New Whip Rules

I'm glad I didn't get ya' started Oddy.

Morning.

 

There is nothing more spectacular than seeing horses sailing over jumps and enjoying every minute of it. Generally speaking they do love it. With our show jumpers you can actually see the excitement when they go into the arena with obstacles; they can't wait and they look so happy when they are taking the rider into a fence. If a horse doesn't enjoy jumping and has to be forced by use of a whip then maybe their owners should re-consider what races they enter, if any. Similarly if a horse likes racing it will naturally go as fast as it can so the jockey's job, surely, is to manage the speed at which it goes until he/she wants to let it go. If hitting the horse with a whip is necessary to make it go faster it would seem to me that the jockey is trying to make the horse go faster than it wants to or, much worse, is able to. If the horse is tiring then whipping it is tantamount to cruelty.

It is often clear to the observer that some jockeys are whipping a horse when it simply has no more to give and some will persevere with the whip despite this. These are the biggest offenders and I have no qualms about those jockeys being banned.

 

Ron, much of what you say makes sense, though I hold the view that all jockeys are horsemen before they race racehorses, none of them would ever eliberately inflict pain/suffering on a horse and pretty much man for man they'd be distraught at the suggestion they would.
I think only a jockey can judge when a horse is tiring sufficently to allow them to coast home.
Where there is a direct relationship is between the non trier rules and penalties that follow, and the jockeys responsibility of maximising a horses finishing position - there will always be questions asked because the industry is surrounded by betting.
I remember a jockey at Cheltenham last year (didn't hear the name over the loud speaker) who was banned for failing to ride a finish on a horse who finished 6th who in the opinion of the stewards could have finished 5th.
The only thing at stake was a few quid for the owners and possibly those who backed the horse with one and only bookie that was offering 6 places (if any were), the pilot was clearly looking after the horse having given his all for 2+ miles and when out of contention he allowed the horse to coast in.
It's here the inconsistency exists and like others have said the new whip rules will only increase this...

 

So rather than concentrating on riding tactics, jockeys will be counting how many times they've smacked a horse, this is one of the most stupid rule changes ive ever heard. They said in there enquiry that the whip wasnt cruel, so why limit the use of it

 

And to limit it suggests that it's cruel. Around and around we go.

 

That's it in a nutshell. Knickers in a twist over nothing. To be honest, I think that all this focus on the whip issue is only bringing unnecessary and negative publicity to something that shouldn't be an issue in the first place. On the Monday after this year's Grand National, I was reading some of the comments on the BBC TV messageboard and the levels of ignorance (particularly with regard to the whip) were absolutely breathtaking. People like this will never be placated because they're too lazy to ever find out the facts, yet these are the very same sort of people that the British racing authorities are now trying to bend over backwards to. The lunatics have finally taken over the asylum.

 

Anything which does not involve the disqualification of the horse is a cop out. How can a horse keep the race if the jockey has contravened the whip rules in winning? It just doesn't make sense.

 

The problem is, when would you know the final result.