New Whip Rules

Seems to be a big swing back in favour of the whip here this week with a lot of jockeys distancing themselves from AP`s stance . Richard Hughes and Ruby and Robert Thornton all fear for the future of the sport under the regime which begins next Monday. RP has front page cover today
 
One thing the new rule will hopefully do is change this notion that the only way to ride an effective finish is with whips flailing like windmills. I don't want to have a go at Will in particular, but his post above is typical of the ill-informed nonsense I've heard in many places. The argument that whip abuse is a good thing because it changes the result of races does NOT mean that overuse is therefore a positive thing. If stricter rules are necessary to drive this point home, then I welcome them.
 
Roddy Owen said:
Seems to be a big swing back in favour of the whip here this week with a lot of jockeys distancing themselves from AP`s stance . Richard Hughes and Ruby and Robert Thornton all fear for the future of the sport under the regime which begins next Monday. RP has front page cover today
Click to expand...

I can't comment in detail because I don't have access to the print version.

But it's understandable that some jockeys are apprehensive. On the one hand the new rules are stricter and the penalties are a lot harsher for them, while on the other hand the expectation from owners and trainers to do whatever is need to win without getting disqualified has not changed.
 
It looks like Ireland will be introducing similar changes.

Turf Club announce setting up of a Sub-Committee to examine the
Whip Rules in Ireland
The Stewards of the Governing Bodies have announced the setting up of a Sub-Committee to examine the current whip rules in the context of the detailed recommendations made by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) following its review of the use of the whip in horseracing which was published earlier this week.
The terms of reference for the Sub-Committee will be:
(i) to examine the BHA recommendations in the context of the current Irish whip rules and guidelines with a view to determining how many, if any, of the recommendations should be introduced in Ireland.
(ii) to consult widely with industry stakeholders on the use of the whip in Ireland.
(iii) to consider any other matters relating to the use of the whip which were not addressed or where no recommendation was made in the BHA report.
(iv) to make whatever recommendations are necessary for consideration by the Stewards of the Governing Bodies.
The Sub-Committee will be chaired by Leslie Crawford (former trainer and current member of the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase (I.N.H.S.) Committee. Its other members will be Tom Rudd (former National Hunt Jockey and current member of the I.N.H.S. Committee), Colin Magnier (former leading amateur rider and current member of the Turf Club and I.N.H.S. Committee), Laurence McFerran (member of the I.N.H.S. Committee and Breeder) and Peter Matthews (Senior Stipendary Steward).
Commenting on the setting up of the Sub-Committee, Turf Club Senior Steward John McStay said “the Sub-Committee will commence its review as soon as possible and will also monitor the introduction of the new rules in the UK. We look forward to receiving their report.”
Click to expand...
 
It looks like some punters are saying - and there's evidence of it on here, too - that they'd like horses to be thrashed if their money's on it. I don't see a love of any sort of 'sport' there, just a love of money.

I agree with the uselessness of a whip when horses go awry. I don't know how many bolting animals and run-outs we've seen since whip use was under scrutiny, but in no case was the horse deterred from its errant course by a whip. I've tried it myself on blind bolters in the past (it's like hoping your windscreen wipers will stop your car if your brakes fail), and man, once their minds are made up on a course of fleeing the scene, nothing - obstacles, vehicles, people, trees - will prevent their onward hurtle. In fact, sometimes it's safer to bail out and risk a minor injury than stay on board. Same for run-outs at fences - whether it's in a novice hurdles or a showjumping arena. It happens far too quickly to even think 'whip', let alone start using it. And then, if you could, you'd have the problem with over-correction: you feel your nag start to tank off to the right to avoid jumping, so you whack it on its right shoulder and yank the bit to the left. Yow! goes horsey and swerves to the left, cannoning into a horse just taking-off, knocking it off its feet.

You can use it a bit to try to get a horse that's planted to go forward. Yeah, lots of luck with that, if it's determined to gaze at something in the distance - you're better off with someone shooing at the rear while someone else tries to tug its head in the right direction.

Let's get this straight, once and for all - no old-time jockey ever thought of his whip as anything but a signal to go faster. If the bloody animal tanked off, he got tanked off with it. If it ran out, no-one tried a slap upside its face in case it sent the horse barrelling t'other way into the field. The whip is there to first signal 'go faster' in racing, and then 'keep up the speed'. In NH, it's often there as a 'hup!' signal to take-off as well as a speed-up signal.

That's it. It's there to spank the horse into increasing its speed - the 'thwack' sound is the signal combined with a smart on the bum. If your horse needs repeated beating, it either can't or won't go faster, so you're a fool if you keep deploying. A whip isn't going to turn your Astra into a Ferrari. Endlessly obsessing about 'three more swipes and he'd have won' is futile. You might as well say '50 more swipes and he'd have won', on and on, world without end. Four smacks really ought to do it - any more, and your horse is ungenuine and you should put your money onto the spreads if you really believe whipping solves everything. Did it make anyone on here a better, smarter, brighter kid?
 
Last edited:
Gemma Marshall on RUSSIAN STORM has just perfectly demo'd the uselessness of the whip when the horse has resolutely hung out to the left off the turn at Windsor, just now. The animal has then taken Gem further and further out to the rail past the cutaway, finally slithering to a turn to avoid crashing through the rails - Gem amazingly clinging on like the Velcro Queen - and obviously removing them from all contention.

Did Gem once try clouting the horse to reverse its errant trend? No, not least because she no doubt saw what was coming up and decided that both hands firmly on the reins would help her stay on, rather than crash to the ground.

Meanwhile, the rider of the horse (rider in green) up front, is busily whacking its left shoulder to keep it into the corner, presumably sensing this one, too, might quite fancy a trip to the woods. That ploy worked. But blind bolting, where the horse is set on its own course regardless of all other distractions, is not helped by having a whip on board. QED.
 
