Is it time to dump the whip?

krizon

krizon

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
16,263
Location
Dahn sarf
I understand that the charming, brave, and exhausted BALLABRIGGS received 17 strokes of the cane following the last jump in the Grand National. I'll be honest - I wasn't watching the whip action as I was fascinated by whether OSCAR TIME would close on him, but as Songsheet made the count, and she's far more numerate than I am, I'll take it that that was the score.

Maguire got a few days' holiday, as did Katy Walsh for her overexertions in the backside-whacking department. But what does it matter to either of them? Maguire's in line for not just his riding fee, which is cigar-lighting money compared to the 10% he'll get for the half-million first prize. So what if the horse got hammered? It lived, didn't collapse, and was sighted wearing his winner's rug, ambling about quietly at home this morning.

But this is the 21st Century, however slow some folks seem to be on getting out of the 19th, let alone the 20th. We no longer send long-riding jockeys into races equipped with not only slashing whips but rowelled spurs. We don't run our horses in four-mile heats until we decide who's the winner. We no longer consider a suitable treatment for a wilful horse a heated iron bar under the tail - we call in the physio, the Reiki specialist, or give him a swim in a heated pool.

The chestnut trotted out these days is that the whip is there for corrective purposes (yes, and I'm the man in the Moon) - to thwack a hanging horse back onto the track or to 'encourage' it into the stalls. Well, if a few whacks, a blindfold, several twirls and five or six stalls handlers can't load the bastard, then I'd say the whip was pretty useless.

I don't think it's 'pandering to animal rightists' (a pro-whip argument inevitably dragged out) to suggest that horses will still do their job without being battered, especially when they've done nothing wrong but enrich their owners (further, in the case of Trevor Hemmings) and win their races.

We don't see the use of the whip in dressage or show classes, it's extremely rare other than to see a tiny tap in showjumping (although spurs are used for prodding rather than use whips), eventing, or pretty much any other ridden sport you can think up. It's just racing where the whips are out all the time and boy, oh boy, 99% of them are not being used 'correctively'.

So far, I haven't even seen a whip being used to correct horses which have tanked off-course, taking their jockeys on long and interesting rides - even today one hung left seriously badly and refused to obey his jockey's slaps on the shoulder to get back into line. The nag RO and sent his jockey flying past the wing of the jump. Job done by the horse, but the whip? Nil points.

So, in the interest of opening up discussion or debate, what are your views? For those who have no objection to seeing horses whipped, can I ask how often you wallop your kids when they haven't been naughty? Perhaps you give the missus a few encouraging slaps so she gets dinner on the table three minutes faster than her usual sectionals? ;)
 
Last edited:
What is wrong with disqualifying horses whose jockeys break the rules on number of times they whip their horse? Makes perfect sense, prevents cheating (that is what it is) and is the only deterrant jockeys take notice of.
 
I wouldn't mind so much if the whip was used as a last resort but for so many jocks it is the first and only resort.

I have never sat on alone ridden a horse so I don't feel at all qualified to discuss the need, or usefulness, of the whip but it isn't a pleasant sight to see the skin taken off a horse.
 
I am not averse to a jockey carring a whip - it's true, every now and then you do need to give whop to a horse to remember it's you it should be paying attention to. But that's just it - it's one, maybe two cracks - if that doesn't work, then having to beat nine bells out of it means the basic work pre race hasn't been done properly or the horse simply is unsuitable for the current job in hand.

I have been banging on for years that horses winning races with the jockey getting a subsequent ban for misuse of the whip should lose the race. End of. As Hamm says, it is quite simply cheating. It's also deeply unedifying to watch, damages our 'sport' in the eyes of Joe Public and, worst of all, is deeply cruel to a horse already giving everything it can. It happens on the Flat and over jumps.

We all admire a strong desire to win by both man and beast but the line keeps getting crossed as to what is acceptable to get that win.
 
Last edited:
This is my first post on this forum (as I know nothing about racing), and I'm jumping in with both feet.

I have only been riding for a few years, so I still have an outsiders view of this (and many other) subjects.

When riding, I will from time to time give my horse a corrective tap on the shoulder, on very rare occasions and only when he's being a complete ar$e will he get a smack on the shoulder, both have the desired effect. I have found, especially when cantering /galloping, that a smack on the rump does on rare occasions produce a little more speed, but is more likely to induce a fly buck; the bigger the whack, the bigger the fly buck, so not the desired effect.

Watching the occasional bit of racing that I do, it appears there are times when the jockey is simply waving the stick, occasionally a camera angle straight on to the horse will show this, but in the case of Ballabriggs (and I'm sure many others), he certainly did appear to be taking a bit of a pounding, and to my eyes it produced absolutely no effect (although it may have been the difference between his winning and coming second).

