hurt’ from a whip is likely to be fleeting but it is still hard to defend IMO.)
Corm
Delusional …totally and utterly deluded view
chances of having whip banned totally …nil
chances of you stopping banging your drum …..nil
Still , it makes you feel better
As usual Kevin Blake shows why I regard him as the most knowledgable persons on tv when it comes to horses. Apart from his tremendous dissecting of form he once again is spot on here. Mcririck is right is the issue of perception from the wider public but what the Aiden Coleman ride has shown is that the rules aren’t correct. I don’t get that jockeys are deliberately breaking the rules to win. The issue is that it should be left to the judgement of the stewards as to what is and isn’t a sensible ride and any figure given as to how many time a whip is used should be as a guide not as an exact figure. Unless we adopt that process these endless debates will rumble on. Lesters Derby wins on roberto and the minstrel are now clearly not acceptable but common senses surely must prevail and the stewards now looking at colemans ride because a few people moaned is a ridiculous way to run things things.you will never please everybody but the Irish seem to have far fewer issues with the whip than in Britain.
As usual Kevin Blake shows why I regard him as the most knowledgable persons on tv when it comes to horses. Apart from his tremendous dissecting of form he once again is spot on here. Mcririck is right is the issue of perception from the wider public but what the Aiden Coleman ride has shown is that the rules aren’t correct. I don’t get that jockeys are deliberately breaking the rules to win. The issue is that it should be left to the judgement of the stewards as to what is and isn’t a sensible ride and any figure given as to how many time a whip is used should be as a guide not as an exact figure. Unless we adopt that process these endless debates will rumble on. Lesters Derby wins on roberto and the minstrel are now clearly not acceptable but common senses surely must prevail and the stewards now looking at colemans ride because a few people moaned is a ridiculous way to run things things.you will never please everybody but the Irish seem to have far fewer issues with the whip than in Britain.
The stewards have enough trouble with the most basic of things Edina so interpreting when a whip instance was/wasn’t a problem would be a real mess. Better to have a standard count with no interpretation IMO.
If the Chepstow stewards had done their jobs properly this problem wouldn’t have arisen. Not the fault of the rules but the fault of sloppy stewarding.
The stewards have enough trouble with the most basic of things Edina so interpreting when a whip instance was/wasn’t a problem would be a real mess. Better to have a standard count with no interpretation IMO.
If the Chepstow stewards had done their jobs properly this problem wouldn’t have arisen. Not the fault of the rules but the fault of sloppy stewarding.
And the obvious question did they just forget to count or deliberately ignore the rules. Either way not very good.
The problem as ever in having a reasonable debate is that the racing media feel compelled to act as little more than cheerleaders for those within the sport. Consequently, you are bombarded with a one-sided view from racing’s own little bubble.
The stewards have enough trouble with the most basic of things Edina so interpreting when a whip instance was/wasn’t a problem would be a real mess. Better to have a standard count with no interpretation IMO.
If the Chepstow stewards had done their jobs properly this problem wouldn’t have arisen. Not the fault of the rules but the fault of sloppy stewarding.
How long would it take stewards to go through every runner in a race like the Welsh Grand National and count every whip stroke of every rider? Decide whether certain strokes where actual whip strokes or not, it could take several hours to weigh in.
As it stated in the Racing Post last week "Not one leading racing nation has followed the BHA lead on whip rules". Why would that be?
Rather than running the sport, the BHA are ruining it.
It’s been done to death in the past cormack what the whip is for but you choose to ignore the replies and repeat the same questions.
Frankly I’m puzzled how you, stilvi and others can be involved and enjoy a sport when so vehemently opposed to such a minor issue as whip use.
As Jim "croc" McGrath correctly pointed out on the the Sunday forum yesterday, disqualify winners for whip use and it will be the start of the end of horse racing as a serious betting medium.
How long would it take stewards to go through every runner in a race like the Welsh Grand National and count every whip stroke of every rider? Decide whether certain strokes where actual whip strokes or not, it could take several hours to weigh in.
Frankly I’m puzzled how you, stilvi and others can be involved and enjoy a sport when so vehemently opposed to such a minor issue as whip use.
As Jim "croc" McGrath correctly pointed out on the the Sunday forum yesterday, disqualify winners for whip use and it will be the start of the end of horse racing as a serious betting medium.
Any counting is not going to prevent the weigh in as we are not talking about a disqualification issue. They should have ample time to do their job.
Anyone can enjoy a sport but that doesn’t mean the said sport cannot be made more enjoyable.
Personally, I thought it was a puzzling contribution from McGrath. Seemed quite happy for the Chepstow Stewards to ignore the rules but no problem with the rules being enforced against the jocks who nearly took the wrong course.
My problem with it Yeats is that I feel it is wholly unecessary that we employ the whip in racing. Why would you? Tell me why it is required, other than for safety?
