- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Eddie, my comments in red, apologies for the colour but it differentiates between our two posts
I disagree with most of your post aaronizneez.
You state safety reasons for carrying a whip are a red herring and that a dangerous situation is more likely to occur due to whip use. Based on what? Are you an expert on the subject? I’m not, I prefer to listen to experts who know a lot more about the subject than me.
Now I realise that this was said to someone who up to then had no experience of riding a horse but all I can say is she didn’t carry one either.Maybe Ricky didn’t think Condon’s ride looked good unlike Aspell’s, Coleman’s, Kelly’s, Kirby’s, Havlins and hundreds more that have received undeserved bans.
As Pinza pointed out in his excellent post "Misuse is so rare as to be quite obvious, visually; and is easy to tackle, provided the guidelines are discretionary".
Doubt many would be up in arms if Condon received a few days ban, not because he hurt the horse but because it didn’t look good.
You state like betlarge that the sooner racing disappears from terrestrial tv the better. Most unlikely that racing’s crown jewels will disappear from terrestrial tv in the near future.
As for the BHA, not quite sure what they’re up to but have absolutely no confidence in them, it could be some of the personnel there are the problem and keep bringing bad publicity to the sport.
Doubt very much recent unjust bans to Kelly, Havlin, Coleman & Co will have any impact at all on how organisations such as Animal Aid view racing.
Can’t help thinking a lot of these anti-whippers are too parochial in only being concerned about what occurs in Britain.
I wasn’t aware of the rules in other countries but France seems to allow 8 strikes in the home straight, Ireland a rough guideline of 12 strikes, USA no maximum although different states have different guidelines, Australia 5 times before the 200m mark and then no limit in the last 100m.Germany however seems to have gone a step further as per the below
The Direktorium für Vollblutzucht und Rennen have advised of the introduction of new Rules in Germany in respect to use of the whip, as follows:
Rule 594:10: The use of the whip is limited to a maximum of 5 hits which a rider may give to a horse during the whole race, only for the purpose of encouragement. Even this number of hits could be deemed too much if the horse is well beaten or easily winning or being clear for its placing. In the case of a rider being found guilty by the Stewards of misuse of the whip or of a whip offence, severe measures will be imposed. Furthermore, a rider found guilty of a whip offence will be charged with 50% of his riding percentage or 500 Euro (in the case of riders with 50 or more wins) and 250 Euro (in the case of riders who have not ridden 50 winners) – whichever is the greater.
I have to say I don’t particularly like the current whip rules as they seem too rigid, however rules are rules and you need to adapt to whatever rules are current. It is a concern that many don’t or won’t abide by these and in doing so gain what is perceived to be an unfair advantage. I say perceived as I’d imagine it would be hard to prove either way whether one extra smack made a difference or not.
If we go back to a discretionary process as the pro whip brigade would like to see then the only way I can see this working is if centralised stewarding is actioned straight away. This would at least give some sort of consistent approach to the whole situation.
Aaron ….good post my friend , very good stuff
I didn’t like Condon’s ride , because he never gave the horse a chance to respond , just kept belting it , unacceptable , and ugly on the eye , it made me cringe , no enjoyment to be had whatsoever
whereas the Chepstow debacle looked perfectly fine to me , some rides stand out as plain bad , this was not one of them , yet the jock got crucified retro…stinks all the way , it stinks big time
In France they are allowed more than 8 , I am pretty sure of that …but rest assured they dont have any problems …France Gallop are not constantly looking over their shoulder for the non racing public
The only certainty is , we will remain stand alone on the present debacle , I really hope all parties get a workable solution soon , agreed by all , signed off by all , with draconian penalties for serial offenders ( disqualification for 12 months would really concentrate the mind )
I do however have grave reservations of common sense prevailing as long as Stier is in office , get rid of him and you may get some progress
imo
These are my views on the whip (they have changed over the years) and possible suggestions for change:
I’ve used the British whip, or as I like to call it – the "encourager". Striking my hand with more force than a jockey does a horse. Surprised at how little it felt. Would not use the word "hurt" (although do have a high pain threshold)… And a horse’s skin is stronger than a human so it should not feel it as much.
