New Whip Rules

Soary - there were zero complaints to the BBC re the Rewilding race at Ascot. 8 in all out of the millions that watched this years GN. I suspect your second reason in relation to exerting their authority and putting jockeys in their place is correct. I am no apologist for jockeys as can be seen from several of my posts but why do they need to be "put in their place"? Are they to be seen as lesser stake-holders in racing than say the BHA themselves? Is it simply a class issue going back to the days of Imperial Britain? Jockeys are "the" frontline ambassadors for racing who work as hard and risk more than most in this industry. 1% of jockeys transgressed the old rules. As Ruby Walsh said today any civilised society would strive towards that minimal a "crime rate". The BHA's record in relation to protecting the sport is abysmal - just ask the small trainers and owners running for buttons up and down the country - botched race fixing inquires and now this. Racing people need to take their eyes off their navel's before it's too late.
 
Last edited:
You haven't answered my question.

In any case, the old rules with the new penalties would be the worst of both worlds. Jockeys would would be left guessing when they were going to get slammed, really slammed, by the stewards.
 
Grey said:
You haven't answered my question.

In any case, the old rules with the new penalties would be the worst of both worlds. Jockeys would would be left guessing when they were going to get slammed, really slammed, by the stewards.
Click to expand...

I cannot answer your question because I think the rules are way too strict. If you want horses demoted when their jockeys hit once too often where is the justice for punters/connections whose jockey mis-counts and hits the horse one time less than he could and is beaten a nose? If you take the demoting thing to it's extreme we should just appoint a panel to nominate the moral winner of every race!
 
In response to Cantoris's piece earlier - I don't agree that for any rule to work the punishment must be severe enough - my thoughts would be that for any rule to work the rule itself must be respected! The new whip rules have not got any respect in the majority of racing circles mainly due to the fact that nobody has adequately explained the necessity for them or the benefits that are likely to accrue.

The drink driving laws in Ireland now work because over a ling number of years the authorities have worked on convincing people that they were necessary, lives were being saved and our communities would be better off. The rule has gained the respect of the people. They had previously tried to make the punishments harsher and harsher but with no improvement in driver behaviour. Respect of the rule in question will ultimately determine it's long term efficacy.

The BHA have much to work on.
 
On The Bridle said:
I cannot answer your question because I think the rules are way too strict. If you want horses demoted when their jockeys hit once too often where is the justice for punters/connections whose jockey mis-counts and hits the horse one time less than he could and is beaten a nose? If you take the demoting thing to it's extreme we should just appoint a panel to nominate the moral winner of every race!
Click to expand...

Stop emoting for a few minutes.

I want horses demoted if their jockeys break the rules in such a way as to affect the result.
 
Grey said:
Stop emoting for a few minutes.

I want horses demoted if their jockeys break the rules in such a way as to affect the result.
Click to expand...
Demoting horses is a dangerous precedent, but the Australian rules (http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/p_New_Australian_Whip_Rules.aspx) allow for demotions if the result is deemed to have been affected. That would come in very rare circumstances, so would probably be a workable concept. Disqualification for simply breaking the rule is clearly unworkable as it would see deserving winners thrown out, and punters deserting the sport. Interestingly the Aussie rules have strict limits on how often the whip is used BEFORE the final 100 yards, but not after. That seems eminently sensible.
 
Daft thought maybe, but if the whip issue is about directly hurting the horse why can't a lightweight rug-like protector for the rear of the horse be designed. The whip would still 'make the required noise' the horse would still feel the impact but there would be much less chance of 'hurt.'

MR2
 
montyracing2 said:
Daft thought maybe, but if the whip issue is about directly hurting the horse
MR2
Click to expand...
It's not, in short. The whip is certified pain-free when used correctly. This is a point made within the BHA report. The decision to reduce the number of strokes allowed is not because of any suffering/injury caused to horses. The last time a horse was deemed to have been injured by the whip was in 2008.
 
Sorry, what I said above isn't strictly correct. Here's the appropriate excerpt from the BHA report:

Definition of a Weal
Out of (approximately) 90-100,000 runners each year, there are usually around 20 occasions where a horse is observed to have a weal. Medically a weal is described as circumscribed accumulation of fluid within the skin in response to a blow. Every
such case is examined by a Veterinary Officer on two occasions. The Veterinary Officers look for signs of inflammation including discomfort or pain on examination and in the behavioural response of the horse. To date no such signs have been seen over
the last three years.
 
Thanks, Rory. I already understood that, but if its about public perception and the horses are no longer 'hurt' by the whip then such a cover over the 'hitting' zones would beseen as an effective protector by the general public. Better still make such a protector brightly coloured so everyone can see it.

MR2
 
Grey said:
Stop emoting for a few minutes.

I want horses demoted if their jockeys break the rules in such a way as to affect the result.
Click to expand...

And how exactly would that work?? Do we have a distance per slap of the stick?? Its unworkable and will lead to chaos and more people becoming disgruntled with racing. It also further strengthens the spotlight externally on the stick which is in no -ones best interests. We already have enough stewards decisions being taken on in appeal and in the court rooms.