Horses are remarkable animals, and can, with a bit of time and training, get used to almost anything; ever seen the wild ponies on the Brecon Beacons when the RAF come by at 200ft? They don't even flinch. My point is, if you hit a horse often enough, the same as if you kick it on constantly, or do almost anything else all the time it is being ridden, it will stop paying any attention to what you are doing, and will just assume that this behaviour from its rider is part and parcel of being ridden.

Would banning the whip make any difference to race results? I suspect it might with some horses, but a talented well trained horse is a talented well trained horse.
 
+1 ! Welcome Neil.

I also think you have summed it up by your comment "although it may have been the difference between his winning and coming second". That's key to this debate. If the horse wins because it's received excessive strikes of the whip and the second one is within the Rules, I need it explained why the first horse keeps the race, obviously in words of one syllable, as I just don't get it.

Would I be p*ssed if that was one of my homebreds losing a race ? Too right I would but if those are the Rules and if they get broken, then my beef would be with the jockey (and trainer) for not riding the race or training the horse right, as if they need to be beaten excessively to win, the job wasn't done properly from the start.
 
Yes, excellent post.

I've gradually come round to the view that we need to do away with the use of the whip in racing. Quite honestly, if it's good enough for Sir Peter O'Sullevan and John Francome, then it's good enough for me.

It wasn't a very savoury sight watching Maguire slamming into Ballabriggs, who was clearly doing his best, and then seeing the horse so wobbly and distressed afterwards.
 
Sorry cannot agree at all Kri - I am very much opposed to all talk of banning the whip. It IS needed for corrective reasons and IMO there is nothing wrong with horses receiving a few slaps of the whip, they've a hide like a rhino remember, and use of the whip doesn't often - and isn't intended to - hurt the animals if used correctly.

In dressage, eventing, showjumping they use spurs - would you like to see those re-introduced to racing? Also, in eventing and showjumping they do indeed administer far more than 'the odd tap' - it is common to see a 'bang, bang, bang, bang' volley of four or more hard slaps in the strides into a fence if they are not picking up, often on the shoulder, granted. Watch Badminton on Sunday - you'll enjoy it anyway, it's a fantastic event as you know.

One only has to see the bursts of acceleration produced by Long Run in the Gold Cup this year after receiving a stroke of the whip to show how effective it can be when used properly and in giving time to respond, and how harmless to the horse.

Sorry if this seems short, don't have much time!
 
Shadow Leader said:
It IS needed for corrective reasons and IMO there is nothing wrong with horses receiving a few slaps of the whip, they've a hide like a rhino remember, and use of the whip doesn't often - and isn't intended to - hurt the animals if used correctly.
Click to expand...

And yet can feel a fly land on them...

In dressage, eventing, showjumping they use spurs - would you like to see those re-introduced to racing? Also, in eventing and showjumping they do indeed administer far more than 'the odd tap' - it is common to see a 'bang, bang, bang, bang' volley of four or more hard slaps in the strides into a fence if they are not picking up, often on the shoulder, granted. Watch Badminton on Sunday - you'll enjoy it anyway, it's a fantastic event as you know.
Click to expand...

SJing under BSJA/FEI rules is 3 smacks for "disobidience or encouragement" - anymore you get a grilling from the judges and possible DQ.

As a side note I do ride and usually carry a whip - usually to ask for a quicker hind leg (dressage) or to remind the horse he's supposed to be listening to me not looking for monsters.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Sorry cannot agree at all Kri - I am very much opposed to all talk of banning the whip. It IS needed for corrective reasons and IMO there is nothing wrong with horses receiving a few slaps of the whip, they've a hide like a rhino remember, and use of the whip doesn't often - and isn't intended to - hurt the animals if used correctly.
Click to expand...

Horses do not have thick skins - they mark and bruise far more easily than most people realise - you only have to compare them to, for example, cattle to realise how thin skinned they are - especially a thoroughbred that's been rugged up all winter.

Maguire's use of the whip on Saturday was just downright wrong - it was indefensible and magnified by the fact that the jockey obviously knew the state of his horse - why else jump off the minute he crossed the line ?

I reckon I am now in favour of banning the whip precisely because there doesn't seem to be any other way of ensuring jockeys adhere to the whip rules as they currently stand. Quite obviously the BHB (or whoever they now are) will not bring in a disqualification rule for winners where jockeys break the existing rule. It's like the same old claptrap given out at the beginning of the GN - ie, all the jockeys are told not to set off like scalded cats but it's wasted breath as they choose not to listen.

As Miesque and SL both state, whips when used correctly are effective.
 