Today’s British whip rarely breaks the flesh of a horse these days (never if used correctly) and I do not remember the last time.
Therefore I see no "welfare" reason to ban the encourager. Using emotive language like "hitting" does not wash, the horse is not hurt by it when used correctly. So what (?!) if you wouldn’t "hit" another animal (possibly exception camels) – we don’t put metal objects in other animal’s mouths either, does that make putting a bit in a horse’s mouth cruel?
The idea that encouragers should be carried but not used is also folly. If it is alright to use it for correction purposes to stop the horse hanging; then jockeys would find a way of making the horse hang without stewards noticing. And why should a jockey on a temperamental horse have an advantage over one that keeps straight anyway? And how badly does a horse need to hang before the jockey is allowed to use the encourager? Does it need to be in danger of interfering with another horse? If so, the jockey is going to have to take time to consider that before using it; in itself dangerous. Because in the time he takes to consider – could cause an accident. How many strikes is he/she allowed in rectifying the situation? What about borderline decisions? Was the encourager really needed? Was a second strike really needed? Imagine The Derby, jockeys deliberately going wide in the straight, letting their mounts hang down the Epsom camber to "rectify"…
…And, if the encourager is so bad that it can not be used in normal race riding, then why should it be ok when a horse hangs? ie The anti-racing lobby will argue (with on the face of it some justification) If so cruel to not be ok to use the whip in normal race riding – then surely it is not ok to use something so cruel at all? ie End of racing.
Banning the whip altogether is too dangerous imo. Far less a jockey can do to correct a wayward horse on the admittedly few occasions it is uncontrolable… And even if I am wrong and it is not dangerous… It’ll be a different type of racing. One far more difficult to make ground up; front-runners having an advantage. Many horses would simply not win at all without the encourager. Far fewer successful horses and many running up sequences. "Temperament" having a much larger say in who wins, "ability" less so. Making it more difficult to read the form and that’s after we’ve all needed time (years) to get used to this new show.
However, it is very difficult to explain to the "animal loving", non-racing, non-horsey, city dwelling general public – why the encourager is needed. So unless there are rules to make viewing easier on the eye than it was 10 years ago – we are in danger (probably decades ahead) of losing the whip and as a consequence "racing" in its entirity. I think the current rules aren’t far off the best we can get (it will never be ideal). Although I do have some suggestions as improvements.
There does need to be a balance struck. Banning jockeys who’ve ALLOWED plenty of time between encouragements, NOT used excessive force and NOT gone over the limit by too many – is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. eg Aidan Coleman’s ride in the Welsh National looked perfectly alright to me (even under today’s rules) and stewards should be able to use their discretion more. Albeit this would be helped if we had professionl stewards attributing from Headquarters (I’ve changed my mind on that one). Counter-productive because it highlights a reasonable or even good, safe ride and makes it appear to some of the general public as "cruel".
Emphasis should be on allowing time between encouragements. However, there must still be a number of strokes as a GUIDE LINE for jockeys to know where they stand and for stewards to look at the ride if exceeding a certain amount. Does not mean there should be any penalty/ban; just to look at the ride. ie If the jockey has gone over the guide line number by just one or two strokes (see "*" below) and yet can be seen to have given the horse a good, thoughtful and above all "safe" ride… Then fine, no point in banning him/her.
In my opinion there should be a margin of leeway given to jockeys. This could be done by a yellow and red card system.
(*) Breeching the frequncy (number) "guide lines" gets the jockey gets a Yellow Card. Stewards consider if there are any other contributary factors and if so… up the penalty to a Red Card. Ban, loss of prize money and riding fee… If the Yellow Card offence is considered not worthy of a Red – no ban, no loss of wages. Vast majority of Yellow will remain yellow. However, a totting up process can punish a jockey if breaking frequency guide lines too often. Each Yellow Card recieved is "mark"ed in the book. Each mark disappears after so many months/rides.
("months/rides" will depend on how many rides a jockey has, whichever comes last. A Jockey with few rides may have his/her "marks" in the book for a longer time span).
If recieving too many Yellow Cards within so many months/rides – jockey gets a ban. Length of bans increase under the same totting up system, the more bans you get the longer the ban, with bans disappering after a certain amount of time/rides. Punishing persistent offenders.
