Breaking News - Whip Rules Changed

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PNkt

PNkt

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2011
8,106
2,033
113
Newmarket
From BBC in the last 5 minutes:

Whip rules amended by British Horseracing Authority
Page last updated at 08:45 GMT, Friday, 21 October 2011 09:45 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version Frankie Dettori and A P McCoy were among the jockeys to call for changes The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has agreed to amend controversial new regulations on use of the whip, BBC Sport can reveal.

Riders must keep to tight limits on the number of times they strike a horse, seven in flat races, eight over jumps. But they will now be able to use that allocation at any point in the race.

Jockeys could still lose prize money if they exceed the allowance.

The new ruling will be applied retrospectively.

More to follow.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/horse_racing/15401210.stm
 
So Hughes will be able to ride in the Breeders Cup I take it. Joy of joy, shows how much power one top jockey can have.
 
Prize money will only be deducted for bans of 7 days+, which effectively means first offence will not see prize money taken away.
 
I don't want to jump the gun before full details are made public, but it seems the BHA have panicked at the reaction of one jockey, which was followed up by another jockey threatening legal action because he lost £50k, and a bunch of other respected figures who had very little choice other than to back their jockey colleagues.

I think the amendments are more workable and are probably a good compromise (though weighted in favour of flat jockeys I think), but the fact they've made these changes 2 weeks after the new rules were brought in having spent 10 months 'researching' shows the BHA are spineless IMO and I await the next amendment when the NH season gets into full swing and there's a high profile issue....
 
OddDog said:
But I guess no refund for Soumillon? (I would hope the owners have seen him right though)
Click to expand...

If the ruling is applied retrospectively, wouldn't that mean Christophe would get his money? I sincerely hope he does anyway. He wins the richest race in British racing history and has to tap nick luck up for his taxi fare. What a way to treat a guest in our country.
 
I don't see this being the end of it to be honest and fully expect more objections from jockey's - especially when the jump season gets into full swing!
Whatever rules they bring in for me is a farce if, off the back of a jockey breaking the rules, a horse is allowed to keep the race.
The owners still have their winnings and as Odddog says the owners will no doubt see Soullimon right even if he loses his appeal and that will be the case across the boards!
 
Both Hughes & Soumillon's bans, and therefore fines, will be overturned as neither were in breach of the "new" rules.

I agree it goes to show how spineless the BHA are, but the fact is they brought in new, unworkable, rules without a trial period. Whoever came up with that idea needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

If Paul Roy goes I'm considering sending my CV off to High Holborn :grin:
 
Whilst this is still a BBC “Breaking News” story it might not be as done and dusted as it seems. Gaddafi was captured yesterday and then he was dead!

If the changes are to be applied retrospectively, then surely Monsieur Soumillon will get his £52,000 back, even though he is Belgian. Hercule Poirot’s little grey cells not required.
 
I'm trying to think now, can anyone remember how many times Soumillion struck Cirrus Des Aigles? If he went over 7 in total the fine may still stand.

I'm a little confused!
 
According to the report on the incident on the BBC Sport pages, Soumillon was handed a five day ban and lost his prize money for striking his mount six times in the final furlong.

If striking his mount six times is no longer an offence, then the penalty must be rescinded. I would say that purely as a matter of ‘natural law’. The offence committed has been retrospectively removed so there was no offence.

If he had been banned for striking his mount more than seven times in the whole race, then there would potentially be grounds for upholding his punishment.

They surely cannot go back, watch the video again and say that they are changing the ban to the latter case (assuming that it applies) because ‘double jeopardy’ must apply.

To quote Soumillon on 15th October:

They have changed the rules five days before the race - how can they do that?

I'm very embarrassed for English racing today.

You have a lot of problems but the whip is not one of them.

Jockeys are not here to whip horses, they are here to make the horses do their best and that is what I tried to do.
Click to expand...
 
Archers Road said:
If the ruling is applied retrospectively, wouldn't that mean Christophe would get his money? I sincerely hope he does anyway. He wins the richest race in British racing history and has to tap nick luck up for his taxi fare. What a way to treat a guest in our country.
Click to expand...

Fair's fair - he's Belgian and therefore deserves all the bad luck he gets. NB - this post has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that my biggest bet of the day on Saturday was on So You Think.
 
The rules were in place when he was fined, so I don't realy see that he has much of a case. The BHA could as a nice gesture give him the money, but I don't realy see that they have to, they were the rules at the time and he broke them. Same as Richard Hughes and his Breeders Cup ban:biggrin:
 
But they've said the rules will be applied retrospectively.

I see that Hughsie didn't bother handing in his license after all - he now rides at Newbury this afternoon, jocking other lads off.
 
cyclonic111 said:
He neglected to add. "Of course to do this, we have to whip the horse."
Click to expand...

Cyc, they should go the whole nine yards and ban the whip altogether. They can introduce the ban starting on Monday. The sport will go out of business before 1st November because punters will vote with their wallets and purses.

Horses do not run because they love having somebody sat on their back bullying them. They run because they are a flight animal. If they are not pushed, shoved or struck they will run as part of the herd in a totally random manner.

I think you will find that most married men get out of bed in the morning and go to work not because they love getting up and going to work but because ‘er indoors kicks them out of bed. Given the choice they would stay up half the night drinking, playing cards and watching porn and then have a lie-in until midday. Jeffrey Barnard will be spinning in his box!
 
QuarterMoonII said:
I think you will find that most married men get out of bed in the morning and go to work not because they love getting up and going to work but because ‘er indoors kicks them out of bed. Given the choice they would stay up half the night drinking, playing cards and watching porn and then have a lie-in until midday. Jeffrey Barnard will be spinning in his box!
Click to expand...

Stunning <applause>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back