Never mind whips, it is an almightly slight on the kingly beasts to have to carry jockeys in the first place - we should politely request them if they would be ever so good as to run around the track in a respectful and dignified manner possibly chasing a bunch of carrots whilst making sure that the courses over which they traverse is made up a silk / sponge mixture and is scented with the finest saffron money can buy!!

What a load of b*llixs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I'm not disputing the ban given to Maguire Songsheet, there's no excuses can be made for that.

Miesque : horses may be able to feel a fly landing on their skin but they have thick skin - people wrongly compare the thickness of our skin and how it would feel hitting us when using the argument about hurting them with whips. Have you seen a racing whip? Have you seen how padded they are now? I could show you mine if you like. In fact there's a big argument that schooling whips are far more barbaric than racing whips if used with any force; they can cut the skin if used severely. Eventing/showjumping whips have no padding on them so it can also be argued that three hard clouts from those is far worse than, say, half a dozen hits from a padded racing whip.

Horses are big animals. Horses are relatively stupid animals - certainly in terms of brain size vs physical size. Horses are very strong compared to humans. Horses can be bolshy or even dangerous. Hence the whip is a necessary tool in ANY discipline and - as I have been told many times in the past by experienced horsemen - for reasons of safety a whip should really be carried at all times by all riders unless there are serious reasons to think that would be a detrimental move (eg in the case of riding a very highly strung horse who flips at the sight of the whip). Of course this is pretty much superfluous in the argument of banning the whip for racing purposes but since whip use - or not! - in other equestrian disciplines is being brought into the discussion I thought it was pertinent. However I also believe this shows why whips should always be carried in races - they are vital for correction purposes, especially at speed.

I also believe that, used correctly and within the rules, giving the horse time to respond to each stroke, that there is no cruelty or harm done by the whip. Watch the finishing stages of this year's Gold Cup to see Sam Waley-Cohen demonstrate the perfect use of the whip - and getting the response he needed. Another ride to watch that demonstrats good use of the whip is Lizzie Kelly's ride on Blackstaff in the Hunter Chase at Exeter last week.
 
The only way you will change the behaviour of the jockeys in terms of use of the whip is to disqualify any horse whose jockey breaks the rules - they are not difficult to understand. Radical as this may sound to some people in racing, but Ballabriggs should have been disqualified.

It's the same as swearing, diving etc in football. If you want to get it out, you need a deterrent that means something - in football, a red card/ban, in racing, disqualification, not a ban where they miss some random days in the back end of nowhere yet keep the race they won by effectively breaking the rules (cheating).
 
Then fine the jockeys as well as ban them - by disqualifying the horse you are penalising the horse's owner/s, trainer and the stable lads, all because a jockey had a rush of blood ti the head. As such it is the jockey alone that should receive the punishment for any whip offences, in my opinion.
 
I don't disagree with anything you say there, SL but I think maybe there's a bit of talking at cross purposes here. As I see it, we're discussing the misuse of the whip to achieve a win which maybe would otherwise not be achieved should carrying whips be banned (forgive me if I've got that wrong, though!). Used correctly, within the Rules, allowing time for the horse to respond and not striking it any more than the permitted amount in the final furlong (or whatever it is), fair enough, the horse can more than likely live with that.

My point (and that of most of the others starting to disagree with the carrying of whips as I see it) is that there are too many instances - as in Saturday's Grand National, the Eider and many more Flat races - where the win is achieved by outright misuse, the second and subsequent placed horses thereby being actually cheated of a win/better place. If all that ever results is a few day's ban for the jockey, who will be financially compensated by the winning connections anyway, then why have a whip rule in the first place ? It just makes a mockery of the whole process. If whips were not allowed to be carried in a race, it would be impossible to achieve such a win, would it not ?

Of courses, no two horses are the same - you can beat the sh!t out of some and they couldn't care less and others will resent it til the end of their racing days and beyond - to the point, as I am sure you know, they actually will down tools and refuse to race.

As to marking horse's hides, it's interesting to talk to abattoir workers - our nearest kills horses on certain days of the week and you might be amazed to see how a horse can get to be extremely bruised from not a lot of effort. Cattle less so, as their hides are thicker but it's easier than you realise to mark a hide enough to make it useless.
 
Last post crossed with others above..

It worries me that it's acceptable to have a jockey in charge of 500 - 700 kg of horseflesh racing at speed who is subject to a rush of blood to his head... Owners and trainers are perfectly capable of ensuring that their jockey knows the score and to fine the jockey just doesn't cut it - we all know that the owner will cover the fine - not exactly a hardship when you've just pocketed £500K, is it?
 