It presents an
appalling
image of the sport to many potential supporters and I think that situation will get worse as people become more and more attuned to the rights of animals, as has happened over the last 30 years. Attitudes have, and are continuing, to change.
People see horses being hit to make them run faster in the name of money, entertainment and kudos. Now you might argue that those people are un-winnable in as much as the type of person who hates the whip will also be the type of person that doesn’t like seeing horses raced full stop. Yes, I think there are some of those will never come round but I think a significant number will.
I think racing will face increasing pressure over the ethics of racing and jumping horses at speed and I think it should be proactive. It is very difficult to defend the ethics of racing horses against each other for entertainment or commercial gain when you are hitting them in the process, especially when you don’t actually need to.We HIT HORSES for the purpose of entertainment. At the moment it is integral facet of the sport, and doesn’t actually need to be. Factual statement and very, very hard, if not impossible, to defend IMO.
(PS: to those who say the whip has no ‘hurt’ effect and that it is the ‘crack’ noise that puts the horse into flight response to make it go faster, why not just give the jockeys some kind of small noise generator to simulate a crack (inexpensive and easy? It’ll never happen because only the very naive beliee that to be the case). It may not leave a mark, but it surely imparts some kind of discomfort. I applaud that fewer horses are being marked and more permanently hurt by the whip, and I appreciate that the ‘hurt’ from a whip is likely to be fleeting but it is still hard to defend IMO.)
cormack, why do you find it totally unacceptable to use a foam stick to encourage a horse to go forward and a bit faster, something that causes little if any pain or injury?
Yet find it totally acceptable for horses to be made to jump fences in a race, something that at times can cause considerable pain and injury, even fatally?
How hopeful are you that your desire to see the disqualification of horses whose riders break the whip rules will be implemented?
‘One day it will have to come and I hope it comes before we have more fruitless bans, fines and inquiries after big races that only play into the abolitionists’ hands. It is simplicity itself and will result in: no bans, no fines, no suspensions; each jockey knowing what he can and can’t do; the best horse winning.’Sir Mark Prescott in today’s RP.
A very interesting philosophical dilemma Eddie, one that we’ve covered before I am sure.
Taken to it’s conclusion the argument has two levels.
One aspect is whether a horse (or any animal) should be used as a utility item by man. So, should we eat them, force/train them to work, have them as pets, etc. Included in there, and at the narrow end of the wedge, would be the sub-question of whether man should utilise animals for entertainment purposes. Within that there are multiple issues to look at. Circuses, in-breeding for show purposes, bull-fighting and so on.Assuming that you do, and some don’t, agree that it is ethical or moral to utilise animals for entertainment purposes (which is what we do in racing) the next question would address what conditions a person would deem such utilisation contingent upon.
Most of us (not Sir Mark Prescott http://www.racingpost.com/horses/home.sd?story=1807051#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews ) would deem the cruelty associated with bull-fighting a step too far. The process of the fight involves a lengthy and deliberate process of hurting the animal thus incapacitating it and rendering it helpless while the final coup de grace is administered.
Another thing Sir Mark is a fan of is foie gras which, in many cases, involves deliberate overfeeding of geese or ducks to produce the food product.
Hunting is another example of prolonged, deliberate harm that people find unnecessary and deliberate, and thus unacceptable.
Those are the type of things many people who might accept that it is moral for humans to utilise animals, and even to utilise them for entertainment, would deem unacceptable, mainly due to the fact that it involves deliberate administering of harm to the animals concerned, often with a significant degree of suffering involved.
In racing, jumping is dangerous, no doubt about that. Horses are very frequently injured, often badly and often fatally. You might argue that it is avoidable (simply don’t race over jumps and you eliminate that risk of harm) but it is certainly not deliberate. In fact it is the opposite, the jockey (and trainer by way of his training of the horse) are in fact doing everything they can to avoid a fall or injury. And that is where I personally draw a distinction. In the intent.
The whip is different. It is a deliberate and unnecessary tactic employed by the jockey to hurt or alarm the horse into a flight response.You can have perfectly acceptable sport and entertainment without the whip. There is no advantage to be gained from its use, and much disadvantage.
I don’t pretend or think the whipping of a horse in a race is in any way comparable with bull-fighting, dog-baiting or the like. It is not in the same league. And because of improvements to whip design and changes to rules it now represents a much lower risk to the lasting welfare of the horse. So, I am much less concerned about the issue than I was four years ago.
But I still maintain it is not required and that it puts an increasing number of people off the sport.
But, yes, taken to its logical conclusion you could easily argue, as many do, that exposing a horse to the risk of jumping fences is actually, in reality, putting it in the way of unacceptable, avoidable risk. Much greater risk than is offered by the whip. And it is not an easy argument to overcome in one’s mind Eddie, you are right, and I am not entirely comfortable with where I sit. But in favour of (fair) jumping is where I sit. And against the whip. And I do so based on the tenet of intent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.