New Whip Rules

Same story when he came to Australia in the late 60s Ron.

 

I wonder if they allowed the Local Government Association to have a say on these new whip rules. They do appear to have tried to placate the animal rights nutters and come up with a system that will be completely unworkable.

Next year when they end up banning half the jockeys in the Stewards Cup, Ayr Gold Cup or Cambridgeshire for excessive use of the whip, they are going to find the punters voting with their feet and the bookies won’t like that.

There is no realistic way that the stewards are going to be able to count the number of times a whip is used by every jockey in a twenty-plus runner race.

It will be interesting to see what happens to betting turnover on races at Towcester when they have a meeting with no whips. Horseracing cannot divorce itself from the bookies because The Levy is based on their turnover. If Horse A needs a couple of cracks of the whip to get it to put its best foot forward and loses in a photo to Horse B because it was ridden hands and heels that is surely no different to fixing the race by dropping your hands and not riding out to the line.

Since the new guidelines come in before Champions’ Day at Ascot, how many jockeys will have the following week off?

 

Just think if they disqualified the horses as well. "And here is the result of the 3.15 at Ascot" (it's now 9.30pm by the way). "First No 23" (who actually finished 13th), "2nd No 5" (who actually finished 24th).

Further announcement. "Tomorrow's meeting has been postponed for 5 days"

 

According to this morning's RP, Towcester have dropped their plans to ban the whip. They have said, however, that they will read the report in full and may revisit the idea at a future date.

 

'Since the new guidelines come in before Champions’ Day at Ascot, how many jockeys will have the following week off?'

Fair point that has deeper inplications, how many top pilots will now choose to take a week off leading up to Royal Ascot, Cheltenham, Aintree etc thus devaluing meetings just before big festivals ?

 

In addition to yout point Ron, there have been many times that I have watched a race with someone and had to explain that often the horse is not touched by the whip, the jockey merely "shows" the whip to the horse. It can sometimes be very difficult to tell the difference.

Lester's ride on ROYAL ACADEMY in the BC Mile wouldn't stand up to these rules, that's for sure!

 

I have always believed it is only possible to get up that hill either under persuasion or in a cab, so not entirely surprised by Towcesters line.....

 

A couple of points to make:

1. McCoy is always a figure whose name is raised when the subject of the whip crops up. As far as i'm concerned he would be an even easier champion if the whip was banned owing to his strength in the saddle. His ability to encourage a horse forward without the whip is second to non, but, and as you would expect, he is also adept at using the whip as well. I don't think it has made one tiny bit of difference to the number of titles he has won.

2. The sound of the whip is an interesting one. I think this may be another case (like with the Grand National dismounting) where an admirable welfare change has brought about a negative side effect. The new padded whips do not hurt the horse but do make a loud 'smack' when they are used. This means that the sound of the whip is one of the key factors which makes it an effective tool. In contrast the older whips wouldn't make the same noise but are much harsher on the horse itself. I think a large portion of the watching public hear the whip and think 'ouch that must hurt', but the reason that the whips makes that noise is for the very opposite reason. I hope that makes some sort of sense.

3. Believe me, if a horse was disqualified from a race because the jockey had contravened the whip rules then the rules would not be broken very often. I am not saying that i necessarily agree that it would be a beneficial development but it would certainly be an effective deterrent, especially since the owner/trainer/etc. would also be affected. An interesting point is that it would make 'skulduggery' very easy indeed. Say you were pulling a horse then all you had to do would be infringe the whip rule to guarantee losing the race.

4. The final point to say is that it will always be an area of contention. The difficulty is that a one size fits all policy is necessary so that everybody knows where they stand and so that it is perceived as fair. However, in practice a one size fits all policy can never be entirely satisfactory because there will always be exceptions worthy of different treatment. I also agree that an absolute number is not necessarily satisfactory, and that the circumstances must be taken into account. A jockey might not use their whip at all until the last furlong and then smack it 8 times in 8 strides, which, as we all know, is not desirable at all. Then a jockey who uses their whip twice on the first circuit because their horse was pulling himself up round the stable bend, and then twice more when the horse tried to run out, and so on. Suddenly they are left with very few 'hits' for the finish.

NB. I think a 'hit' is defined as using the whip with the whip hand off the rein. Therefore a slap down the shoulder would not count as a 'hit'.

 

It's a real predicament, isn't it?

As far as horse safety and welfare is concerned, I will support anything that improves life for the horses and makes them physically safer.


As for the animal rights activists though, I feel that whilst their heart is in the right place, they are also completely ignorant as to the facts and I would bet that a great deal of them form their opinions visually- i.e seeing a horse being 'whipped', without doing the slightest bit of research into whether it hurts the horse etc.

