Richard Hughes Quits after second ban for whip offence

QM, and Wayne Rooney got a three match ban for an offence.

Horses are flight animals but there has to be rational conversation about this, and that comes from jockeys accepting that the whip is going to have an effect on the horses pain levels and mental state and the jocks have to accept that the rules are for the good of racing.

Instead what we are seeing is Richard Hughes stating that he can't do his job properly because he isn't able to hit a horse more than 5 times in 220 yards. He can do his job, but not in the way he was doing it before the changes.

He and the other big names in the racing world need to sit down with the BHA and talk about it in a sensible way without pressing through the media with these false statements.

 

Why use a whip if a horse is no danger to either another horse or man? It can only come down to money.

Is there any physical or psychological pain involved in using the whip? If so, then to use it, just in the pursuit of money, must be wrong.

 

I think QM has managed to sum up what I was trying, and failing, to say. There are degrees of pain and discomfort. If a horse was truly in severe pain or fright he would veer across the track and do his best to decant the rider.

 

Oddy, that's what I do anyway

 

Oddy, the stewards will do it, with their abacus'

 

After the hysteria on Five Live early this morning it's a pleasure to read a measured debate by people who love the sport, the animals and know what they are talking about. <appaluse> Allow me to change that......

I like Richard Hughes a lot but I think he has seriously misjudged this one and threatens to really damage not only the image of the sport but his whole position in the debate on what is a very serious issue. As Nass rightly says the way to deal with this properly would have been to sit down with the BHA, expalin why there is an issue with the rules and try to reach a proper solution to the satisfaction of all parties.

Now all we're getting is "Richard Hughes has retired because they won't allow him to beat the horses". If there are demonstrations by the jockeys it will be reported along the same lines and the image of the sport will suffer. I do agree with QM to a degree about the critics of the sport but some of them are not ignorant idiots and they need to be listened to (and then told they are wrong). It would be interesting to know what the RSPCA has to say about the whole thing because it was an admirable voice of reason during the furore over this year's grand national.

The BHA has got this badly wrong - I have no problem with stricter rules on the use of the whip but this seems to be very random (Ron was right when he said it was just box ticking) and hastily rushed through. We really need common sense to prevail or the sport will suffer massively.

Finally, I have to confess that if the name Richard Hughes was substituted with Frankie Dettori i'd probably be saying he should shut up, get on with it and the BHA is right!

 

To clarify Hughes' position:

From BBC website:

"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.

"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's raceday regulation] 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."


I ought to clarify that I am by no means a Richard Hughes fan. I have nothing but respect for him as a horseman, but my feelings for his as a person are somewhat different following an incident in a Newmarket pub a number of years ago.

 

'I do agree with QM to a degree about the critics of the sport but some of them are not ignorant idiots and they need to be listened to (and then told they are wrong)'

LOL - comment of the thread

 

PN.....RH has had issues with alcohol, so I wouldn't hold his actions in a pub against him. Alot of us have done stupid things we later regret, after alot to drink

 

ATR are reporting that all jockeys booked for rides at Windsor on Monday have been removed.

It is not showing up on RP yet, but it takes time for changes to filter down from Weatherbys.

 

Cross-posted with you Shergar: the incident didn't, to my knowledge, involve much in the way of alcohol but suffice to say a married man should not behave in such a way.

 

PN.....fair enough

 

Brilliant news, all the jockeys have gone on strike on monday at Windsor, and possibly over the jumps at Plumpton. There showing there support for Hughsie

 

So why Windosr and Plumpton on Monday rather than Ascot and Cheltenham tomorrow? Nothing to do with prize money per chance?

 

A strike/action tomorrow would be the worst thing that could happen. It would be manna from heaven for the antis.

 

Leaving it until Monday shows the weakness of the argument by the jockeys. They are fine to ride to the rules when it suits but when its a small meeting they will all walk out.

If they cared that much they would boycott todays racing. Simple as.

 

I agree I think it would be hilarious if they did it tommorow, all that planning from the BHA. However I can understand why they have started striking at the lower value meetings first, if the BHA still don't get the message, then maybe they will be forced to start doing it on saturdays.

Though I'm sure a monday strike will do the trick

 

I don't like it - all that will happen is everyone will say "they're protesting and defending their right to beat horses". It's not very image friendly is it?

 

They might well say that. But then surely it is 'our' job to educate them why this view is not correct, rather than allow them to continue pronouncing their erroneous view on this matter.

There is no way that the whip 'hurts'. I can fully accept, and agree, that it has an effect. They feel it but it does not cause any 'pain'.

In rugby two men of roughly similar size, bulldoze into each other, they feel the contact don't they, but (usually) it does not cause pain. I think the whip is similar in that the horse knows it is being used but it does not mean that it is painful.

I read a post on another forum which was useful to describe it's effect. The whip is the accelerator. How is the horse supposed to know when to give his all if there is no signal from above. Pushing out hands and heels is adequate to a certain extent but it is the use of the whip which says "go for it, all you've got". I think this image of the whip as an accelerator rather than a way of 'hitting' the horse is perhaps useful to explain its use.