• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Is it time to dump the whip?

G-G, it seems to me you are missing the central point of mine and I presume to say Songsheet's argument. Surely the connections of horses who come second to a winning horse whose rider has broken the rules thus gaining an unfair advantage are being cheated out of prize money, they are after all owner/syndicates too.

You concentrate on connections who will lose out through disqualification but surely other owners will gain? Owners whose whole team, including the jockey, stuck by the rules.

Sorry if I have misrepresented you Songsheet.

The passenger is a car analogy simply does not work for me.
 
Please let's not forget that even if a jockey breaks the whip rules and gets banned - or in this imaginary scenario put across here that the horse is disqualified - the owner STILL has to pay the jockey's riding fee. Same scenario if the jockey completely buggers up and ignores riding instructions. It's the owner comes off worst every time.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Please let's not forget that even if a jockey breaks the whip rules and gets banned - or in this imaginary scenario put across here that the horse is disqualified - the owner STILL has to pay the jockey's riding fee. Same scenario if the jockey completely buggers up and ignores riding instructions. It's the owner comes off worst every time.
Click to expand...

Since I am making the rules now I will add one that the Jockeys forfeits his fee in this situation.

Interesting subject though, made me think about it.

I will shut up now, like I said about ten posts ago, I am not qualified to talk on this subject!
 
But that's the beauty of forums like this - we don't have to be riders or even 'insiders'. We could use the whip as any analogy for any situation where someone obtains a pecuniary advantage (she says in best constable-speak) by breaking the rules, so we don't have to be qualified to discuss what is really a matter of ethics as much as rules 'n' regulations.

Suppose I give my horse a course of treatment and forget to write it down in my medications book, my horse wins, my mistake gets found out. What a hullabaloo follows! Press coverage: Day of Shame, Racing is Still Bent, and so on. I pay a monster fine, I might lose my licence, and I'll always have 'that' hanging over my head until I die. I've made a mistake - I wasn't intending to misrepresent what I'd done, I'm terribly sorry, sackcloth and ashes. No, not enough - you will pay a huge price.

Jockey, on the other hand, eyeballing 10% of a huge first prize (doesn't matter which race or where), smashes into his horse and breaks the rules in doing so. Horse wins. Everyone's happy, he trousers enough to buy a new Merc and more, nobody loses their livelihood, nobody gets a monster fine, nobody has a stigma attached to them forever. Loses less than a week's work, which would've been teeth-picking money, anyway, considering what he's got for this.

Which rules when broken bring racing into disrepute? Administering, say, a cough medicine which you fail to note - or publicly beating-up a horse, for thousands, if not millions, to see? Jockeys are never, ever told they've brought the sport into disrepute if they over-whip a horse. Why? Why is one issue a heinous crime, worthy of hanging and quartering, and the other (which involves the side issue of welfare) barely breaks a sentence in the RP, so inured have we all become to regular whip bans.
 
Last edited:
Songsheet said:
We aren't going to agree on this one, G-G but it's been a great discussion. I've made my position clear as I can - I tihnk it's winning by cheating and I don't believe you can or should believe that once the jockey gets on board your horse, you're absolved from anything that follows. Simple as.

I will, of course, now be gutted that next time FAREER looks like getting his head in front, Hills will break the whip rule with a vengeance... :lol:
Click to expand...

It's not a case of you not making your position clear Songsheet, you think everyone connected with a horse should suffer if the rules are broken by one person. How is that fair? How on earth you think it is anyone else's responsibility other than the jockey for what the horse does once it has left the paddock, other than the horse itself, is sheer tunnel vision.

You won't be care if Hills is penalised or not because you won't be as the co breeder, will you?
 
bloodnok said:
G-G, it seems to me you are missing the central point of mine and I presume to say Songsheet's argument. Surely the connections of horses who come second to a winning horse whose rider has broken the rules thus gaining an unfair advantage are being cheated out of prize money, they are after all owner/syndicates too.

You concentrate on connections who will lose out through disqualification but surely other owners will gain? Owners whose whole team, including the jockey, stuck by the rules.

Sorry if I have misrepresented you Songsheet.

The passenger is a car analogy simply does not work for me.
Click to expand...