You have to consider puclic perception of the word 'whip'- most people imagine being branded i.e what you see in punishment scenes from films documenting centuries earlier. But how different, can we argue, is a whip in horse racing?


I can't really form an opinion without seeing comprehensive research into whether the whip hurts the horses, and whether the whip really does make them run faster. You have to remember, the whip gets drawn at the business end of a race, and at that point we are dealing with horses stamina and at that point their top speed. A question that needs to be posed is 'How far can it be suggested that a horse will run on in the final furlong with just hands and heels riding?' and obviously from the other angle- 'how far can it be said that a whip brings about extra performance in a horse in a race?'

There is so much to consider to fully undertsand this issue. We're not animal psychologists- we don't know what makes them tick. We only think a whip makes them run faster because we see them used on the television. But then again I had to re-think my opinions, having seen Born To Sea come home very strongly to win a listed race on debut with just hands and heels riding.

I should think that the greater debate in horseracing ought to be track safety and the ground (Too many incidents at the new Ascot course for my liking, bringing into question the ground), and of course in NH, whether or not we can reduce the number of injuries to horses over fences.


You should not be able to make a judgment until you know the following:

a) Whether the whip hurts the horse and case studies into the 'marking' of horses which has happened occasionally.

b)Research into the performance of horses comparatively between hands and heels riding and then a race where you draw the whip. Let's compare times and let's compare the responses of the horse.

-I'd be fascinated to see just how much of it plays to stamina and indeed momentum, and I should think the whip has more of a marginal impact than the implied big impact that people think.

c)Let's try and understand horses psychology- if we understand more about what makes horses want to run, we can then make judgment as to how much the whip influences a horse.

d) Let's perform some research into the frequency of whipping- For example, over the final 2f of a race, would hitting a horse 3 times in 3 seconds make he or she run any faster than one slap every 3 seconds?


So if you get where I'm coming from- the sense that if there was little or no difference in a horses response to one slap per 3 seconds compared to 3 slaps every 3 seconds, we could then have a truer idea of how many times and how frequently a horse needs to be whipped to benefit its importance. (I.e it might be possible to ascertain that we can reduce the number of whips without reducing a horses performance)

I think the problem with the whip debate is that one side of the debate is so far left, and the other side of the debate is so far right. As usual, and is seems to be the case in British society as a whole, there is no common sense used and people form opinions through ignorance and not understanding the true facts.

 

There seems to be some small discrepancy in the discussions, about what effect the whip has on a horse. If the modern whip is mostly noise, and has a minimal effect on the animal, why then the need to curb it's use?

 

One word: perception.

People (by which I mean non-racegoers) perceive the whip to be cruel and or/harsh. If you asked most riders, from a happy hacker to an eventer, if they'd be happy giving up THEIR whips they would tell you in no uncertain terms "no". Personally speaking I always carry a whip when I ride, unless the horse is known to have a distinct dislike of them - usually horses that have been badly treated in the past.

 

I'm actually the opposite to Princess in that i tend not to carry a whip unless i think i will need it. I'm used to riding well mannered polite event horses though which is a little different to an unruly racehorse. But what cannot be in doubt is that the whip can be an essential aid. And when i say essential that is exactly what i mean. It can be the difference between a horse putting its foot down a drain/crashing into a car/etc and not.

People seem to forget the a horse is 500kg (roughly) of immensely powerful muscle with a mind of its own. Sometimes a bloody good smack from the 75kg person on top is exactly what is necessary. I am the last to resort to the whip and see it very much as the final tool, but nevertheless it is a very important to ensure that their behaviour does not become uncontrollable and dangerous. A 500kg horse doing exactly what it wants is a recipe for disaster.

 

This from 2003 in Sweden and this sort of thing will happen here.


NEIL CALLAN is considering an appeal after being given a 14-day riding ban under the strict whip rules in force in Sweden, writes Howard Wright.

Callan, whose suspension runs from May 17-30, was adjudged to have used his whip above shoulder height on Lygeton Lad in the pounds 70,000 Pramms Memorial - Europe's richest Listed race - at Jagersro, near Malmo, on Thursday night.

Callan disputed the stewards' interpretation of his riding. However, he was stung more by the length of the ban, which under local rules reflected the value of the race.

The rider returned to England yesterday with a video of the race, which he was arranging to view with Jockeys' Association chief executive Michael Caulfield.

Callan said: "I understand that if it had been an ordinary race I would have been fined, but 14 days is out of all proportion. That length of time in Sweden covers about four racing days, but in England it takes in a full fortnight's work.

"I still maintain I didn't hit the horse above shoulder height. I knew you can only hit a horse five times in a race in Sweden, and I stuck to that."

