So far Hughes is the only senior jock to be penalised, isn't he?
He's been done twice for 6, clearly can't count.
Fox was obviously guilty of completely ignoring the whip rules in order to win.
Would have only got a couple of days under the old system. The new penalty seems more sensible.
New Whip Rules
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
With regards to race fixing I don't see any reason for it to lead to more fixing. They could say they thought they had used up their quota just like they can say now they thought they heard the horse make a noise. Therefore I think it makes no difference in this regard.
As for the horses thinking it will stop when the race is over so best to run as fast as it can I do not subscribe to that theory.
From my own personal experience of riding my own horses as well as race horses they most definitely do respond to the whip. Be it when trying to get my horse to cross a stream which it is reluctant to cross or be it to get the horse to go faster. Or when a lorry goes past and it goes to shy away a sharp reminder will help stop it whipping around which could not be achieved from the use of other aids such as the reins or using my body.
So it does have a place in the sport and I do not think it is cruel to use it, but the previous system was not working. There were too many bans and to big a incentive to break the rules. I think William Buick said in the last few days something like he would rather finish 2nd now then risk a ban. That should always have been the case as breaking the rules imo is cheating.
As for the horses thinking it will stop when the race is over so best to run as fast as it can I do not subscribe to that theory.
From my own personal experience of riding my own horses as well as race horses they most definitely do respond to the whip. Be it when trying to get my horse to cross a stream which it is reluctant to cross or be it to get the horse to go faster. Or when a lorry goes past and it goes to shy away a sharp reminder will help stop it whipping around which could not be achieved from the use of other aids such as the reins or using my body.
So it does have a place in the sport and I do not think it is cruel to use it, but the previous system was not working. There were too many bans and to big a incentive to break the rules. I think William Buick said in the last few days something like he would rather finish 2nd now then risk a ban. That should always have been the case as breaking the rules imo is cheating.
It is, but if the horse (for argument's sake) feels no pain, then it's a silly, PR-driven rule.andyfuller wrote:breaking the rules imo is cheating.
Surely it's better if the jockeys are focusing on the race, rather than thinking 'Have I whipped the horse 4 times or 5 times?'.
Jeff
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
So if the horse does not feel any pain do you think they should be allowed to hit the horse with the whip as much as they want and therefore have no limit on the number of hits?Ferru123 wrote:It is, but if the horse (for argument's sake) feels no pain, then it's a silly, PR-driven rule.
Surely it's better if the jockeys are focusing on the race, rather than thinking 'Have I whipped the horse 4 times or 5 times?'.
Yes.
The phrase 'victimless crime' comes to mind...
Who loses out because of the whipping if the horse feels no pain?
Jeff
The phrase 'victimless crime' comes to mind...
Who loses out because of the whipping if the horse feels no pain?
Jeff
andyfuller wrote: So if the horse does not feel any pain do you think they should be allowed to hit the horse with the whip as much as they want and therefore have no limit on the number of hits?
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
So to follow the point through, your stance is that there should be no limit to how much a whip can be used in a race as it is said that it causes no pain to the horse if used in the correct position. You would only penalise people if they used the whip in the incorrect position which could inflict pain to a horse. As such using your thinking the old rules must have been incorrect as well and you would actually advocate increased use of the whip, all assuming that James Willo is correct in that the whip causes no pain.
Interesting view point...
Interesting view point...
The phrase 'idiocy' springs to mind.Yes.
The phrase 'victimless crime' comes to mind...
Who loses out because of the whipping if the horse feels no pain?
What does the horse feel, if not pain? What else persuades it to modify its behaviour?
If it feels nothing, the whip is no loss.
Dunno. It might feel like a gentle tap...payuppal wrote: What does the horse feel, if not pain?
Not being a horse, I can only speculate!
But seriously, I'm not qualified to comment on whether a horse feels pain - Hence my use of the 'if' clause...
Jeff
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
What do you mean by Welfare Issues though? Do you just mean no pain?
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
PR, because the a majority of the public perceives that it hurts the horses because they don't realise that (a) the whips are made from air-cushioned foam and (b) that whipping a horse and a human don't hurt the same.Ferru123 wrote:What's the point of a restriction for a restriction's sake?
The BHA should have devoted their PR machine to education and highlighting the safety of the new whip.
Last edited by superfrank on Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quite.
And the position they have taken will lead people to think 'Either the whip hurts the horse, in which case it shouldn't be used at all, or it doesn't, in which case what's the point of regulation?'
The BHA's position reminds me of Cameron's apology to women the other week, ie an unpleasant and transparently insincere PR move...
Jeff
And the position they have taken will lead people to think 'Either the whip hurts the horse, in which case it shouldn't be used at all, or it doesn't, in which case what's the point of regulation?'
The BHA's position reminds me of Cameron's apology to women the other week, ie an unpleasant and transparently insincere PR move...
Jeff