Misuse of the whip at Cheltenham

As previously indicated I’m in complete agreement that whip abuse should lead to disqualification and that it would only take one or two occurrences before jockeys got used to the idea I do wonder about the practicalities of policing this.

We might be faced with potentially lengthy delays while stewards deliberate with inevitable appeals.

Such delays would likely be unacceptable to punters and bookmakers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
As far as amateurs are concerned the bans should cover the days only when amateur races of a certain value were on . I doubt Patrick Mullins would have belted Rathvinden as he did had the bans included Aintree and Punchestown.
 
In fact I should like bans incurred at premier meetings to run from the start of the next e.g a Royal Ascot ban of 5 days would rule you out of the Eclipse and July Meeting
 
Last edited:
Disqualify the horse and you won't need to ban the jockey. As Maruco suggests, connections will put paid to future prospects as jockeys or fathers.
 
DO - I don't disagree if the misuse of the whip could have affected the result but what if say the horse was clear and the jockey kept hitting it but it would undoubtedly have won anyway - why should the jockey then escape punishment. I think both disqualification and sanction for the jockey are required.
 
Desert Orchid said:
What if Lance Armstrong would have won one or two of his TDF titles even if he'd been clean?
Click to expand...

Not something about which a judgment could possibly be made .The same cannot be said for a horse given two or three too many smacks when ten lengths clear 50 yds out.

Logically, would that not lead to a return equally to the 1980s rules for interference where breaking the rules led to disqualification regardless of the consequences of the rule breach such as the absurd disqualification of Vacarme in the Richmond Stakes.
 
Desert Orchid said:
This is an argument that recurs regularly after a controversial race.

The controversy can be removed long term by having a simple rule: break the rule and you lose the race.

In the short term there will be debate about it but once people accept that there will be a disqualification the over/mis-use will stop.

If it means disqualifying the first two or three in a race so be it. We see it in olympic sports. It can happen.
Click to expand...


....and as a punter you would be happy with that?.
 
Ardross said:
Not something about which a judgment could possibly be made .The same cannot be said for a horse given two or three too many smacks when ten lengths clear 50 yds out.

Logically, would that not lead to a return equally to the 1980s rules for interference where breaking the rules led to disqualification regardless of the consequences of the rule breach such as the absurd disqualification of Vacarme in the Richmond Stakes.
Click to expand...

Why would a jockey want to hit a horse 2 or 3 times when 10 lengths clear 50 yards from the line? You havent addressed DO's question at all. The disqualifications of the 80s has nothing to do with the discussion either.
 
HawkWing said:
Why would a jockey want to hit a horse 2 or 3 times when 10 lengths clear 50 yards from the line? You havent addressed DO's question at all. The disqualifications of the 80s has nothing to do with the discussion either.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it and I did address his question.

1 Not completing the course or taking the wrong course is not completing the race - rather than breaching a rule in course of completing a race . It is entirely different.

2 Dickie Johnson hit Native River several times in the last 50 yrs when Might Bite was beaten. That does strike me as different to Patrick Mullins and McPartland whacking their horses in a close finish . The question is the consequence of the breach . That is why the 1980s examples are relevant .

3 Now horses are demoted for breach of careless riding interference rules if it would have affected the result - if not they are not changed . In the 1980s and Vacarme is the most obvious example - minor interference by a facile winner could lead to the horse being thrown out - the punishment did not fit the crime .In my opinion, the rules have gone too far the other way now - horses keep races where the stewards think they probably would still have won. I think that is the wrong test - if the interfered horse might have won they ought to get the race .

4 The same could apply to misuse of the whip - if the misuse might have affected the result the horse should be demoted. If not then a suspension should be imposed. If it is in a valuable race or at a premier meeting the suspension should have equivalent consequences . So if Patrick Mullins gets 10 days at the Cheltenham Festival they apply to Aintree and Punchestown.
 
Last edited:
Ardross said:
It has everything to do with it and I did address his question.

1 Not completing the course or taking the wrong course is not completing the race - rather than breaching a rule in course of completing a race . It is entirely different.

2 Dickie Johnson hit Native River several times in the last 50 yrs when Might Bite was beaten. That does strike me as different to Patrick Mullins and McPartland whacking their horses in a close finish . The question is the consequence of the breach . That is why the 1980s examples are relevant . Now horses are demoted for breach of careless riding interference rules if it would have affected the result - if not they are not changed . In the 1980s and Vacarme is the most obvious example - minor interference by a facile winner could lead to the horse being thrown out - the punishment did not fit the crime .In my opinion, the rules have gone too far the other way now - horses keep races where the stewards think they probably would still have won. I think that is the wrong test - if the interfered horse might have won they ought to get the race .
Click to expand...

Richard Johnson didn't know Might Bite was beaten. If anything, despite what many have claimed here and elsewhere, NR wasnt pulling clear of MB. MB was threatening to close up the hill and NR was completely out on his feet (slow bicycle finish with Anibale Fly just behind by the line). NR, ears absolutely flat back unlike many racehorses Ive ever seen, gave a flash of the tail after one smack, as he drifted across MB. Johnson knew the horse was knackered (methaphorically but close) but it was worth the flogging to win. If you trebled the fine and NR never ran again to anything like the form given the experience, he would still do it. I thought it was an ugly finish. As it stands, he would have won in any case, but Johnson wasnt going to leave it to doubt.