PS:- I will never stop emoting :D
 
Last edited:
And how exactly would that work??
Click to expand...

In the same way as the rules about interference, it would have to be a judgement call made by the stewards, that body of our elders (mostly, even at my age!) and supposed betters (not bettors).

Sometimes there will be disagreement, of course there will. Would Frankie have won on Rewilding anyway? But that doesn't have to mean the rule is wrong. Just because nobody can be sure whether Amanda Knox is guilty or not doesn't mean there shouldn't be a rule against killing other people.
 
Grey said:
In the same way as the rules about interference, it would have to be a judgement call made by the stewards, that body of our elders (mostly, even at my age!) and supposed betters (not bettors).

Sometimes there will be disagreement, of course there will. Would Frankie have won on Rewilding anyway? But that doesn't have to mean the rule is wrong. Just because nobody can be sure whether Amanda Knox is guilty or not doesn't mean there shouldn't be a rule against killing other people.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you would be the one to bring murder into this.....:lol:
 
There has been a conspicuous lack of charismatic leadership throughout the whip rules saga but those indignant jockeys so exercised by the BHA would do well to remember John F Kennedy’s old line: “We cannot negotiate with those who say ‘What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”
Let there be no doubt: the original BHA proposals from a fortnight ago, and their application, were always guaranteed to produce chaos. Righteousness was on the jockey’s side – up to a point.

When the BHA’s review group results came out on Friday, and Richard Hughes took it as his cue to resume race-riding, it seemed safe to presume that the road to an acceptable solution was open. The BHA had backed down, quite a bit really, considering this is British racing’s regulatory body, the ones ostensibly in charge. But with each passing day, Hughes’s colleagues seem to be getting even more strident in their opposition to any significant changes to the rules.

Ryan Moore has blatantly come out and said what many of his colleagues really want – a return to the old system. And that can’t be seen to happen. If it does, the BHA board may as well relocate their genitals to a brown paper bag.

Anyone with even a modicum of business sense knows that in any deal all the good-stuff can’t go one way. Even Paul Getty said the other side has to get some gravy because while you may get everything your own way once, the reputation that brings will put off everyone from having anything to do with you in future.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the current whip debate, neither the BHA or the jockeys can be seen to come out as clear winners. The increasing militancy from the jockey’s room is undoubtedly heartfelt. Even the usually adroit Tony McCoy has said he is onside for any possible protest. But going back to the old system is not on politically.

From Brian O'Connor's Blog on Irish Racing Website.
 
Last edited:
The old way saw helplessly out of contention animals being battered in the far distance, and a good flailing away at the winner of the Grand National - it's mainly that race, that jockey, that spectacle of a man whipping a horse repeatedly, which has caused all this blither. If jockeys would now like 'the old way' back, please, sir, they're actually saying to hell with the welfare of horses which have no choice but to race.

I'm sure there are fair and decent riders who would rather not win a premier race by smashing up their animals, but if 'the old way' comes back, they have a licence to do that if pressed by an aggressive opponent without qualms. They get a little time off-work where there'll be compensated by their 10% of the winnings and, I have no doubt, some recompense for their trouble from grinning connections. Nothing will ever be corrected to bring racing more into line with a very slightly more humane world than the yesteryear of hanging dogs which got sick, or baiting bears for the craic.

We're besieged by pictures of maimed and neglected animals all over the world, suffering caused deliberately most of the time and uncaringly the rest. We pride ourselves on rescue centres and humane organisations like the Brooke Hospital in Cairo, caring for horribly abused equines. Do we really have to add to that catalogue of misery the photos of jockeys with whips aloft, allowed to cane the lights out of their rides? Talk about it looking like pot and kettle to those always criticised as ignorant!

Bugger the old way. We should be trumpeting the ushering in of a slightly more enlightened outlook on the use of artificial aids like the whip - racing now manages perfectly well without long pricking spurs, kindly note - not wittering about whether six or twentysix strokes is sufficient to get home certain horses. Where is the jockeys' credibility when they've gone from an airy attitude to the rules when first mooted, to now daily bleatings about how untenable the situation is? I have not heard a single voice from members of the PJA saying how much better it is from a welfare point of view, which tells me quite a lot about the attitude towards the use of horses as a commodity only, not sentient beings.
 
Last edited:
From today's Irish Examiner:

Murtagh set to reduce British trips

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 11:23 AM

Johnny Murtagh is the latest jockey based in Ireland to announce that he will dramatically reduce his riding appearances in Britain because of the controversial new whip rules.

Multiple champion Irish National Hunt jockey Ruby Walsh was handed a five-day suspension for hitting his mount once more than the permitted eight when scoring on Edgardo Sol at Aintree on Saturday, and revealed afterwards that he would now only travel to ride in Britain for the big races.

Murtagh, a three-time winner of the Derby at Epsom, has decided to follow suit as he feels it is not worth picking up a suspension that would lead to him missing out on rides for his boss, John Oxx, in his homeland.