The "mark" is accompanied by a v or b if a valuable race or well backed horse. Too many of these may result in further punishment.
For all these BHA rules below (have left the BHA numbers) a jockey recieves a Red Card:
QUOTE
6.1.1 with the whip arm above shoulder height;
6.1.2 rapidly without regard to their stride (that is, twice or more in one stride);
6.1.3 with excessive force;
6.1.4 without giving the horse time to respond.
Example 2 Using the whip on a horse which is
6.1.5 showing no response;
6.1.6 out of contention;
6.1.7 clearly winning;
6.1.8 past the winning post.
Example 3 Using the whip on a horse in any place except
6.1.9 on the quarters with the whip in either the backhand or forehand position;
6.1.10 down the shoulder with the whip in the backhand position;
END QUOTEJockey also gets a Red Card for exceeding the number guide lines by a large amount (suggest 3 or more strokes for jumping, 2 or more for flat). Only under extreme conditions can stewards recind, eg temperamental horse giving a lot of problems or a lazy horse given a reminder now and again during the first and middle phases of a race. Along with a totting up process (which is kept seperate to the Yellow) a Red recieves at least a ban for the ride, loss of riding fee and prize money… AND possible DEMOTION where applicable.
NB 6.1.4 (see above) Still stands, there is to be no rat-a-tat-tat finish. Jockeys must give their mount ample time to respond before another encouragement. Failure to do so could see the horse DEMOTED.
If a jockey recieves a red card and has probably ONLY won the race because of the Red Card offence – the horse is DEMOTED. Just as a horse is demoted because of breaking interference rules. At the moment a punter can see a jockey he’s backed keep within the rules and be beaten by one who’s "CLEARLY" ONLY won the race through breaking them. ie Had both jockeys kept to the rules the second’s connections/punters would’ve probably won. Horses are not demoted for a Yellow card.
This yellow and red card system also helps give a sign of clarity, "CLEARLY" breaking the rules (Red) can get you sent off (no longer a winner) where as a Yellow is a warning. Although not stopping all contoversy it should help keep borderline demotion decisions to a minimum.
Red card offences that are deemed NOT to effect the result – Result stands. In all races it applies to places as well as win purposes. It also applies to prize money places over £…… (designed for valuable races). Jockey recieves no fee and no prizemoney for any red card offence along with a ban.
There is also a Black Card ride: Whenever a jockey appears to blatantly disregard the rules, either through hitting the horse way over the guide lines, or with so much excessive force – to be not worthy of a jockey and/or hurt the horse in doing so. Long ban, we’re talking years possibly even life time ban.
Value Is EverythingThese are my views on the whip (they have changed over the years) and possible suggestions for change:
I’ve used the British whip, or as I like to call it – the "encourager". Striking my hand with more force than a jockey does a horse. Surprised at how little it felt.
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me."
AnonymousSHL
These are my views on the whip (they have changed over the years) and possible suggestions for change:
I’ve used the British whip, or as I like to call it – the "encourager". Striking my hand with more force than a jockey does a horse. Surprised at how little it felt. Would not use the word "hurt" (although do have a high pain threshold)… And a horse’s skin is stronger than a human so it should not feel it as much.
Today’s British whip rarely breaks the flesh of a horse these days (never if used correctly) and I do not remember the last time.
Therefore I see no "welfare" reason to ban the encourager. Using emotive language like "hitting" does not wash, the horse is not hurt by it when used correctly. So what (?!) if you wouldn’t "hit" another animal (possibly exception camels) – we don’t put metal objects in other animal’s mouths either, does that make putting a bit in a horse’s mouth cruel?
