- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Pretty weak defence Corm ….the truth is unpalatable for you
The current rules do not work
we need to get rules that do
Then we can just move on and enjoy the sport, BTW the chepstow bannage of Coleman , was very low , it has all the hall marks of a man who should be fired , got rid of , sent back to Australia
This is an example of racing shooting itself in the foot , do we really need that ???
imo
I am with Sir Mark Prescott on this (see today’s RP Q&A article for many laughs):
“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.”
I am so happy to see Ricky and Corm in total agreement on this issue:
“The current rules do not work – we need to get rules that do”
. It’s just a shame they are at opposite ends of the potential remedies.
I am prepared, if offered the position of Emperor of All Racing, to implement a new whip rule scale of punishment. No bans, no fines, no disqualifications of jockeys; just a setting back of a horse by twelve inches for each over-the-limit hit. (We have the technology!) I would need to retain the Emperor role for the exceedingly rare occasion when a jockey is “taking the mick” or just plain brutal.
I think Sir Mark’s qualification and experience as a boxing referee trumps Kevin Blakes role as just a boxer.
Ha ha. Yes, send Blake back to his corner with a standing count of eight.
I agree Ricky, and the answer is to disqualify winners whose jockeys have cheated in order to win.
It is so blindingly, glaringly obvious that it beggars belief.
Interesting views from John Francome on ATR’s "Get In" on Friday.
He said use of the whip other than for corrective safety should be made an offence immediately, arguing that if the whip was invented today and the BHA said they were considering introducing it so riders can beat their horses, the public would be appalled.
He went on to say that if you banned its use, in two weeks time people would have forgotten we ever used them to hit horses and wonder what all the fuss was about. He suggested that many people are put off becoming interested in racing because they do not like to see tired horses being whipped. However, he said, if a total ban was imposed would the same number of people not go racing because they wanted to see horses being whipped? The answer, in his view, is a definite "no".
Luke Harvey’s feeble defence of the whip fell apart at this point. Francome had too much good grace to state the obvious which is that jockeys like Harvey (bad ones) need the whip because they do not possess the skills Francome had to get the best out of their horses. Francome also described how his former boss Fred Winter drummed into his riders the fact that he would not tolerate having his horses beaten when exhausted.
I knew Francome was in favour of a whip ban but I didn’t realise until now how passionate he is about it. He is adamant that very few if any races would see a different result if whips were banned.
It is common sense. In any other industry where animals are used, beating them would be punishable by way of criminal prosecution. For some reason horse racing continues to permit a spectacle which the vast majority of people who have no interest in the sport find repulsive, and failure to ban it gives ammunition to the groups who want to see racing banned altogether.
Francome must have a selective memory, don’t recall him restricting himself to 2 strikes when riding horses like Observe or Owen Glin when he was getting cantered all over on by Lorna Vincent on Walnut Wonder. He was determined to say the least not to be beaten by a female jockey. And it was a different sort of impliment in those days. Great jockey but he does come out with some strange and wayward views.
As for Prescott, is he much of a judge or punter, not sure we should be taking much notice of his views. I did hear his favourite smell was the bull ring on a hot summer’s evening before the event starts. Pity he isn’t in the ring as well when it starts.
Did he expand at all on the finer points and pleasures of bull fighting, the Pamplona Bull Run and hare coursing?
If the whip is banished to the museum, I expect the sport of racing will be as well. The whip is absolutely needed to maintain horse racing’s status
as a sport
.
Without the whip, as in hands and heels races, you have the awkward spectacle of horses finishing almost completely fresh. There is a bias towards front-runners in these races and the strongest, most stylish jockey often wins out when I think most of us like to see the best horse win. I mean the
absolute best horse
, who delivers the best run at 100% effort – NOT the horse with the best early speed, or the most enthusiastic one.
The fear response to the whip makes a horse deliver its full effort. It is needed to have a race. Without the whip, you have an exhibition gallop.
Francombe’s views are utterly bizarre. Those latching onto them as a means of support for ante-whip views aren’t really evaluating his points, just pointing to his venerable status as a former jockey, presenter and ambassador. One only has to watch a handful of races to see that any jockey, regardless of their skill, needs to resort to the whip regularly.
We also shouldn’t bow to the ignorance of the public in the whip debate. People don’t like to see horses being whipped. Do they know that the whips are made of foam? Do they know how thick a horse’s skin is? Do they know how much horses typically ‘find’ under pressure? Do they know anything about the pain receptors in a horse’s nerve endings? We should seek to educate rather than worry about our sport’s image in the minds of the ignorant.
I believe that moderation and fairness are the keys. Jockeys need to be allowed to use the whip within sensible constraints, dependent on race conditions and distances. Rulebreakers need to be punished with race results being reversed.
This sport is already madly sanitised and I think we need to at least protect the core sporting element. We’ve already lost the proper Grand National fences and seen many marathon chases reduced in distance. I want big fences, I want long distances and I want the best and most courageous horses to win.
The whip debate should be shelved once the rules become more sensible. There are more pressing welfare debates to be had right now, such as the inbreeding crisis and careless riding.
