Not another whip thread

  • 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!
Bluesky9

Bluesky9

Philosopher
Jun 21, 2011
2,851
290
83
I know this may not be popular but i actually think the new whip rules are working very well and having a good effect on racing. Please do not get me wrong, i like everyone else, believe that the penalties and lack of common sense used by the stewards when someone does fall foul are still a mess, however i am seeing better riding and more restraint from the jockeys.

I have noticed a few races lately in this heavy ground where just through sheer lack of plan b in the past would have meant the jock laid into the horse in the finish because the horse was tired and in danger of stopping. Restless Harry at the weekend really needed stoking up and responded but the jockey after the last had to just ride him and he still got home. Were that race a year ago he would have continued to hit after the last yet now he did his best to keep the horse's momentum going with his own momentum and hands and heels, they are having to be better horsemen and i think that will help the real horsemen go further in a sport which in the past may have suited the strong handed jockeys.
 
I think the much needed further review will be about the penalties and the amount of discretion used by the stewards. The reason i was proposing it to be a success is that Jockeys are riding differently and having to be better horseman than simply resort to keep whipping. I have noticed many races where a horse would have been continually whipped through lack of imagination that now is being kept balanced and urged through hands and heels.

I would propose each Jockey getting three warnings in a season for going over by one stroke

Each time a ban is given for more than one over the ban is an automatic 2 days and only for jockeys being persistently banned which we could put at over 5 bans does it start to increase. The stewards must also exercise more understanding to individual cases, as was lacking in the N.Mackay case last week. I feel this would be proportinate to the issue and leave us with progress on the issue. I predict in 10 years time we will have more skillful jocks and we would look back at some welsh nationals with open mouths when looking at how the whip was being used back then.
 
Bluesky9 said:
I think the much needed further review will be about the penalties and the amount of discretion used by the stewards. The reason i was proposing it to be a success is that Jockeys are riding differently and having to be better horseman than simply resort to keep whipping. I have noticed many races where a horse would have been continually whipped through lack of imagination that now is being kept balanced and urged through hands and heels.

I would propose each Jockey getting three warnings in a season for going over by one stroke

Each time a ban is given for more than one over the ban is an automatic 2 days and only for jockeys being persistently banned which we could put at over 5 bans does it start to increase. The stewards must also exercise more understanding to individual cases, as was lacking in the N.Mackay case last week. I feel this would be proportinate to the issue and leave us with progress on the issue. I predict in 10 years time we will have more skillful jocks and we would look back at some welsh nationals with open mouths when looking at how the whip was being used back then.
Click to expand...

Bluesky

I fully appreciate the points you are trying to make but are there really jcokeys out there who would 'keep whipping' their horse when all chance has gone ?
I refuse to believe that there has ever been a jockey that doesn't have some affection with the horses beneath them and refuse even more that any jockey would deliberately set out to injure a horse for winning reward - the idea that jockeys were some kind of inconsiderate butchers doesn't sit well with me.
The furore came about after the National when Ballabriggs was aggresively ridden (for which Maguire was punished) yet despite the number of strikes he administered on the horse there was no injury whatsoever, Ballabriggs was paraded the following day and it was commented how happy and fresh the horse appeared.

There is no happy medium, what will please the RSPCA/do gooders will not please owners, trainers or punters who want their horses to compete and win and vice versa.

Yes rules are rules but there were rules in place before October, a fact that is forgotten by many, and the old rules where stewards were allowed to evaluate the severity of the crime and act accordingly worked very well in my opinion.

Cheltenham or Aintree will be overshadowed by the whip rules - whether that's a jockey(s) receiving huge bans or a horse failing by a small margin who wasn't given the full treatment I don't know, but I fear the headlines will not be for the right reasons and should this be the case Racing has failed....
 
I agree Grizzly no one whips their horse when chance is gone, the horses i am speaking of are those with every chance that are now being ridden a finish upon with more finesse than simply keep whipping to the line. Restless Harry was a great example on Saturday, tired, responding to asking but no whip strikes left the jockey had to think of how best keep him going. If i recall he was not hit from the last but still won, in the past he would have got another half a dozen smacks from the last as was tiring.

I have a feeling you may be right about the headlines at Cheltenham though.
 
Very sensible plan, the number still used to trigger an enquiry into the jockeys use but not an automatic ban.
 
Hopefully the first backward,but sensible,step that leads to the reintroduction of the "old rules/laws" and some sanity.Not sure though that much has really changed.

The ridiculous "new" whip sanctions were completely cosmetic and established solely to appease those outside the sport,and on that basis were reactionary and ill conceived.They had nothing to do with animal welfare because animlal welfare was never an issue,merely the ignorance that revolves around the public perception of race riding and stimuli used by racing professionals.

Anyhow not getting into this again,like most,I had my say on the original threads.
 
You're right there Dexter.

I have always felt that it should be about when and how the whip is used rather than just the number of times, although that comes into the 'how' obviously. If we have the right people in judgement (and that must include respected ex-jockeys) then I reckon we will have a much fairer system.

As for penalties, the first thing to happen if a jockey is judged to have contravened the rules has to be the disqualification of the horse. If a horse has won but the rules are broken then it is disqualified - a no-brainer really. It would then be up to the bookies how they treat bets on the disqualified and promoted horse. We can still have harsh penalties for the jockey but they would be dished out a lot less regularly and be more acceptable to the jockeys and all concerned.
 
'a rule which polices the use of the whip based solely on a fixed number of strikes is fundamentally flawed.'

It took them 4 months to come up with that ?
Honestly I despair, this latest change is good news for everyone I think and takes us back to pretty much where we were in September, to think of the pain and anger that's existed in that time that threatened the very future of racing.
Not sure whether the BHA are incompetent idiots or mugs but at least we've finally got to a point where I think racing can move forward....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back