New Whip Rules

Grasshopper said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said. I think I may have said this earlier in the thread, so apologies for repetition if so, but I can't understand why there is this anomaly whereby any other scenario in which the jockey breaks the rules and in doing so gives his horse an advantage - an inherently unfair advantage, by dint of the rule breaking - over one or more of his rivals results in disqualification, but mis/over-use of the whip doesn't. I know the 'official' line trotted out recently is that disqualifiying the horse penalises the owner and trainer for the jockey's transgression, but that's equally true of interference and careless/reckless/dangerous riding offences.

I sometimes wonder if the real reason is because the effect of the whip on any particular horse can't be quantified, and the BHA doesn't want to open that can of worms for fear of starting a debate along the lines of: "if you can't prove that using the whip will make Horse X try harder, or that it will have the same effect on Horse Y, why have it at all?"
 
Cruella said:
I sometimes wonder if the real reason is because the effect of the whip on any particular horse can't be quantified, and the BHA doesn't want to open that can of worms for fear of starting a debate along the lines of: "if you can't prove that using the whip will make Horse X try harder, or that it will have the same effect on Horse Y, why have it at all?"
Click to expand...

Oh no! Please ... can we just drop the whip, you know, ban the use entirely?
 
I miss a day or two of the forum and there are so many points to respond to and I could fill a novel with my responses to OTB. But here we go:

Winning horse to be disqualified - why?? Once you put the jock up, the owner and trainer lose complete control of their horse to a lad who may never have ridden for them before. That's bad enough. Then, if that clown decides to hit the horse and extra time when 3 lengths in front, the horse gets disqualified? Can't have that. I'm sure Grey will say that this is where the judgement of the stewards come in. Ah, sorry, but the racing public's faith in the stewards, particularly irish ones, would not be particularly high. And now you want to give them more power?

Ryan Moore wants to go back to the old system? Well I'd like to go back to the Ireland before the crash, but hey I have to get used to reality.

These rules won't make anyone come racing? Then there's no point in discussing any further as this was never a point of getting people to the races but rather protect the sport from the enevitable challenge to ban it, just like fox/stag hunting. Sometimes you need to look a battle to win the war.

1% of jocks were banned under the old system? How many are being banned under the new system? It can't be much more. Can you count the bans on two hands? That would mean under a thousand rides since the ban came in to keep the 1% rate. How many runners have there been since the ban came in??

Drink-driving? There is a pub down the road from my parents. Its a very famous sporting pub called The Goat. It will have 200 cars outside it every Saturday night. How often have I seen a breath test outside the pub? NEVER. The rules are not enforced and people still drink and drive. What has happened recently is that people are not drinking as much (pub sales down) and therefore can kinda drive the car home a bit better. Naturally accidents are down. Also, fewer young drivers with souped up cars and a thousand a week in their back pocket to spend on drinking. The enforcement problem remains.

Lets get back to the point. Soumillon didnt give a fiddlers about the ban he was going to get under the old system. a few days for winning a group 1. And he would offend again for the next group 1. But I bet under the new system he won't do it. No point winning group 1s if you keep throwing 50k away. Unfortunately, day to day racing is going to be a little different so that the boys obey the rules in the group 1s. But lets be clear. The jockeys brought this upon themselves.

PS While the dead bodies may have caused a problem in the grand national, elliott and maguire patting each other on the back when Ballabriggs was about to collapse was a very poor sight to see, and I'm a racing man. I know a few others who are not interested in racing said they thought the horse was going to croke it as it was wobbling. And lads celevrating around it. Sometimes, we make our own problems.
 
Cantoris said:
Winning horse to be disqualified - why?? Once you put the jock up, the owner and trainer lose complete control of their horse to a lad who may never have ridden for them before. That's bad enough. Then, if that clown decides to hit the horse and extra time when 3 lengths in front, the horse gets disqualified? Can't have that.
Click to expand...

It would force connections to be more circumspect about who they put up, Cantoris.

If "the lad" has never ridden for connections before, a word in his ear to the effect of "Lose us prize-money through whip abuse, and it will be your first-and-last ride for us" should focus any jockey's attention.

It should also go some way to ensuring that both connections and jockey's alike are bought into the process.

As things stand, there is no penalty for connections, and baldly stating "It's the jockeys fault and out of our hands as soon as he/she is legged-up" is no excuse.......particularly when jockey bookings are made at the behest of connections in the first place.

As connections are not 'punished' when their horse retains a race in spite of a rules violation, connections have no incentive to jock-off pilots who are happy to weild the stick with excessive frequency to assure a win. As long as this situation is allowed to prevail, the problem won't go away.

Maybe the right compromise is in demoting the horse a place, rather than throwing it out completely?
 
Last edited:
What if the stewards at every meeting, employed an 'independant' vet to inspect horses after the race and only start counting whip strokes if the horse is found to be marked. Publish each examination for the public to see.

If the new 'Air' whip is doing what it is supposed to do thereshould be few if any occasions for the need to go to video.

MR2
 
Grasshopper said:
It would force connections to be more circumspect about who they put up, Cantoris.

If "the lad" has never ridden for connections before, a word in his ear to the effect of "Lose us prize-money through whip abuse, and it will be your first-and-last ride for us" should focus any jockey's attention.

It should also go some way to ensuring that both connections and jockey's alike are bought into the process.

As things stand, there is no penalty for connections, and baldly stating "It's the jockeys fault and out of our hands as soon as he/she is legged-up" is no excuse.......particularly when jockey bookings are made at the behest of connections in the first place.

As connections are not 'punished' when their horse retains a race in spite of a rules violation, connections have no incentive to jock-off pilots who are happy to weild the stick with excessive frequency to assure a win. As long as this situation is allowed to prevail, the problem won't go away.

