Cyclonic, you are usually a fountain of sense, but i am afraid on this occasion i must disagree. I do not think that Richard Hughes has 'thrown his toys from the pram'. To me it seems a far more genuine decision than that. Hughes is renowned for being thoughtful and intelligent both in and out of the saddle. The fact that he has fallen foul of the new rules seems to show that they are not getting the right results. Can anybody on this forum seriosuly say that they object to either of the rides for which he was banned? Aside from them breaking these new rules i have absolutely no problem with either of them whatsoever. I also think that those suggesting that this is just so he can ride at the Breeders Cup are wide of the mark too. Why would he be prepared to miss Champions' Day if the reason was simply monetary? The problem with the new rules is that they simply don't work. I was actually in favour of them when i first read about them, but having seen them used, my opinion has drastically changed. The furlong limit that Hughes seems to disagree with is one example. The second thing is the public perception of the whip and its use. People just do not understand it. They see it as an instrument of torture, purposefully to inflict pain so that the human connections earn more money. This could not be further from the truth. Once again this comes back to the animal welfare point. The sooner that people can understand that the vast majority of the racing population consider the welfare of their equine charges as the first priority the sooner we can begin to make progress in changing the public's view of the sport. I am not for a minute suggesting that we can appease everybody because clearly that is an impossible task. But instead of changing the rules on the back of research into public opinion why are we not trying to change public opinion on the back of the research into the impact of the whip on the horse. This very review concludes that the whip does not hurt the animals. Why are we not telling people this? Perhaps an independent investigation by a team of scientists is needed.
Grand national, eider chase to name a few. The thing is horses will dig and dig for you and will keep going and we have seen them continue to race with injuries etc which havent come to light till after the race. So while as you say you have seen no evidence (not arguing with you by the way : ) ) thats not to say they have been pushed too far when they have given so much already. i dont know whether this may seem hypocritical but i dont see anything wrong with slapping a horse down the neck as it certainly isnt hard and at the end of a race they get patted down the neck anyway. I think racing with out whipping would provide much more exciting races and more open ones. I do however agree with the jockey carrying it, waving it etc
Benny Your views appear very considered. As for the National, yes there were frequent slaps but I'm not sure Ballabriggs suffered any short or long term injury as a result of this, and the Eider Chase was embarrasing for everyone as it should never have been raced. Your second point is where everyone I think agrees, that the whip must be avaialble for safety reasons. I'm no equine psychologist but I've seen a few 'brutes' over the years (Vodkatini, Deano's Beano and countless more) who had limitless talent but also had their own ideas about life. Vodkatini proved one Saturday afternoon at Sandown that any amount of kicking, urging and slapping wasn't enough for him to race, and Deano's Beano proved that, under the new rules, AP could easily have been banned before the tapes go up ! There is a chance that if the jockeys are unable to make use of the whip then horses soon disregard its' presence, future generations of horses who will never have felt the whip could easily cause chaos on a racecourse if veering. Watch any 'green' 2 year old race and he/she will wander all over the course, the whip is needed to control them, any horse potentially taking out half a dozen other horses/jockeys/photographers/racegoers at 40mph is a scary thought.
Grizzly, Bruce Millington has written a piece in today's RP. If you don't have access to a copy let me know and I'll type it up for you. I think the issue with the whip rule is that no one is disputing that there needs to be controls in place, but lets be honest here we have some of the toughest rules and penalties in the racing world here in the UK. Just watch some American racing and there you'll see horses being flogged 15-20 times in the final furlong without an eyebrow being raised, so please don't lets go down the road of "we're all horrible human beings for hitting the horsies", there are far worse things to deal with.
Thanks PN - I'll catch a read in Corals at lunchtime. Valid points as well, and coming from someone who is closer to the industry than any of us these comments have to be respected. What I find strangeis that a while back when the change to whip rules were announced there were an immediate voice of approval from everyone associated with racing (certainly NH), AP, Nicholls to name but two were very quick in their admiration for the BHA. What struck me more was the fact the response was consistent and immediate from all, which suggests that authorities expected a backlash and enlisted notable and influencial people from within the industry to portray a positive message. Go back to APs tweets a couple of weeks back and look at his comments from yesterday...