Im not sure Rathvinden would have won unless bullied over the line - and he suffered the consequences after.
 
Ardross said:
But isn't that like a horse missing a fence or taking the wrong course ?
Click to expand...

Not really. You're arguing that the horse should not lose the race because it was clearly the best in the race regardless of the infringement. An athlete who treads on or over the line - say the outer line of the lane - is gaining no advantage yet will be disqualified.

Speed skaters can lose a race in similar circumstances, I believe.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Not really. You're arguing that the horse should not lose the race because it was clearly the best in the race regardless of the infringement. An athlete who treads on or over the line - say the outer line of the lane - is gaining no advantage yet will be disqualified.

Speed skaters can lose a race in similar circumstances, I believe.
Click to expand...

Horses going the longer but incorrect route around a dolled off fence are disqualified automatically.
 
HawkWing said:
Horses going the longer but incorrect route around a dolled off fence are disqualified automatically.
Click to expand...

Yes. Athletes are disqualified too but sometimes in the heat of competition they aren't aware that they've strayed.

I think we're agreeing in principle.

It's trying to find the correct analogy in other sports.
 
It doesn't need an analogy. The bottom line is as the rules stand the jockey has breached the rules. It doesn't matter if the horse wins in a head-bobber or by 3 lengths the horse should be disqualified. The jockey should get a meaningful ban and fine. The trainer should consider not using him again for fear of losing owners. The owner should be after him with a pitchfork.

Sure debate what the whip rules should be, but whatever they are how many times do you think we'd see excessive use of the whip? It's a no-brainer and there's no rational argument against it.
 
Maruco said:
It doesn't need an analogy. The bottom line is as the rules stand the jockey has breached the rules. It doesn't matter if the horse wins in a head-bobber or by 3 lengths the horse should be disqualified. The jockey should get a meaningful ban and fine. The trainer should consider not using him again for fear of losing owners. The owner should be after him with a pitchfork.

Sure debate what the whip rules should be, but whatever they are how many times do you think we'd see excessive use of the whip? It's a no-brainer and there's no rational argument against it.
Click to expand...

I very much agree. The analogy was to try and find other sports where the rules are equally as clear-cut as you're advocating, which I would be all for.

It isn't criminal law we're debating so I'm not sure punishment fitting the 'crime' is an issue.

I accept that there will be very wealthy owners whose wealth and ego will dictate that they will fight any disqualification all the way to the highest level simply because they can afford to.

But we should really just remember that people like that are just basterts...
 
The authorities have changed the rules to try to be as fair as possible to jockeys in terms of days lost through bans and fines etc.
But if the truth be known; many jockeys would gladly forfeit their winning prize money for a winner at Cheltenham. In many instances such a ride can win the jockey more future rides and result in even better financial benefit long term.
The only way to stop the whip is to make the punishment relevant to the crime, no bans, no fines...simply equate a distance to each crack given over the permitted limit, and deduct that from the horses final placing. All ambiguity would be removed, stewards wouldn't be criticised, the jockey would have to answer only to the owners.
 
Last edited:
Maxbet said:
The only way to stop the whip is to make the punishment relevant to the crime, no bans, no fines...simply equate a distance to each crack given over the permitted limit, and deduct that from the horses final placing. All ambiguity would be removed, stewards wouldn't be criticised, the jockey would have to answer only to the owners.
Click to expand...

I think that would lead to more argument and disagreement. People will argue that different horses react differently to the whip. For some they won't go any faster, they'll just keep going rather than slowing down. Then how do you quantify that? It might only amount to a fraction of a length per stroke and in the case of Native River, three cracks of the whip wouldn't have amounted to half a length so the jockey has arguably been cruel to the horse without really being punished.

I'm not convinced agreement could be reached on that one, to be honest, which is why I'd prefer something much more cut and dried.
 
Your reading people's arguments into something that wouldn't be possible. Your totally missing the point....the point is prevention. Forget what people or what different horses do under sufferance....they are allowed 5 inside the furlong marker, I think 10 during the race....whatever it is; set it and punish by deduction for each crack given over the permitted level....
Think about it; you've counted, your in a driving finish, you THINK a couple more cracks MIGHT get you up...but you KNOW it will cost you half a length or so if you hit again....What would you do ??

People can't argue that they might or might not get a shock if they touch an electric fence!

Apologies if that's an an analogy.
 
Last edited:
Maxbet said:
Think aboutit; you've counted, your in a driving finish, you THINK a couple more cracks MIGHT get you up...but you KNOW it will cost you half a length or so if you hit again....What would you do ??
Click to expand...

If it was 5 lengths per crack I might see the logic here but otherwise you'd be far better off taking the race off them.
 
Maruco said:
It doesn't need an analogy. The bottom line is as the rules stand the jockey has breached the rules. It doesn't matter if the horse wins in a head-bobber or by 3 lengths the horse should be disqualified. The jockey should get a meaningful ban and fine. The trainer should consider not using him again for fear of losing owners. The owner should be after him with a pitchfork.

Sure debate what the whip rules should be, but whatever they are how many times do you think we'd see excessive use of the whip? It's a no-brainer and there's no rational argument against it.
Click to expand...

Spot on Paul.

PS good to see you briefly last week.
 
Back
Top