If you asked Sam Waley-Cohen if he thought Maguire had cheated, I strongly suspect that he would say no. As would McCoy. As would Walsh. As would Geraghty, Brennan, Johnson, Russell, Murphy............

I am making a counter point to yours, not concentrating on connections who will lose. If you were an owner would you seriously accept it if a jockey lost your horse a race cos he hit it 13 times instead of 12 in a nose to nose fight to the line with another horse?

I am not missing the point - see other posts - why is it that everytime someone posts something that someone doesn't agree with one here, they are accused of being stupid?

Car - passenger in car, tells driver to stop at red light, driver does not stop, driver is penalised, why should the passenger 'pay'?
 
Last edited:
I don't think you are being stupid, I just disagree with you.

I don't think the example you give is relevant, because the passenger doesn't benefit from the driver missing the red light. The owner clearly benefits from the jockey baiting the shite out of the horse.
 
I wasn't actually responding directly to you Bar but it's certainly the impression given by certain posters on here.

Passenger doesn't gain doesn't lose, but why should he/she pay for actions of the driver? If as an owner I told the jockey not to be hard, and they were, I wouldn't use them again but why should I be penalised for that instance?

If the jockey is suspended for abuse, why should the owner/trainer, and in some cases stable staff where winnings are shared out, be penalised for the actions of an individual?

As in all these types of discussion, a few people going round and round in circles on a forum moaning at each other does nothing. Write to the people who make the rules and tell them you think it is cheating if that's what you think it is. Don't forget to include horses trying to come down the handicap defrauding thousands who bet on them. Maybe that doesn't count because no one gains in that particular race. Except the horses that finish in front of them of course.
 
I don't think your stupid at all, G-G either abut I really do think you're now staritng to sound whiney! OK, using your argument of why should you, as the owner, suffer loss for the actions of your jockey, I could equally argue why should the connections of any horse, its jockey and connections who loses the race because it was raced within the rules (while yours wasn't) be penalised ? It's not their fault either your jockey decided to ignore the rules in order to win and theirs didn't!

And as I've also said, while there would be a few cases to start with where it would seem 'unfair', those would soon disappear when it becomes obvious that beating the shit out of a horse that's doing its best during the final stages of a race and bringing this sport into disrepute won't benefit anyone because it will be disqualified.
 
G-G -cast your eye over who holds which opinion. I'm sure it's no coincidence that those banging on about how winners must be disqualified if the jockey is found guilty of whip abuse don't or have not owned racehorses, nor have they had to fork out for the colossal bills nor endure the heart-breaking ups and downs that owning racehorses entails.

Therein lies your answer.
 
Sorry to spoil your argument, Shadow, even if I'm only a part owner.

I used to share your opinion but I have changed sides because I don't think the current rules are working. Too many big races are resulting in suspensions for whip offences and racing is being brought into disrepute. Jockeys obviously think they are expected to break the rules if it helps land the big prize.

If the horse risked disqualification the pressure would be the other way, to make sure to stay within the rules, which is at it ought to be.
 
Shadow Leader said:
G-G -cast your eye over who holds which opinion. I'm sure it's no coincidence that those banging on about how winners must be disqualified if the jockey is found guilty of whip abuse don't or have not owned racehorses, nor have they had to fork out for the colossal bills nor endure the heart-breaking ups and downs that owning racehorses entails.

Therein lies your answer.
Click to expand...

You have a conveniently short memory, SL - I had a part share in a horse in training with Ed Dunlop only last year and cheap he ain't. I bet I've probably had as much and maybe a damn sight more experience of both owning racehorses, running partnerships and certainly breeding them than you have! FACE IT, WALNUT LADY, ONE ALONE, DIAMOND BOB, SONGSHEET for starters as owned/part owned racehorses and one or two more who raced in Thorman's colours as well. How successful have you been, by the way, in training yours ? It is relevant, as you are certainly ready enough with the criticism of anyone else on here who does the job and it would be beneficial to know how your training methods must obviously be succeeding as I, for one, am always ready to learn.
 
Shadow Leader said:
G-G -cast your eye over who holds which opinion. I'm sure it's no coincidence that those banging on about how winners must be disqualified if the jockey is found guilty of whip abuse don't or have not owned racehorses, nor have they had to fork out for the colossal bills nor endure the heart-breaking ups and downs that owning racehorses entails.

