Whip Restrictions: Day 1 review - | Horse Racing

In that case, I'm with Neal Wailing and John McCririck on this one, but as per my option 1. Then if the whip is used at all it's the stewards' job to determine if it was necessary. Whatever anyone feels about whipping in general, I really don't understand how anyone can support a rule that says you can hit a horse 8 times in the Grand National but 7 times in a 5f sprint. FFS if this isn't "Tick Box Quality Control" then what is?

I'm sorry but I cannot be swayed from my stand on this, a rule designed by imbeciles, so I'll have to gracefully withdraw from the debate and leave you good folk to it. Certainly a controversial topic and I'm sure we will witness some heated arguments. It will be interesting to see if it blows over or blows up.

 

Ron were you complaining when it was 11 for the flat with 12 as a caution and 13 as a ban?

Not that I can remember, people are moaning because its different. Lets take stock it 12 months

 

Mr. Doggett's piece was most interesting, but it must be remembered that it comes from a pro racing point of view. The only comment I'll make on the article also centres around a quote offered earlier.


"There is confusion over why these new whip rules have come to fruition: is it for the horse's welfare, is it to reduce the number of whip infringements or is it to attract new people to the sport?

The worry I have is that it is the latter."

It seemed to me that Mr. Doggett was down playing the opinions of those who are not involved in the industry. This is a huge mistake. The number of women in this world, who have no interest in racing, but have enormous influence in a family, must run into the millions in the UK alone. If the BHA are genuine about trying to attract new people to the sport, then they can not turn their backs on the women. If the game is left to those who think that a protective fence can be thrown up around the sport, and expect it to thrive, then I believe them to be sadly mistaken.

The BHA might not have been able to get a drip into the arm of what some believe to be an ailing industry, but to denigrate their efforts is a cheap shot. They seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place. Racing people have their gripes, so the BHA have to lend an ear. The rest of society have a gripe, they need listening to. No matter how the often or how loudly the pro whip lobby complain about the stupidity of the new rules, and the effect the whip has on horse flesh, they will always be out numbered by the world at large. They don't like the whip. This has to be faced. Nothing is to be gained by denigrating the opinions of the vast majority of the people.

 

I think, though i may be wrong, that this is exactly Ron's point. All three of the incidents you describe above broke the existing rules, and would absolutely smash what is currently permissable. However, his point is that the offences are not necessarily 'bad' use of the whip in terms of the horses wlefare. Just because a jockey has broken the 'rules' does not necessarily mean that he has used the whip in an improper way in the view of an 'expert'. However, a system which gave such discretion to those enforcing it would be impossible because of the need for consistency. In an ideal world every race would be analysed by a number of experts who could then pass their judgement on every riders use of the whip. In practice resources do not allow this.

The other point to note is that just because a jockey cannot use their whip does not mean that they cannot continue to ride a finish. This distinction is important because i think many people, both on this forum and professional commentators, are making it sound like as soon as the maximum number is reached the horse might as well be pulled up. This is obviously not the case at all.

I must say that i think the furore over the new rules will settle down quite quickly. They are very simple and very easy to understand. Once jockeys adapt i suspect we will be wondering what all the fuss was about. I read the views of Ferdy Murphy somewhere (though i cannot remember where) and i think he had it about spot on. He said the rules were straight forward and everybody should just shut up and get on with it. I think everyone will eventually just get on with it but i think it might well take a little while for people to stop the discussion!

 

Nass, I am no expert on what the old whip rules actually said, but allegedly the old “rules” were “guidelines” and as such the stewards could use their discretion; whereas the new “rules” appear to be a strict matter of counting with no interpretation (ask Richard Hughes).

Presumably all the stewards have been down to SpecSavers and can definitely tell the difference between a jockey actually striking their mount rather than just waving the stick at it to persuade it to do as it were trained.

As the Sporting Life article asked: “on a long run-in like at Aintree, where there is 494 yards between the final fence and the winning line, why should jockeys have to follow the same guidelines as those who only have one furlong, or 220 yards?”

The statistics would suggest that a sledgehammer has been taken to the nut here: from roughly 100,000 rides during a year, only 20 visible marks, or weals, will occur. When they change motoring laws to crack down on 0.0002 per cent occurrence incidents, nobody will be driving.

 

As I said, I have graciously withdrawn from the debate but I should answer your question Nass because it is a very good point worth mentioning. The straight answer is no I wasn't. I should add though that, to be honest, I hadn't really taken that much notice before and it was only through being drawn into this debate that I have given it any thought now. I thought jockeys were pulled in at the stewards' discretion, and I think that is a much better system than simply counting. I accept that discretion does raise the probability of inconsistency, but it is in the interests of the stewards to aim for consistency and there is an appeals option. I suspect that some level of discretion will prevail anyway as there will be disagreements as to what constitutes a "hit".