Apologies for the fact that I have not had time to read all four pages of this thread, so I may be repeating what others have already said. The new whip rules were a joke from Day One. I stand totally with Richard Hughes. The fact that one of our top jockeys has managed to get done twice in less than a week does nothing but highlight the stupidity of the new rules. The new rules should be given to Oliver Letwin on his way out of Downing Street and he can deposit them with his constituency papers. If I go and get in my car now and drive down the M62 at 73mph passing a Police speed camera, they are not going to pull me over and give me a ticket because they will use their discretion. We all know that the unwritten rule is that you can get away with ten per cent. There appears to be no latitude at all in the new whip rules so hence Hughes got nailed on Monday despite going before the stewards and giving them what most people would consider to be perfectly reasonable grounds for hitting his horse for a sixth time in the final furlong. The horse was hanging onto another horse and he needed to use his whip to correct it. He only finished third so he was not flogging the horse in a driving photo finish. Also there was no evidence of any harm being done. There is no real prospect of the flat jockeys taking strike action on Champions’ Day any more than the jump jockeys boycotting Cheltenham’s season opener. I think that a walk-out on Monday would get them publicity and it causes less disruption to the trainers and owners whilst getting the message across to the buffoons at the BHA. As I have stated before I have no time for the animal rights nutters and no amount of rule changes is ever going to make them happy so I would not even try to placate them. If whips were totally banned starting next Monday, this would not bring thousands of new racegoers into the sport because some perception of animal cruelty is not the reason that they do not go racing in the first place. There are millions of people in this country that have never been to a race meeting in their life but who annually have a bet on the Grand National and the Derby – a few of them are relatives of mine! This storm in a teacup started after this year’s Grand National and I am not going to castigate Jason Maguire as I backed the winner and quite a few of those millions will also have done! In society generally, if I did a survey today and asked Joe Public whether the death penalty should return for murderers, there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of doing so, but our politicians debate this issue occasionally and always decide against its return. The fact that the racing community are an informed minority does not make the uninformed populous in general (the majority) right.
"Cyclonic, you are usually a fountain of sense, but i am afraid on this occasion i must disagree. I do not think that Richard Hughes has 'thrown his toys from the pram'. To me it seems a far more genuine decision than that. Hughes is renowned for being thoughtful and intelligent both in and out of the saddle. The fact that he has fallen foul of the new rules seems to show that they are not getting the right results. Can anybody on this forum seriosuly say that they object to either of the rides for which he was banned? Aside from them breaking these new rules i have absolutely no problem with either of them whatsoever." Zenyatta, it wouldn't be the first time I've spoken out my rear end mate.
QM, you are quite right about public opinion being fickle. If an horrific murder takes place, an overwhelming number of the general public would vote for the death penalty, which in my opinion is an anathema. But this does not mean that the general public get it wrong all the time. The voice of the people drive advancement. Massed raised voices drove governments to ban child labour and gave indigenous people the vote.
PN very quick and easy question If the whip doesn't hurt, what does it do to the horse to make it respond for the 'hit'
BBC - Jockey Richard Hughes says riders who conform to the new whip rules are "not trying to the best of their ability". The 38-year-old has given up his riding licence in protest at the new regulations after receiving a second ban in the space of four days. Hughes told BBC Radio 5 live: "The way the rules are structured means you will have to change the way you ride. "We need the whip. It's a safety aspect. It's a simple tap on the bum, it doesn't hurt the horse." Hughes' decision to quit in protest comes as racing prepares for British Champions Day at Ascot, the richest raceday in the country's history with £3m of prize money on offer. The new guidelines mean the whip can only be used a maximum of seven times in a Flat race and eight times over the jumps - roughly half the previous limit. AnalysisContinue reading the main story Cornelius Lysaght, BBC horse racing correspondent The limits are likely to stay, but the punishments - which clearly were not working before the rules were tightened - have probably been set too high, and should be reviewed Cornelius Lysaght's full analysis In addition, a maximum of five strokes can be administered in the last furlong or from the final obstacle. Hughes was penalised under this clause, which is at the heart of his complaint. "I was whole-heartedly behind bringing down the number of times you can hit a horse. I was at the forefront, saying it's not a bad thing and we need to get used to it. I think I had two one-day bans in three years, with about 300 rides. I was the least offender of anyone," said Hughes. "But they've set a trap for us. We asked for a simple number from the Jockey's Association and they couldn't do that. "I know you should be able to count to seven, but it's multi-tasking. If anyone out there doesn't know what I mean, how many of them have been done by the same speed camera? You know it's there and by the time you go past it you think, 'oh no, I've done it again'. And you don't lose your license for a year, you get three points. Continue reading the main story If they consider changing the rules I'll ride again but at the moment they're taking the will to win away from us Richard Hughes "We [jockeys] were all up in arms about it in the week. We told them [the British Horseracing Association] we were struggling. "Jamie Stier, the head of the BHA, said he consulted us, but he did no such thing. I haven't spoken to the BHA myself. We told them we were finding it difficult but they said they weren't changing so get used to it." When it was suggested to him that other jockeys were managing to conform to the new rules, Hughes replied: "Yes, but they're not trying to the best of their ability, I'm afraid." Hughes did concede that should the regulations be reviewed he would weigh up returning to the sport. "If they consider changing the rules I'll ride again but at the moment they're taking the will to win away from us," he added. -------------------------------------
"Jamie Stier, the head of the BHA, said he consulted us, but he did no such thing. I haven't spoken to the BHA myself. We told them we were finding it difficult but they said they weren't changing so get used to it." That is my biggest gripe with the whole situation - there appears to have been insufficient consultation with the very people who are not only directly affected but are also probably in the best position to offer constructive advice.