Corm , no offence , but both you and Sir Mark are talking a load of rot
The plain fact is this
Racing is funded out of punter’s betting , at present this is the way it works
If Racing were to ban whips in races , I would say that the effect would be drastic in the extreme , I would never have another bet on British racing , and am very very confident the majority of punters would follow suit
Result , a whipless racing regime , with no followers , no funding , no betting , ie total collapse
So please engage brain Sir ,,,do you really think there is even the remotest chance of that happening …if you really do , then heaven help us , I suspect you would not be in favour , so for goodness sake man , be realistic and get a grip (in the nicest possible way of course
)As cormack has previously stated he is quite happy for Pinza’s views on the whip to be posted, here are his latest from the grave for those interested.
"I’m assured it’s only a matter of time before another BHA review quietly removes this ridiculous "smack count" which is making our country’s racing such a laughing stock worldwide.
Widespread retrospective countbacks, as a response to howling from social media, would gum up the works of the administration machine within weeks. When Aidan Coleman gets banned for a winning ride praised lavishly by Paul Bittar; and when Rab Havlin gets banned for a winning ride (on Peterhouse at Lingfield) which was as consumate a piece of artistry as we’ll ever see on a racetrack, breathtaking to behold; then it is quite obvious to anyone with half an analytical eye that the "smack count" must go, whether over 5 furlongs or 4 miles.
The current, cushioned – RSPCA approved! – whip is good for racing, and good for the thoroughbred breed. Misuse is so rare as to be quite obvious, visually; and is easy to tackle, provided the guidelines are discretionary. As they must be. There are too many grey-area cases for these simplistic "smack count rules" to work. We can all agree on that, surely (except for the ban-at-any-cost merchants who have to be ignored as firmly we ignore other fundamentalists.)
BHA are not so afraid of the RSPCA, now that the organisation has been widely censured (by a Parliamentary Group amongst others) as a failing organisation, a self-perpetuating team of "injury lawyers" – no more than that – less interested in good animal husbandry than in good PR and their personal fees. So BHA must and will restore the Guidelines (for that is what they are, not "Rules") to the more sensible, less Alice-in-Wonderland level of a few years back. "Discretion" is the new watchword in High Holborn."
Thanks Eddie , a good post from Pinza…
I would be slightly optimistic of the BHA taking this action , but time will tell , Mister Stier …is way too haughty to be brushed aside that easy
The sooner they get rid of that bloke the better
imo
Misuse is so rare as to be quite obvious, visually; and is easy to tackle, provided the guidelines are discretionary. As they must be. There are too many grey-area cases for these simplistic "smack count rules" to work.
1. There are
no grey areas now
, the rule couldn’t be more straightforward or clear. Incompetent stewards rather than an unclear rule caused the Chepstow fiasco.
2. If the rules were discretionary does anyone really believe that the type of stewarding we regularly see would suddenly transform itself into consistent and fairly application of a rule that would be highly subjective? It’d fuel 10x more debate and controversy than there now is.
As cormack has previously stated he is quite happy for Pinza’s views on the whip to be posted, here are his latest from the grave for those interested.
Didn’t realise Pinza was undead. Could you provide a link to his cemetery please Eddie, thanks
Is it mandatory for a jockey to carry a whip when riding under Rules?
If not, Cormack, have you considered asking the jockeys who ride Outlaw Tom and whatever other horses you’re involved in not to carry one?
Or do you rationalize away this idea as a non-starter because it would render Outlaw Tom disadvantaged against the whip-carrying field?
Though if one leads others may follow
I’m not singling you out particularly as we’re all guilty of hypocrisy – to a lesser or greater extent – when it comes to that difficult dichotomy and moral maze: concern for horse welfare versus wanting ‘our’ horse to ‘run to its best’ ‘to be given its best chance’ ‘to win at all costs’ and to ‘make a return on investment’
Didn’t realise Pinza was undead. Could you provide a link to his cemetery please Eddie, thanks
Under the Hitler youtube video Drone.
I’m afraid I don’t make the decisions regarding riding arrangements for Outlaw Tom Drone. I’ve never proposed the idea, which I suppose as part of the ownership club I’m entitled to, but I know our assistant trainer is very much ‘pro’ so I think I’d be very much on a loser.
And just because I would like to see a rule change doesn’t mean I wouldn’t necessarily still play the game in the meantime. That’d be like a footballer opposed to the current status of the offside rule or the introduction of goal-line technology refusing to take to the park.I’ll tell you something though, if we had stayed within the rules and were narrowly beat by one whose jockey cheated by using his whip more often than the rule allowed, I’d be exploring the possibility of legal action to recoup the first place prize money.
Cheating isn’t just rewarded – there’s actually potentially a huge benefit (in big races) for doing so.
That can’t be right surely?
I should also add that our regular jockey Peter Buchanan is a fantastic horseman whose instructions (not that he needs them) are always to look after the horse.
However, were Outlaw Tom or our other horse The Village (or any that come along) ever to be ridden in a way that jeopardised their well-being (including whip mis-use) then no, I wouldn’t tolerate that.Under the Hitler youtube video Drone.
Ah yes, thanks. I saw his comment but didn’t click ‘read more’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.