The idea that encouragers should be carried but not used is also folly. If it is alright to use it for correction purposes to stop the horse hanging; then jockeys would find a way of making the horse hang without stewards noticing. And why should a jockey on a temperamental horse have an advantage over one that keeps straight anyway? And how badly does a horse need to hang before the jockey is allowed to use the encourager? Does it need to be in danger of interfering with another horse? If so, the jockey is going to have to take time to consider that before using it; in itself dangerous. Because in the time he takes to consider – could cause an accident. How many strikes is he/she allowed in rectifying the situation? What about borderline decisions? Was the encourager really needed? Was a second strike really needed? Imagine The Derby, jockeys deliberately going wide in the straight, letting their mounts hang down the Epsom camber to "rectify"…
…And, if the encourager is so bad that it can not be used in normal race riding, then why should it be ok when a horse hangs? ie The anti-racing lobby will argue (with on the face of it some justification) If so cruel to not be ok to use the whip in normal race riding – then surely it is not ok to use something so cruel at all? ie End of racing.
Banning the whip altogether is too dangerous imo. Far less a jockey can do to correct a wayward horse on the admittedly few occasions it is uncontrolable… And even if I am wrong and it is not dangerous… It’ll be a different type of racing. One far more difficult to make ground up; front-runners having an advantage. Many horses would simply not win at all without the encourager. Far fewer successful horses and many running up sequences. "Temperament" having a much larger say in who wins, "ability" less so. Making it more difficult to read the form and that’s after we’ve all needed time (years) to get used to this new show.
However, it is very difficult to explain to the "animal loving", non-racing, non-horsey, city dwelling general public – why the encourager is needed. So unless there are rules to make viewing easier on the eye than it was 10 years ago – we are in danger (probably decades ahead) of losing the whip and as a consequence "racing" in its entirity. I think the current rules aren’t far off the best we can get (it will never be ideal). Although I do have some suggestions as improvements.
There does need to be a balance struck. Banning jockeys who’ve ALLOWED plenty of time between encouragements, NOT used excessive force and NOT gone over the limit by too many – is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. eg Aidan Coleman’s ride in the Welsh National looked perfectly alright to me (even under today’s rules) and stewards should be able to use their discretion more. Albeit this would be helped if we had professionl stewards attributing from Headquarters (I’ve changed my mind on that one). Counter-productive because it highlights a reasonable or even good, safe ride and makes it appear to some of the general public as "cruel".
Emphasis should be on allowing time between encouragements. However, there must still be a number of strokes as a GUIDE LINE for jockeys to know where they stand and for stewards to look at the ride if exceeding a certain amount. Does not mean there should be any penalty/ban; just to look at the ride. ie If the jockey has gone over the guide line number by just one or two strokes (see "*" below) and yet can be seen to have given the horse a good, thoughtful and above all "safe" ride… Then fine, no point in banning him/her.
In my opinion there should be a margin of leeway given to jockeys. This could be done by a yellow and red card system.
(*) If in breeching the frequncy (number) "guide lines" the jockey gets a Yellow Card. Stewards consider if there are any other contributary factors and if so… up the penalty to a Red Card. Ban, loss of prize money and riding fee… If the Yellow Card offence is considered not worthy of a Red – no ban, no loss of wages. Vast majority of Yellow will remain yellow. However, a totting up process can punish a jockey if breaking frequency guide lines too many times. Each Yellow Card recieved is "mark"ed in the book. Each mark disappears after so many months/rides.
("months/rides" will depend on how many rides a jockey has, whichever comes last. A Jockey with few rides may have his/her "marks" in the book for longer).
If recieving too many Yellow Cards within so many months/rides – jockey gets a ban. Length of bans increase under the same totting up system, the more bans you get the longer the ban, with bans disappering after a certain amount of time/rides. Punishing persistent offenders.
For all these BHA rules below (have left the BHA numbers) a jockey recieves a Red Card:
QUOTE
6.1.1 with the whip arm above shoulder height;
6.1.2 rapidly without regard to their stride (that is, twice or more in one stride);
6.1.3 with excessive force;
6.1.4 without giving the horse time to respond.
Example 2 Using the whip on a horse which is
6.1.5 showing no response;
6.1.6 out of contention;
6.1.7 clearly winning;
6.1.8 past the winning post.
Example 3 Using the whip on a horse in any place except
6.1.9 on the quarters with the whip in either the backhand or forehand position;
6.1.10 down the shoulder with the whip in the backhand position;
END QUOTEJockey also gets a Red Card for exceeding the number guide lines by a large amount (possibly by 3 or more strokes). Only under extreme conditions can stewards recind, eg temperamental horse giving a lot of problems. Along with a totting up process a Red recieves at least a ban, loss of riding fee and prize money… AND possible DEMOTION where applicable.