They consulted the jockey's association, who should have asked for feedback from the jockeys. I don't buy into this idea that he wasn't consulted, AP has come out and said he was as has Frankie and a good few others. Perhaps Hughes didn't think it was necessary to get involved when the jockeys association asked for input?
Nass - the whip, whilst not hurting the horse, obviously causes a sensation when it comes into contact with the horse's skin. This is enough for the horse to say "blimey, what's that?!" and run faster. the racing whips also make a "cracking" noise as they are used and a lot of the time the horses respond to the sound. Comparing whips, a standard riding whip, which most everyday riders will carry, looks like this: please log in to view this image You can see that it is basically a plastic core with a little fabric wrapped around it. A jockey's whip, on the other hand, looks like this: please log in to view this image You can see that it is very heavily padded and therefore I would argue that a normal riding whip - often in the hands of inexperienced novice riders - is far harsher than a jockey's, which is wielded by an experienced horseman who has undergone years of training.
So it does hurt them. It causes a shock sensation which to me is akin to pain. If I was slapped with something (anything be it a rolled up newspaper or an aircushioned whip) it would cause a pain sensation (albeit very briefly) and cause a similar flight or fight sensation. This is my issue, the jockeys say it doesn't hurt, yet the touch of the whip makes the horse react in a manner that suggests that a fear sensation is taking place. It doesn't add up and I am an experienced race watcher and a racing fan. What the jockeys should be saying is that they want to stick to the new rules but they think the last furlong issue isn't working and needs looking at, rather than looking to defend their whip usage.
Jockey Richard Hughes says riders who conform to the new whip rules are "not trying to the best of their ability". Sorry Richard, but that doesn't hold water. It implies that the rider needs more strikes to "ride to the best of his ability." So what do we offer him 10 hits, maybe 15? Where does it end? Most of these top jocks could probably exceed that in the last furlong, so maybe 15 is not "riding to the best of their ability."
The problem with that Nass is that most things we do with horses must cause some kind of discomfort - metal in their mouths, heavy weights on their backs. Perhaps we should stop using them for sport/pleasure full stop and return them to the wild? (sorry, being a tad sarcastic) The best, and easiest, thing the BHA can do is get rid of the "only 5 hits within the final furlong rule", that is what is causing the confusion so far. Stick to a set number through the whole race and a lot of the complaints will go away. Twitter is now awash with backtracking - Paul Nichols is now calling for the rules to go back to the way they were, despite the BHA rolling him out at the start of the week to say what a wonderful thing it was. Several journalists have already pulled him up on it.
PN, I completely agree with you in regards the sarcasm, my issue isn't the whip or how many times they are using it. My issue is that the jockeys are saying that it doesn't cause any sort of pain or discomfort which I have always believed to be wrong, even with the new whips. I also think the BHA will get rid of the final furlong aspect. As for Twitter, it really is showing some jockeys and trainers up for being much more interested in their pay packet than being in it for the sport/horse welfare/ enjoyment. That is a very sad state of affairs.
It is certainly true that public opinion is not always wrong, but I did qualify my statements with the words “informed” and “uninformed”. Here in Blighty, we currently have a coalition government because the general public could not decide who they wanted running the country. As we only managed to give the female half of the population the vote at all just a hundred years ago, I think we still have some distance to go in operating by popular consensus. Nass, I think that we may be getting bogged down in semantics here. When Wayne Rooney got sent off for England for kicking an opponent in the back of the calf, that would have caused the player pain but he soon got up and continued playing. It hurt (brief pain sensation) but it was not a broken leg (physical harm caused). Horses are flight animals. A tap on the backside with the whip will cause them to take flight – that is why it is used. The fact that the visible injury percentage in the sport is so miniscule will be why the jockeys say that it does not hurt (physical harm caused).