Last edited:
Shadow Leader said:
Then fine the jockeys as well as ban them - by disqualifying the horse you are penalising the horse's owner/s, trainer and the stable lads, all because a jockey had a rush of blood ti the head. As such it is the jockey alone that should receive the punishment for any whip offences, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's not a problem in France. Remember when Dar Re Mi was thrown out (Vermeille I think) after what was effectively a jockey error. Stable staff, owners and trainer were punished. And Fortune was far less at fault than Maguire.

Don't see why it shouldn't be done.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Then fine the jockeys as well as ban them - by disqualifying the horse you are penalising the horse's owner/s, trainer and the stable lads, all because a jockey had a rush of blood ti the head. As such it is the jockey alone that should receive the punishment for any whip offences, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Is it fair to United to have them minus Rooney for 2 games? What did ferguson do?

The jockey is as much a part of the team with the horse as the above. Leave Rooney off with a fine and he is laughing at the punishment - same with Maguire now.

A punishment is there to punish, and to drive behaviour. If a jockey has, as you say, a rush of blood to the head (I think we all know in the case of Maguire it is something much more sinister), and the horse is disqualified, then the owners will not be so quick to use him again.

I'd say it would be amazing how many 'rushes of blood to the head' such a punishment would sort out.
 
Last edited:
Songsheet said:
Last post crossed with others above..

It worries me that it's acceptable to have a jockey in charge of 500 - 700 kg of horseflesh racing at speed who is subject to a rush of blood to his head... Owners and trainers are perfectly capable of ensuring that their jockey knows the score and to fine the jockey just doesn't cut it - we all know that the owner will cover the fine - not exactly a hardship when you've just pocketed £500K, is it?
Click to expand...

Not every owner wins that amount of prize money in a life time let alone one afternoon. If a jockey breaks the rules, a jockey should pay, no one else. It's not the horse's fault or the owners. As an owner I know jockeys do not follow instructions they are given in regards positioning during a race due to the particulars of the horse's talent, timing of moving up etc. Jason Maguire h got off my horse and said 'sorry I cocked up', because he did exactly the opposite of what both the trainer and I had told him and most certainly cost a place for my horse.
I would still let him ride my horse tomorrow without hesitation. He is not a vindicative jockey at all.
I would suspect that if he had twenty lengths to spare at the elbow he still would have had to jump off Ballabriggs as soon as he crossed the line. He is an athlete at the top of his career and about to win a race most people in his sport never get the chance to enter, and he was over zealous? According to the rules yes, so he pays as per the rules.
 
And in this case, the Rules are patently wrong. As said above, if owners and trainers were to start paying the price, we'd soon see a dramatic change in jockey behaviour.

You refer to the jockey ignoring his instructions and losing - what about when he sticks to them and wins by excessive whip use - is it right then that only he pays ? What if you had the second placed horse, G-G, and the winner only got there because he was given more than the prescibed number of hits in those last few yards. Your jockey did as he knows he should within the Rules. Happy then to 'lose' the race ?
 
Songsheet said:
And in this case, the Rules are patently wrong. As said above, if owners and trainers were to start paying the price, we'd soon see a dramatic change in jockey behaviour.

You refer to the jockey ignoring his instructions and losing - what about when he sticks to them and wins by excessive whip use - is it right then that only he pays ? What if you had the second placed horse, G-G, and the winner only got there because he was given more than the prescibed number of hits in those last few yards. Your jockey did as he knows he should within the Rules. Happy then to 'lose' the race ?
Click to expand...

Yes Songsheet. Why should I or the trainer 'pay' for someone breaking the rules? If the rules are wrong there's no point moaning about jockeys getting away with 'it' , because they are not, and they do not make the rules.
In the instance given, why do you think I should pay if the horse 'only' was fifth because the jockey didn't do as we asked him to do? If he has used the whip excessively in that instance to make up 'his' mistake and the horse was still fifth, why should I be penalised for that?
 
Hamm said:
Is it fair to United to have them minus Rooney for 2 games? What did ferguson do?

The jockey is as much a part of the team with the horse as the above. Leave Rooney off with a fine and he is laughing at the punishment - same with Maguire now.

A punishment is there to punish, and to drive behaviour. If a jockey has, as you say, a rush of blood to the head (I think we all know in the case of Maguire it is something much more sinister), and the horse is disqualified, then the owners will not be so quick to use him again.

I'd say it would be amazing how many 'rushes of blood to the head' such a punishment would sort out.
Click to expand...

United lose their 'star' at a crucial time of the season. What else should happen because he is a fouled mouth oik who thinks he is above others?

What do you mean by "I think we all know in the case of Maguire it is something much more sinister"? You know him do you? What was he thinking in the last hundred yards of the race?
 
Back
Top