Therein lies your answer.
Click to expand...

That is irrelavant to the central argument.

The owners of 'cheated' horses also pay bills and endure the ups and downs, which currently include coming second to other competitors that have cheated.
 
The Jocks are ultimately the people responsible and spreading the blame around to everyone else opens a can of worms.

Jocks found to have used the whip too many times (cheating) should be banned for a period of time that hurts . A period of time that would make it like starting all over again. At the moment it's worth it. The penalty for striking the horse too many times should be high and go up incrementally for every other blow landed above the limit.
 
Sorry Sonhgsheet, I thought I recalled you saying that the deal surrounding the horse with Dunlop involved paying no training fees.

Grey - I hadn't clocked you saying you agreed in disqualifying horses in cases of whip abuse, apologies, I know you own horses.

Bloodnok - it is absolutely relevant to the argument in hand. A lot of people on here who clamour for measures to be brought in are those whose financial and emotional investment in racing stretches little further than buying the Racing Post and/or having a bet on a Saturday. If they had experienced the emotional and financial pressures of owning/training horses I truly believe they might well hold different views.

Again, why should the owner/trainer/stable staff be penalised for something which only one person is accountable for and only one person is guilty of? To serve up an analogy similar to G-G's (but slightly different) would a hire car firm be penalised if they hire a car to someone who is found guilty of speeding in said hire car? (assuming the driver is there to answer for it, before the smart arses step in!!!!)

The bottom line is that without owners, there is NO racing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shadow Leader said:
Sorry Sonhgsheet, I thought I recalled you saying that the deal surrounding the horse with Dunlop involved paying no training fees.

.
Click to expand...

I did - to the value of the my 50% share of the purchase price of the horse and subsequent 25% ownership and at Dunlop's daily rate of £56/day basic, that got eaten up very quickly and I had a couple of thousand quid's worth of training fees to fork out for. Ed Dunlop, by the way, knows full well what I thought of DIAMOND BOB's 2yo campaign and his subsequent repurchase by the yard.

The counter argument against the proposed changes so many of us are in favour of above has been that 'trainers, owners and stable staff' would all suffer loss, which you have strongly supported. You are very quick to let us all know how experienced you are in dealing with horses from all angles, training being one of them, so it is not unreasonable to ask what successes you have in that field.

As to your very thinly veiled constant denigration of Jinnyj - yes, I am at least honest enough to name her for you - I have no idea why the two of you fell out the way you obviously have but Jinnyj doesn't constantly pursue you on here so it would be grown up of you to follow her example.
 
Well,I respect your point of View Shadow Leader and as a punter only I cannot comment on the training owning side. My view is not driven by my punting though tbh.

I really feel I am flogging a dead horse trying to persuade you to my point of view though.. (come on some one had to say it!)
 
SL/SS etc

ok, stop it. Seriously, this has been going on long enough.

My mam has was taken into hospital a couple of days ago and is in a critical condition and the next 48 hours or so will show if she will make it or not, so I really don't have the time or energy to try to sort this out, as I'm sure you will understand.

So either cut it out now at least till I'm back in the swing of things or I'll just suspend those involved till I can do something

Col
 
Fine by me - I was more than prepared to stop several posts ago but don't, please, imply that my posts contravene the forum rules. That is unacceptable and I resent that. If the fact that I disagree with your view means suspension, by all means do so but I wouldnt wish to continue posting under such circumsrtances anyway.

Hope your mother is comfortable at least.
 
Last edited:
I. havent read the posts so im not saying anything. of the sort. I am currently posting. this. from. the. hospital. so excuse any mistakes!
 
Best wishes dvds2000. I will not post.

Hope I haven't laboured my point too much, I usually do I am afraid.
 
Christ, I slide away on other business for a night or two, and come back to everyone on the naughty step!

Col, first of all - very warmest wishes that your Mum pulls through. They are very precious and there really is no-one in the world who'll love you, warts and all, like a Mum, so I really feel for you.

Second - doesn't look likely there will be agreement as to what's the most effective way to address whip issues on here, so I don't see much hope of the BHA ever managing the situation any better - only, perhaps, by deciding on a course of action which one side or the other will dislike intensely, and imposing that. But it's a very interesting discussion.
 
Last edited:

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top