Maybe the right compromise is in demoting the horse a place, rather than throwing it out completely?
Click to expand...

Ah come on now. I hand over my car to my brother to drive and he writes it off, it comes off his comprehensive insurance, not mine. While it might be my fault to give him the car, you are doing it on the basis that he is covered. Similarly you put a jock up on the basis that he has to work within a set of rules. If he causes interference, I can accept demotion.But it is more difficult to argue that one extra crack of the whip is the winning and losing of a race. you can't ask the horse if he gave a little extra. The sanction must be clearly with the jock. Rules need two things to happen to work correctly. They must be enforced, little or no exceptions, and the penalties must act as a deterrent. As I mentioned before, do you think Soumillon will lose another 50k the next time? You say the problem won't go away. It will if it is enforced and the penalty acts as a sufficient deterrant. You underestimate the effect of a six month suspension on a jockey if they are done for a third time in a year. That sort of sanction will act as such a deterrent that I will guarantee you now, there will be less that 1% breaking the rules under the new system compared to the old system. Owners should be left out of this completely.
 
"Ah so, you'd not know about Owners then or Trainers, what their whip proclivities are, unless you've Owned a TB or Trained one? Hmm? Have ye?
No? Well, more's the pity that means you don't know the half of it."

Would you like to buy and train and race-ride a TB, then yours would be the final word on all things whipsical?

Sorry, just feeling a bit p*ssed off & off the wall this morning ...

Just ignore it . :)
 
Generally my view, after taking a while to think about things is that the BHB have been shown to be rank amateurs.

Any implementation should have been done over a time period of months, issuing warnings etc and especialaly not approaaching a major race day.

The 'air-whip' is described as incapable of 'hurt', the BHB have done little to publiscise this and obviate a foreseeable problem complaints about animal cruelty.

The new chief executive being Australian, I believe, comes from a culture that is trying to ban national hunt racing.

The signals were there - a bunch of executives lacking common sense and now caught in a position where they cannot move for fear of being accused of the same.

Numpties - MR2
 
montyracing2 said:
Generally my view, after taking a while to think about things is that the BHB have been shown to be rank amateurs.

Any implementation should have been done over a time period of months, issuing warnings etc and especialaly not approaaching a major race day.

The 'air-whip' is described as incapable of 'hurt', the BHB have done little to publiscise this and obviate a foreseeable problem complaints about animal cruelty.

The new chief executive being Australian, I believe, comes from a culture that is trying to ban national hunt racing.

The signals were there - a bunch of executives lacking common sense and now caught in a position where they cannot move for fear of being accused of the same.

Numpties - MR2
Click to expand...

Pretty much spot on there MR2
 
Lose the race for whip ABUSE - yes. But for a few more than 8 smacks? No chance. As has been said many times now. There is nothing wrong with the old rules - just enforce them properly.
 
From the RP site:

RUBY WALSH will be in action for champion trainer Paul Nicholls on Friday just days after warning he would be looking at cutting back on the number of rides he takes in Britain.

Walsh was angered after picking up a five-day whip ban at Aintree on Saturday but after discussions with Nicholls he will ride Fistral Beach for the trainer in the Listed Bet365 Handicap Chase at Wetherby on Friday and take three rides for him at the same track on Saturday, including Poquelin in the Bet365 Charlie Hall Chase.
Nicholls said on Thursday: "Ruby wants to ride in the big races, of course he does, and it is a big race tomorrow and big races on Saturday.

"He is also highly likely to be at Exeter on Tuesday for the Haldon Gold Cup, which is an important race and where I run Ghizao. I also run Sam Winner at Exeter."

Walsh, who would have been expected to ride for Nicholls at Chepstow on Tuesday, instead elected to remain in Ireland on that day with Daryl Jacob filling in for him.

His other rides on Saturday will include What A Friend and Round Tom.


AMATEUR rider and owner Paul McMahon was on Thursday handed a 21-day whip ban by the BHA.

Stewards at Cheltenham claimed McMahon had struck hisown horse Clondaw Warrior 17 times when winning a bumper at the track on October 15 and referred the case to the BHA.
The disciplinary panel accepted an admission from McMahon that he was in breach of schedule (B)6 part 2, in that he used his whip with excessive frequency and suspended him from November 2-22.

Shark Hanlon, who trains Clondaw Warrior, said in Thursday's Racing Post that racing "could lose Paul" over this incident.
 
Last edited:
So it appears that the future of a 300 year tradition is being decided by the squeals or lack of squeals in an irish radio studio, I could die laughing if it wasn't so absurd.

MR2
 
I'd say that anyone who's belted a horse - his own, Daisy Bloggs's or the Queen's - 17 times will be no loss to racing. The BHA may look amateurish to some, but an amateur rider is no more of an asset if he behaves like that.

All this stuff about phasing in the rules - why? Rules of the highway aren't phased in to give all drivers a sporting chance of not driving while totally snockered or off their brains on Class A's. (Or even Class B's.) Nobody phases in safety rules which help to prevent people dying from falls, electrocution, or serious burns. "Oh, yes, we were just phasing in that stuff about having to wear an NCB suit, with just a few people wearing it round the nuclear waste to start with." Bollocks to that - you cannot phase in a rule. You MAKE a rule and then you APPLY it.

Hell, I'd love to be a bratty little kid round some of you - "I shall be phasing in the rule, Rupert, that you are not to spit at your mother or hide Grampa's teeth. Not just yet, though, but over a period of five years. In the meantime, should you break it, I shall buy you only 15 toys for Christmas instead of 20."
 
Back
Top