- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
- Posts
Can someone just tweek the poll so we just have two options, what Towcester is proposing which isn’t a total ban or a no?
Can someone just tweek the poll so we just have two options, what Towcester is proposing which isn’t a total ban or a no?
Agreed, what it should be is:
Should the BHA allow Towcester to race ‘Hands & Heels’ only?
The race rules for which are:
3. Every Rider must carry a whip.
4. The whip may be pulled through from one hand to the other as often as necessary.
5. A Rider must not hit his horse with the whip either with his hands on or off the reins except as provided for in paragraph 6. A Rider may not wave his whip. In exceptional circumstances the Rider may use the whip for safety reasons only.
6. In Hurdle and Steeplechase races the whip may be used down the shoulder in the backhand position, with both hands on the reins when approaching an obstacle, i.e. within four or five strides of take-off.
I think that it should be trialled and I think that a track with a stiff finish is ideal as a location – that way we can see explicitly the difference that a ban would make. Therefore I am a yes
There is little point trialling anything unless you know why you’re doing it and what you’re hoping to learn. What’s being measured here and why? What are you going to measure it against and how? What data will the trial produce who is going to process it and how?
I think it’s time to take a step back for calm consideration. If the BHA judges that such a trial is necessary, I’ll support that initiative provided the terms of reference are clear and we can see a benefit for the sport. Racing badly lost control of the media narrative after the National and the same mistake should not be made again.
I can’t agree that we ‘have nothing to lose’. One of the reasons this debate got so animated so quickly was that some of us think that we have everything to lose. Towcester is ‘betting blind’ as far as I can see and they’re betting the farm without the rest of the shareholders permission so for the time being the answer has to be ‘no’.
I’ve explored what we have to lose on my blog today.
http://bit.ly/dFWc3TAJ,
You ask toward what objective should we "give it a try".
Simply put, I just want to see what horse racing looks like without the whip, except with professional jockeys and seasoned horses.
I am completely on the fence on the wider issue. I won’t be dicatated to by the plain speaking, countryside-dwelling/when-have-you-ever-ridden-a-horse lobby, nor animal rights zealots, nor washing powder-selling modernisers who believe the public is the only true arbiter of racing’s future. I simply want to see for myself.
Towcester will be the laughing stock of the racing industry,all this nonsense will do is encourage Non trying even more and how do you police a whipless race,’It was blatantly obvious the runner-up was given a tender ride as the jockey only shook the reins three times in the last 50yds,whereas the winner had his shook at least a dozen’ ‘My mount wouldn’t run on up the Towcester hill as i couldn’t get at him without a whip,cost me the race it did’ Excuses galore and all will have to be accepted by the BHA for allowing this most ridiculous idea to go ahead. There will be more accidents too,a whip has an obvious effect when correcting a hanging horse,a good jockey knows a whip is an absolutely crucial part of his kit and its far safer to have one than not imo. My one and only criticism of the whip is when you see an angry jockey leathering a beaten horse,absolutely no need for it.
Very considered blog by Sean Boyce (link above). I agree with his points about the damaging effects of the media exposure on National day which, I concur, was as a result of a failure to manage this aspect in what was a, largely, foreseeable situation. The fact the BBC didn’t know about instructions for riders to dismount or for water to be available as horses crossed the line to douse them was a fairly basic error and led to a confusing situation emerging on television with no one seeming to know what was happening.
I’d say, Sean, that there is a very large distinction to be made between those who would ‘destroy the sport’ and those who believe the sport would actually
be served
by tighter regulation or even abolition of the whip for encouragement purposes. There’s a danger at the minute that some of the pro-whip brigade among your colleagues in the media are tarring all those who advocate change in this area as ‘anti-racing’ as well as ‘anti-whip’. Not the case at all, anything but, I’d suggest, in the majority of cases.
But I do understand the ‘thin-edge-the-wedge’ concern. However the ‘thin-edge-of-the-wedge’ argument has always seemed to me to be a poor one to use for failing to tackle something.
I also understand the points about the percieved lack of the ‘groundswell of public opinion’ but I wouldn’t take the inertia of the public too lightly or as an excuse not to act. There are many, many injustices in our society to which the general public are seemingly apathetic, many of them involving heartbreaking cruelty and abuse among our own species. Apathy from a collective ‘public’ but issues which would provoke a horrified expression of disgust/dismay from any individual quizzed for their reaction to them.
Just as you were right to say there shouldn’t be a knee-jerk reaction to appease the public voice then, equally, we shouldn’t let the fact that the public spotlight has moved on (to Imogen Thomas and Andrew Marr if the newstands are any guide) stop us from calling for, or acting on behalf of, what we believe is right for racing.