If a jockey recieves a red card and has probably ONLY won the race because of the Red Card offence – the horse is DEMOTED. Just as a horse is demoted because of breaking interference rules. At the moment a punter can see a jockey he’s backed keep within the rules and be beaten by one who’s "CLEARLY" ONLY won the race through breaking them. ie Had both jockeys kept to the rules the second’s connections/punters would’ve probably won. Horses are not demoted for a Yellow card. This yellow and red card system also helps give a sign of "CLEARLY" breaking the rules. Although not stopping all contoversial decisions it should help keep borderline decisions to a minimum.
Red card offences that are deemed NOT to effect the result – result stands. Applies to places as well as win purposes. Jockey recieves no fee and no prizemoney for any red card offence along with a ban.
There is also a Black Card ride: Whenever a jockey appears to blatantly disregard the rules, either through hitting the horse way over the guide lines, or with so much excessive force – to be not worthy of a jockey and/or hurt the horse in doing so. Long ban, we’re talking years possibly even life time ban.
Is it really that complicated
Earlier in the thread horses were compared to pets. Racehorses are not pets, they are work animals. They were bred for racing, not to be brushed and fed carrots and sugar cubes. The "My Little Pony" comparison has no place in the whip debate.
Ever since man broke the horse and put a saddle on his back the relationship was always going to be master and servant. Like it or not they started out as, and often continue to be, animals that have to earn their keep.
People will keep horses and treat them as pets in their own mind but it won’t stop them from donning tack and saddle before forcing the horse to bear their weight in most cases.
In my opinion, for what racehorses get out of the deal overall, having a few cracks of the "persuader", rather than "encourager", isn’t too bad a deal.
John McCririck’s suggestion of the whip being barbaric is completely out of touch with reality and I note that it disgusted him so much that he continued to make a living from an Industry that allowed the use of such a piece of equipment.
Jockeys have to assert their will over that of the horse, it’s part of the sport like it or not. Horses have to be broken and trained in all aspects of the sport for the purposes of making the sport safe. The whip is part of that and changes have been made to lessen any harm to the horse.
If people don’t like watching something on TV they normally change the channel, so I would advise Mr, Mrs or Ms Horrified (Once a year race watcher) to reach for the remote and select the channel number for Utopia TV or press the button marked OFF.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I’d estimate that 0.0000001 of ‘the public’ cares about the whip in the way it’s currently used.
The main thing – from racing’s viewpoint – is that the RSPCA is happy with the current rules.
No point agonising over bits, otherwise you’re into the 90% + of racehorses who bleed under pressure, or the number of thoroughbreds who get stomach ulcers because of their diet, or being ‘forced’ into stalls . . .
S
L
I
P
P
E
R
Y
S
L
O
P
EI’d estimate that 0.0000001 of ‘the public’ cares about the whip in the way it’s currently used.
I’m not sure where you get that impression from Joe. Checking into any internet debate on the subject will show plenty of resistance to the whip in particular and horse racing as a sport in general.
Here is a typical example from around National time last year:-
Julie says:-
"I feel no sympathy when horses injure their riders I think the riders get what they deserve. Horses are beautiful and not made to race, only to be kept as pets."
Ms Horrified (Once a year race watcher, and only for the deaths to be honest with you)
There’s more of them about than you think Joe.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I’d estimate that 0.0000001 of ‘the public’ cares about the whip in the way it’s currently used.
That’s 6.4 people in the UK!
Mike
I’d estimate that 0.0000001 of ‘the public’ cares about the whip in the way it’s currently used.
That’s 6.4 people in the UK!
Mike
Julie, or Ms Horrified as we know her, is the 0.4 Mike
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I’d estimate that 0.0000001 of ‘the public’ cares about the whip in the way it’s currently used.
That’s 6.4 people in the UK!
