As mentioned on Peter's Blog; the new whip rules are in force today...
Here is a brief report :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/horse_r ... 236541.stm
Should be interesting!
New Whip Rules
In the horses interest I suppose its not a bad thing; don’t think anyone likes
to see excessive use of the whip, but I don’t understand why the two codes are allowed the same amount of whacks irrespective of the trip.
I would have thought that national hunt races would merit more than the 8 allowed in total, in that there can be more occasions when for safety reasons that jockeys need to bring the horse back under his control, with the aid of the whip.
I think on the flat sprint races the seven allowed might be about right, as most of the whipping occurs in the last furlong or so (seems to me, not that good or familiar with the flat), but on the longer trips, for similar reasons as the nat hunt races, I think they should be allowed more whacks, for safety reason in the interests of both horses and jocks.
to see excessive use of the whip, but I don’t understand why the two codes are allowed the same amount of whacks irrespective of the trip.
I would have thought that national hunt races would merit more than the 8 allowed in total, in that there can be more occasions when for safety reasons that jockeys need to bring the horse back under his control, with the aid of the whip.
I think on the flat sprint races the seven allowed might be about right, as most of the whipping occurs in the last furlong or so (seems to me, not that good or familiar with the flat), but on the longer trips, for similar reasons as the nat hunt races, I think they should be allowed more whacks, for safety reason in the interests of both horses and jocks.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Hits for safety reasons do not count towards the limit I believe. So if a horse is hanging and you use the whip more than the allowance that is okay.to75ne wrote:I think they should be allowed more whacks, for safety reason in the interests of both horses and jocks.
I think it is a lot of fuss and then a hell of a lot more fuss will come after the first ban.
Do away with the whip imo but for safety. As for trading I don't see it making any difference bar for those that trade form based.
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
most horses respond positively to the whip (it makes them try harder) and it doesn't hurt them anyway (the new whips are designed that way).
it's just gentle encouragement and it improves performance... like a few smacks on a girl's bum
it's just gentle encouragement and it improves performance... like a few smacks on a girl's bum
-
rubysglory
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:02 am
Consider this .....Two horses fighting out the finish. Your horse comes second beaten in the closest of photos. My horse wins with the jockey having been instructed to use all necessary force - 10 strokes of the whip in the final furlong. I win, both prizemoney and on the punt. You lose, having done the right thing, and with your jockey having only used the whip 5 times. My jockey cares not that he incurs a 'holiday' and loss of prizemoney and riding fees. The compensation I will pay will more than cover such losses.
rg
rg
-
SilentDave
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:30 am
I'm always interested in what Mark Johnston has to say on this matter. As an accomplished trainer and qualified vet he is better qualified than most to comment on the whip.
Interesting article from him here http://blog.highclassequine.com/2011/05 ... ebate.html
Interesting article from him here http://blog.highclassequine.com/2011/05 ... ebate.html
-
rubysglory
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:02 am
Interesting article by Mark Johnston. Not sure what his comments on Australian jockeys was supposed to be in aid of though ? The manner in which he describes the use of the whip be Australian jockeys as waving 'it around like the blade on a propeller' may have something do do with how tight they race compared to racing in Europe where there is often enough room between each runner to park a truck, thus allowing the often seen bird-flapping motion that jockeys in such parts of the world use when administering the whip.
rg
rg
-
psycho040253
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:29 pm
As I understand the rules, once a jockey has used up his whip stroke allocation, that's it. If he then exceeds it, even if he uses it to correct a horse, then the jockey is in breach of the code and liable for a fine/to have his riding fees confiscated together with his share of any prize monies due. The rules are somewhat typical of those created by a committee (in this case, the HRA).
Anyone who chooses to ride an animal weighing up to half a ton, that can travel at speeds of up to 40mph and has no mechanical braking system must have the odd screw loose, IMHO. If you get injured, you only have yourself to blame.