I appreciate some of us disagree about this fundamental aspect of our sport. But I don’t for a single second think anyone who advocates continued use of the whip in racing does so for any reason other than they genuinely think it is the right thing for the sport. And neither do the vast majority who advocate change.
Currently the poll above shows a 50/50 split between ‘No’ and the two ‘Yes’s’ which, I guess highlights just what a divided and difficult issue it is.
But Sean is right in that we are all in it together, the yays and the nays, all wanting what is best for racing, and, as Sean has said today, perhaps now is the time to let the dust settle a little and await the response of the BHA who, I am greatly encouraged, have two top men (in Tim Morris and David Muir) advising them on this.
- Total Posts 17716
AJ,
You ask toward what objective should we "give it a try".
Simply put, I just want to see what horse racing looks like without the whip, except with professional jockeys and seasoned horses.
I am completely on the fence on the wider issue. I won’t be dicatated to by the plain speaking, countryside-dwelling/when-have-you-ever-ridden-a-horse lobby, nor animal rights zealots, nor washing powder-selling modernisers who believe the public is the only true arbiter of racing’s future. I simply want to see for myself.
I agree wholeheartedly that the influence of pressure groups should remain minimal, but finding out whether whip-less racing ‘looks’ reasonable or not shouldn’t be the aim of an experiment of this nature. If it is, we’ll still be left discussing a matter of perception upon its conclusion.
We need to deal in qualitative, quantifiable facts and Towcester’s plans simply won’t provide them. The ideal scenario is a series of identical races, run in identical conditions and with identical fields, but governed by different race rules (with and without the whip). That’s not going to happen though. Ignoring the fact that the weather can change from one day to the next, horses aren’t machines and there will be natural variations in performance. And who’s going to allow their horse to be ridden competitively as part of an experiment, rather than as part of an official, scheduled raceday?
It’s a ridiculous, pointless and potentially industry-shattering exercise, which has already served its purpose by thrusting Towcester in to the headlines. Why can’t they wait to see what the BHA’s review throws up?
We need to deal in qualitative, quantifiable facts and Towcester’s plans simply won’t provide them.
It sounds as if you have swallowed someone elses record. What exactly is quantifiable about the present rules. There is absolutely no fact-based argument in deciding the number of times a horse may be struck. It may as well be a number plucked out of thin air. Far easier to justify anything more than zero being excessive.
It’s a ridiculous, pointless and potentially industry-shattering exercise, which has already served its purpose by thrusting Towcester in to the headlines. Why can’t they wait to see what the BHA’s review throws up?
And the World will end tomorrow. Perhaps they view the BHA as all talk and little action which is exactly what the pro-whip brigade want.
More or less 50/50.
Which might just, as I’m sure they suspect will be the case, put the BHA in a no-win situation come d-day.
Soundbites from a few people I doubt have ever seen a horse.
Interview with Towcester
Grand National footage
Guy from World Horse Welfare
Short piece from Tim Morris (BHA spokesman) who stresses need to keep jockeys in line.
All in all probably a sports filler they’ve had lined up to link with Ascot for some time.
Nothing new – other than that the debate is set in front of millions again.
How strange.
I was in the garden and came in just to catch the end of it, so assumed something must have happened today to make it newsworthy….
To make the Ten O’Clock News the story/debate must have come from somewhere, perhaps the BHA have decided to give Towcester the go ahead and are briefing the press to soften up those that like to see animals being hit
Beats Me. What do they expect?
Ask any non-racing / non-horsey person if they like the whip being used on a horse? And they’ll all say no. Explain to them it is an essential tool and you might get a different response.
Although I am for the whip, I believe we do have to change. I think Sir Mark Prescott came up with a fair idea. Jockeys should be allowed to encourage their mounts with up to only three touches with the whip. Any more and the horse gets disqualified. Doesn’t tax the jockey too much either, being easy enough to count to three within the maelstrom of a race. He also made a couple of other valid points.
One: Banning the whip altogether would mean trainers would do things to scare the horse at home, leading them to think something is going to happen on course. So go faster. ie No whips would mean more ill-treatment not less.
Two: That allowing jockeys only to use a whip for corrective use won’t work either. As jockeys would make a horse wander etc, to be able to use it. It is unfair to place a horse remaining straght at a disadvantage.
Value Is EverythingThey’ve done this sort of thing before, think they did it during Cheltenham one year. Re-hashing old stuff about a so called controversial issue instead of an item about the big race of the day. I hate reporters talking about an issue they are clearly clueless about, think Joe Wilson was his name.
- Total Posts 17716
Beats Me.
Possibly. But only three times maximum,
Ginger
– or for correctional purposes!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.