Lygeton Lad, trained by Gay Kelleway, did not cover himself with glory, having been

reluctant to go to post. He showed prominently to two furlongs out before weakening to finish ninth behind Mandrake El Mago.

Apprentice Luke Fletcher also fell foul of the Jagersro stewards on his first ride in Sweden. He was fined pounds 200 after recent Haydock winner No Time was touched off in the last strides by Hide And Seek in the Listed Sydsvenskan Sprint.

No Time edged left in the last furlong and impeded Just Michael, who finished fourth in a blanket finish. Mark Polglase, No Time's trainer, is still considering the William Hill

Trophy at York for his stable star.

 

and study from australia....hmmm

Concerns have been expressed concerning animal-welfare issues associated with whip use during Thoroughbred races. However, there have been no studies of relationships between performance and use of whips in Thoroughbred racing. Our aim was to describe whip use and the horses' performance during races, and to investigate associations between whip use and racing performance. Under the Australian Racing Board (ARB) rules, only horses that are in contention can be whipped, so we expected that whippings would be associated with superior performance, and those superior performances would be explained by an effect of whipping on horse velocities in the final 400 m of the race. We were also interested to determine whether performance in the latter sections of a race was associated with performance in the earlier sections of a race. Measurements of whip strikes and sectional times during each of the final three 200 metre (m) sections of five races were analysed. Jockeys in more advanced placings at the final 400 and 200 m positions in the races whipped their horses more frequently. Horses, on average, achieved highest speeds in the 600 to 400 m section when there was no whip use, and the increased whip use was most frequent in the final two 200 m sections when horses were fatigued. This increased whip use was not associated with significant variation in velocity as a predictor of superior placing at the finish.

 

I think, like Oddy, I must apologise for my flippant comments. There is some seriously good debate on this thread.

 

One thing that bugs me is that,how are they going to steward a jockey for not trying to to get a finish out of a horse now, could be alot of horses lose for no reason and the jockeys defense will be i hit him 8 times before we slowed up

 

It always amuses me how much the British racing authorities get their knickers in a twist about the whip issue. Here in Ireland, the use of the whip is pretty much a non-issue because we don't pander to the fluffy bunny brigade who haven't a bull's notion about horse racing and whose ultimate aim is to get racing banned anyway. Common sense usually prevails here when it comes to stewards deliberating over whether or not a jockey has used his whip with excessive force or frequency. These new rules are even further emasculating the Sport of Kings in the UK.

 

Another interesting point was raised here concerning the use of whips by recreational riders, as preventive devises. I think this is a fair point, for not only is the rider at risk here, but in come cases, the general public. And there is the distinct possibility that a huge percentage of these riders will not have the abilities of a professional race rider, so the carrying of a whip here is a prudent exercise.

While there are some safety issues that cross the racing and non racing divide, I don't believe that the links are all that strong. I don't think there are too many people outside racing who would deny a jockey a whip, if it was to be used for the safety of either horse of person. No one wants to see a horse take charge of a rider. If race riders carried whips for the express purpose of curbing unruly behavior by an animal, then the so called "fluffy bunny brigade" would probably not have a problem. But the issue here is not so much about safety, but the use of a whip to try and force a higher performance from what would probably be a tired animal. Is the whipping of an animal morally justifiable, if the end result is only to make more prize money?

A really ticklish point was raised about the use of whips to keep a horse's mind on the job, when approaching a fence. Whether we like it or not, there can be no doubt, that a human life must rank above that of an animal. So if a human lessens the risk of injury to himself or other riders, then the use of the whip can be condoned. But to accept this as a truth, is also to open the door to a much more ticklish subject, the total banning of jump racing. For to force an animal to concentrate, by use of a whip, calls into the question the morality of what constitutes cruelty to animals. If a horse has lost the inclination to jump, then ethically, it should not be forced to do so. The sole reason for doing so, is again the pursuit of money.

I must state here that I'm a racing fan, and as such, see myself as a bit of a hypocrite here. I want my cake, yet be able to eat it too. I can't get away from the belief that racing is a cruel exercise, but I'm fascinated by it. It's a huge business that pulls in a billion dollars a year in punting profits for bookies in the UK, per year. And this is only a drop in the bucket compared to the total income generated by the sport over that same period. The ripple effect spreads well outside the game itself. It reaches all corners of the economy, and provides incomes for untold numbers.

 

What I found really interesting yesterday was the postitive reactions from AP, Nicholls, Mark Bradburne and a host of others who all came out supporting the changes.
First thing that entered my mind was that as they're influencial people in the sport perhaps they've been instructed to portray 100% support and paint a picture of a unified sport for once....