Having said that, I've ridden these wonderful creatures for most of my life and, yes, I have more than the odd screw loose.
When you ride a horse, you have a duty of care to the animal and to those around you. If a horse throws a fit, for whatever reason, you have a duty of care to keep the animal, and those around you, safe. I hated carrying a whip. But I carried one. I hated using it, but there were times that I had to - for the safety of the horse and others. Better a painful slap over the backside than a broken leg which results in the horse being destroyed.
Yes, there are jockeys who whip a horse to within an inch of its life. Well, get rid of those bas***ds but don't ban the use of the whip or impose ludicrous rules such as the one that has been.
Psycho
Anyone who chooses to ride an animal weighing up to half a ton, that can travel at speeds of up to 40mph and has no mechanical braking system must have the odd screw loose, IMHO. If you get injured, you only have yourself to blame.
Having said that, I've ridden these wonderful creatures for most of my life and, yes, I have more than the odd screw loose.
When you ride a horse, you have a duty of care to the animal and to those around you. If a horse throws a fit, for whatever reason, you have a duty of care to keep the animal, and those around you, safe. I hated carrying a whip. But I carried one. I hated using it, but there were times that I had to - for the safety of the horse and others. Better a painful slap over the backside than a broken leg which results in the horse being destroyed.
Yes, there are jockeys who whip a horse to within an inch of its life. Well, get rid of those bas***ds but don't ban the use of the whip or impose ludicrous rules such as the one that has been.
Psycho
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
Not true. It sometimes looks bad because, since the new air-cushioned whips were introduced, the jockeys have to put much more effort into each stroke for it to have much effect.psycho040253 wrote:Yes, there are jockeys who whip a horse to within an inch of its life.
These whips don't hurt the horse much at all imho.
James Willoughby made a good point on RUK when he said that, by limiting the amount of strokes, they are effectively admitting that the whip is a bad thing (i.e. 6 strokes are better than 7) which makes it very difficult for them to defend the whip at all when the now inevitable cries for a total ban come along.
The sport already accepts that there should be limits on the number of times a horse can be whipped.
Note Maguire's ban for his ride in the National, and many others.
The limits have been progressively reduced for the last 50 years, rightly so, IMO. The heavily marked horse that were commonplace when I first went racing would never be tolerated today.
What these new rules do is set exact numbers, making the policing of them much easier, and introduces much more severe penalties for breaking them, making it much less likely that they will be broken.
Seems to me that it is a welcome burst of clarity from the BHA.
Note Maguire's ban for his ride in the National, and many others.
The limits have been progressively reduced for the last 50 years, rightly so, IMO. The heavily marked horse that were commonplace when I first went racing would never be tolerated today.
What these new rules do is set exact numbers, making the policing of them much easier, and introduces much more severe penalties for breaking them, making it much less likely that they will be broken.
Seems to me that it is a welcome burst of clarity from the BHA.
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
But the problem with having exact limits is that it removes any discretion from the system. The old system made much more sense imho - they could just have tightened the rules a little bit.
What will be next?... banning NH racing because horses sometimes get hurt or die jumping fences?
What will be next?... banning NH racing because horses sometimes get hurt or die jumping fences?
When you say, tighten the old rules, what do you mean?
This is a tightenening of the old rules.
It makes it clear that whipping a horse home will not be tolerated, yet leaves enough room for safety, IMO.
It's not an appeasement of animal rights people but a perfectly sensible continuation of the trend of the last 50 years.
Jockeys know exactly where they are and will have to adapt.
The best will. I bet you Hanagan won't break the rule.
This is a tightenening of the old rules.
It makes it clear that whipping a horse home will not be tolerated, yet leaves enough room for safety, IMO.
It's not an appeasement of animal rights people but a perfectly sensible continuation of the trend of the last 50 years.
Jockeys know exactly where they are and will have to adapt.
The best will. I bet you Hanagan won't break the rule.