“These are bad rules introduced for the wrong reasons,” Murtagh said in a statement released by the Professional Jockeys Association.

“I cannot risk these lengths of bans when I come over to Britain. You won’t see me in the lead-up to major meetings like Royal Ascot and races like the Derby any more. I’ll probably draw the line at Group races only.

“I spoke to my boss John Oxx and he told me not to be going across to Britain for ordinary races. It’s just too risky. I can’t be picking up five-day bans or worse for committing the most minor of riding offences.”

Murtagh was in action at Newbury on Saturday, where he guided the William Haggas-trained Beaten Up to a most impressive victory in the Worthington’s Champion Shield.

But the jockey has revealed he only made the journey to Berkshire after Haggas persuaded him to take the ride.

“If William Haggas hadn’t called me and persuaded me, I wouldn’t have been there,” Murtagh continued.

“I was in France on Sunday and I have been talking with my friends and colleagues in America and Australia. None of them can believe what is happening.

“Why have the authorities lost faith in the stewards? They can judge whether someone is using the stick too much. They can police it. It’s just common sense.

“The owners and the trainers in Britain are going to start to be affected by this. They need to make their voices heard so that there can be a sensible re-think over these new rules.”

PJA chief executive Kevin Darley said: “I have huge sympathy for Johnny, Ruby and all the Irish boys.

“They risk picking up long bans for minor offences in Britain that will stop them riding at home. It’s understandable that they are going to restrict themselves to only the top races in this country.”
Click to expand...
 
“Why have the authorities lost faith in the stewards? They can judge whether someone is using the stick too much. They can police it. It’s just common sense."

That should be the case, surely.

Abuse isn't that difficult to spot to the experienced viewer...........but there's none so blind as racecourse stewards!!!!
 
Understandable stuff from Murtagh.
If he feels he just can't steer clear of trouble, then stay away.

Jeez, rocket science must be so easy for these fellas. :D
 
From the RP:
KIEREN FALLON on Sunday added further spice to the raging whip debate by arguing that horses ridden by jockeys who break the BHA's new rules should be disqualified.

Fallon, who claimed such a move would prevent the need for riders to be handed punishments that now range from five-day suspensions to the withholding of prize-money, was adding his support to a view expressed by Sir Mark Prescott, among others.

The trainer, who backed the new maximum permitted limit of seven smacks in a Flat race, said: "I love simple rules, yet now we have a situation whereby breaking the rule can win you a race but cannot lose you a race. That's illogical."

In agreement, Fallon said: "The only solution is to do what Sir Mark Prescott suggested and disqualify the horse. Then there would be no rules broken.

"It isn't fair that if one person doesn't mind breaking the rules to win the race that the owner, trainer and jockey of the second, whose rider stuck to the rules, has to suffer. There would be no need for suspensions as the jockey would lose everything anyway."
 
Murtagh with the ride he gave to Johnstons horse when winning the Ascot Gold Cup would now be banned for a year.


The new whip rules are absurd and common sense will have to prevail.
 
Soary Stars said:
From the RP:
KIEREN FALLON on Sunday added further spice to the raging whip debate by arguing that horses ridden by jockeys who break the BHA's new rules should be disqualified.

Fallon, who claimed such a move would prevent the need for riders to be handed punishments that now range from five-day suspensions to the withholding of prize-money, was adding his support to a view expressed by Sir Mark Prescott, among others.

The trainer, who backed the new maximum permitted limit of seven smacks in a Flat race, said: "I love simple rules, yet now we have a situation whereby breaking the rule can win you a race but cannot lose you a race. That's illogical."

In agreement, Fallon said: "The only solution is to do what Sir Mark Prescott suggested and disqualify the horse. Then there would be no rules broken.

"It isn't fair that if one person doesn't mind breaking the rules to win the race that the owner, trainer and jockey of the second, whose rider stuck to the rules, has to suffer. There would be no need for suspensions as the jockey would lose everything anyway."
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put Fallon forward as a spokesman for very much TBPH.
 
Soary Stars said:
In agreement, Fallon said: "The only solution is to do what Sir Mark Prescott suggested and disqualify the horse. Then there would be no rules broken.

"It isn't fair that if one person doesn't mind breaking the rules to win the race that the owner, trainer and jockey of the second, whose rider stuck to the rules, has to suffer. There would be no need for suspensions as the jockey would lose everything anyway."
Click to expand...

Hold the back page, Scoop - Grasshopper in "I agree with Fallon" shocker.

Our Only The Best was chinned a neck by What's Up Woody in a minor novice hurdle at Hexham a couple of years back. Glee was determined to give ours as educational a ride as possible (riding him out under hands and heels), whereas the winner was carved in half to get up, with the jockey stood down for several days thereafter (think it might have been Denis O'Regan, but not sure).

'We' were denied the Win money by someone who broke the rules, but we had to suck it up. Where's the justice in that?

Rather than fine the jockey or stand him down, instead disqualify the 'winning' horse.

Owners will soon wise-up to who they do (and don't) want on their animals, and jockeys who transgress the rules consistently would be punished in the long-run by not being put up as regularly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top