I think Steeplechasing meant it’s 6.4 members of the public who
understand
the whip, though personally I’d have shifted the decimal point one place further right – 0.64
We, by which I mean…
on TRF can congratulate ourselves on comprising the 0.04(*) Breeching the frequncy (number) "guide lines" gets the jockey a Yellow Card. Stewards consider if there are any other contributary factors and if so… up the penalty to a Red Card. Ban, loss of prize money and riding fee… If the Yellow Card offence is considered not worthy of a Red – no ban, no loss of wages. Vast majority of Yellow will remain yellow. However, a totting up process can punish a jockey if breaking frequency guide lines too often. Each Yellow Card recieved is "mark"ed in the book. Each mark disappears after so many months/rides.
("months/rides" will depend on how many rides a jockey has, whichever comes last. A Jockey with few rides may have his/her "marks" in the book for a longer time span).
If recieving too many Yellow Cards within so many months/rides – jockey gets a ban. Length of bans increase under the same totting up system, the more bans you get the longer the ban, with bans disappering after a certain amount of time/rides. Punishing persistent offenders.
The "mark" is accompanied by a "v" or "b" if a valuable race or well backed horse. Too many of these may result in further punishment.
For all these BHA rules below (have left the BHA numbers) a jockey recieves a Red Card:
QUOTE
6.1.1 with the whip arm above shoulder height;
6.1.2 rapidly without regard to their stride (that is, twice or more in one stride);
6.1.3 with excessive force;
6.1.4 without giving the horse time to respond.
Example 2 Using the whip on a horse which is
6.1.5 showing no response;
6.1.6 out of contention;
6.1.7 clearly winning;
6.1.8 past the winning post.
Example 3 Using the whip on a horse in any place except
6.1.9 on the quarters with the whip in either the backhand or forehand position;
6.1.10 down the shoulder with the whip in the backhand position;
END QUOTEJockey also gets a Red Card for exceeding the number guide lines by a large amount (suggest 3 or more strokes for jumping, 2 or more for flat). Only under extreme conditions can stewards recind, eg temperamental horse giving a lot of problems or a lazy horse given a reminder now and again during the first and middle phases of a race. Along with a totting up process (which is kept seperate to the Yellow) a Red recieves at least a ban for the ride, loss of riding fee and prize money… AND possible DEMOTION where applicable.
NB 6.1.4 (see above) Still stands, there is to be no rat-a-tat-tat finish. Jockeys must give their mount ample time to respond before another encouragement. Failure to do so could see the horse DEMOTED.
If a jockey recieves a red card and has probably ONLY won the race because of the Red Card offence – the horse is DEMOTED. Just as a horse is demoted because of breaking interference rules. At the moment a punter can see a jockey he’s backed keep within the rules and be beaten by one who’s "CLEARLY" ONLY won the race through breaking them. ie Had both jockeys kept to the rules the second’s connections/punters would’ve probably won. Horses are not demoted for a Yellow card.
This yellow and red card system also helps give a sign of clarity, "CLEARLY" breaking the rules (Red) can get you sent off (no longer a winner) where as a Yellow is a warning. Although not stopping all contoversy it should help keep borderline demotion decisions to a minimum.
Red card offences that are deemed NOT to effect the result – Result stands. In all races it applies to places as well as win purposes. It also applies to prize money places over £…… (designed for valuable races). Jockey recieves no fee and no prizemoney for any red card offence along with a ban.
There is also a Black Card ride: Whenever a jockey appears to blatantly disregard the rules, either through hitting the horse way over the guide lines, or with so much excessive force – to be not worthy of a jockey and/or hurt the horse in doing so. Long ban, we’re talking years possibly even life time ban.
Just for Yeats, have separated my suggestion for the whip rules from my views, although I’ve left in the explanation.
Value Is EverythingIs it really that complicated
Do you have a simpler solution Yeats?
If you separate out the rules from explanation and opinion, I don’t think it is complicated. Although it might seem that way to someone who thinks jockeys should be able to use the whip however many times he/she wishes without punishment.
If the whip rules are like the USA I wouldn’t be interested in racing.
Value Is EverythingIf the BBC’s grasp of racing is a reflection of the public in general, I might add another zero to my calculation:
Here’s what BBC online say about the ‘triumph’ of Winston Churchill at Uttoxeter last week:
"Winston Churchill’s trainer and jockey Killian Moore had been training ahead of the big day, his trainer said"
Really?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.