Dettori 9 day Ban

W

Will

At the Start
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
796
Location
England
What do everyone think about this????

I think its grossly unfair. He gave the horse a top top ride. Without it, the horse probably wouldnt have won and we wouldnt have such a race. The horse kept responding to his whiping/action which was the most important point. He wasnt hitting the horse who wasnt responding.

If we look at races in HK, Japan where there are a lot lot more money riding on each race due to wagering level. The enquiry would be the other way round. i think it has gone way too silly over here now. I can understand it when the horse is tiring and not responding but in this case, its complete rubbish.

The whip rule needs changing otherwise a lot more jockeys will get ban from good strong rides like this.
 
The present rules have to be changed, no doubt about that. The present situation, where the jockey gets punished but the owner does not, is not working and the whip rules are being ignored in big races.
 
He broke the rules. Don't know how stewards measure the length of the punishment, I confess.
If they are consistent, you can't be blaming them.

If the rules are 'broken', the answer would be to fix them.

24 hits in 2 furlongs, say ATR ... that's nearabouts 1 a second.

Hey, that's a lot.
 
That's one helluva lot - 24 hits in a 3m chase is considered a lot, and jockeys get banned for whip abuse over that distance, never mind a quarter-mile. But, he's pocketed his little fee and rather better 10% of the prize money, so what does he care?
 
I didn't see the head on but from the side on it seemed to be lots of slaps rather than forceful cracks of the whip. Could anyone comment on the severity of the striking?
 
Forehand or backhand? Forehand it's going to sting all right, and I don't care how padded the things are. Give your nearest and dearest a full forehand whack across their backside and see how you like sleeping in the garden for a week.
 
I thought Richard Hughes spoke very well about it on the BBC. Not sure if he was just saying the right things, but came across well.
 
Lots of things; about how he uses it, how he speaks to others especially the Apprentices, how not having Frankie here wasn't the answer (i.e. solve the problem, rather than keep penalising when it isn't a deterrent). He also talked about a system in India where there is a finite number of times the whip can be used and if a Jockey breaks the rules then they are not allowed to carry one for 3 months. He was generally balanced though, explaining how they are air-cushioned etc.
 
Thanks very much, Bets. That sounds articulate and sensible. Let's hope there can be a rational debate about it, rather than rants from the pros and cons. The Indian system is what I'd like - you're risking losing your income for a significant period of time and you'd probably only do it once, especially since if you were a retained jock, your employer would be far from pleased - and a second disappearance for such a long time (that is, after all, a huge slice out of the Flat season pie) would quite possibly mean him losing patience and replacing you.

Jockeys aren't respecting the rules and aren't deterred by the bans, so obviously they will force change upon themselves, rather than it being via outside (external) pressures. That way, as they continue to shoot themselves in their own feet, they can't squeal about racing giving in to animal rightists.
 
Back
Top