Last edited:
First day of new rules and already two bans Kieran Fox 15 days and Richard Hughes 5 days. Hughes got five days for one strike more than was permitted in the last furlong FFS!! Ridiculous.:blink:
 
On The Bridle said:
First day of new rules and already two bans Kieran Fox 15 days and Richard Hughes 5 days. Hughes got five days for one strike more than was permitted in the last furlong FFS!! Ridiculous.:blink:
Click to expand...

What's marginally more ridiculous is that both fell foul of the new rules on the very first day, and that neither can appear to count.
 
I should point out that - whilst I'm broadly supportive of the new whip rules - I reserve the right to moan like fuck about them, as soon as one of mine fails to get up through lack of 'encouragement'.

:cool:
 
Hughes got banned for using one to correct the horse down the neck. Mandatory rules are always stupid . There ought to be a let out for exceptional circumstances or if a slap is used for a good reason other than to encourage the horse to win.
 
These new rules are turning into an utter fiasco .

They are wrong because they offend against three principles

1 Proportionality - the BHB rightly accepts proportionality as being central to all its other sanctions e.g on Harry Findlay but not in whip rules - disproportionate penalties to going one hit over are just unfair as are blaming jockeys alone .

2 Fettering discretion - not only are these rules absurdly inflexible " six is six " as R Hughes was told when he hit a horse to stop it lugging into another and causing interference . Any rule of this nature ought to allow for what cannot be foreseen e,g what if a horse that has received its quota tries to bite another horse in the final furlong or the jockey on the other horse?

3 Rationality - the rules are clearly irrational . To expect jockeys to remember exactly how many strokes have been administered in the heat of a race especially a lengthy NH race strikes me as absurd .


The BHA have brought this upon themselves by the idiotic manner in which they conducted the review . I advise anyone with a spare moment to go and read it . The section on public perception is cringe makingly superficial . Also the review panel appeared to suggest 6 and 8 on the flat and 7 and 9 over jumps yet one hit has been cut .

Most strikingly , they failed to consult on their proposals as distinct from consulting generally on the question of the whip - this was arrogant in the extreme .

Perhaps most worrying will be if punters turn off racing because they fear the horse they have backed won't receive all the encouragement it could do due to fear. Surely a much wiser course would have been to have kept the old rules , stiffened the penalties considerably for real abuse - i.e a month off for a Rewilding ride or if in a Group 1 a ban from riding in the next three G 1 races and for serious misuse disqualification
 
Last edited:
I asked Pat Cosgrave and Antioco Murgia (5lb claimer for Marco Botti) today what they felt about the rules. Pat's response was probably cleaned up a bit as against what he'd like to have said, but he thinks they're unworkable, and Ant said that although he hasn't yet been fined, "I will absolutely be fined". I said, are you sure of that, and he was adamant, yes, at some time it would be inevitable that he'd be fined (with the intimation that it would be when insisting the horse make its best effort to win). I see AP is now saying the rules are unworkable, having early on supported them.

One thing's for sure, it's bringing out endless boring discussions and counter-arguments. I'd love us to go back on tv, ATR in particular, to discussing horses and their chances!
 
Ardross said:
These new rules are turning into an utter fiasco.
Click to expand...

...I don't see how anyone could not agree with this. I'm so dispirited about the whole mess I can barely speak. Those that are running the show are so far disconnected from what's what it's like some absurdist drama.
 
The jockeys will just have to learn to concentrate on how many times they've whipped their mount. They'll get the idea when they've had a ban & loss of money.

I can't see the new rules being rescinded or amended anytime soon, can you?
That being the case, see above.
 
I had Buick down as an intelligent jockey and he couldn't count the right number of strikes with the whip either.

It's a lot to ask of the jockeys, count the number of whips, steer his horse, position him correctly, time your run, don't interfere with anyone else (Another ban). All of this at 30mph+ on the back of a 500kg animal with a mind of his own.

They should put someone from the BHA on the back of a horse and ask them to demonstrate.

I wonder how many of the animal welfare brigade are paying attention or even give a sh!t.
 
Soary Stars said:
The jockeys will just have to learn to concentrate on how many times they've whipped their mount. They'll get the idea when they've had a ban & loss of money.

I can't see the new rules being rescinded or amended anytime soon, can you?
That being the case, see above.
Click to expand...

Like I said on the other thread, I wouldn’t try second guessing how jockeys will react. It’s a two-edged sword. The big races will put the rules under the microscope and expose them for the fiasco they are.

In the heat of the moment and glory of winning the sort of races we will see at Ascot, for example, mental calculations as how many cracks of the whip they have left and how it will affect their bank balance will take a back seat. A jockey who loses a short head will probably be jocked off next time. Despite what they say about connections being banned from compensating jockey losses, there are ways and means...

The rules must be changed... whether they'll want to use the word rescinded is another thing.

No one is pleased by these rules. Jockeys, owners, punters... they are gradually killing the racing and betting industries in the name of "public perception"... I'd laugh if I didn't want to cry.
 
Last edited:
Ardross said:
3 Rationality - the rules are clearly irrational . To expect jockeys to remember exactly how many strokes have been administered in the heat of a race especially a lengthy NH race strikes me as absurd .
Click to expand...

So they couldn't remember 12 strokes either? Amazing how many stopped at 11!! Or it could be that 12 strokes offered a huge amount of headroom, in which case there is no reason it can't be lowered.

I don't have a problem with the rule changes although I agree with your view that there should be some, limited exceptions, like using the whip to avoid interference. this should be left up to the stewards discretion with the onus on the jockey to prove that if they did not take corrective action, it was obvious the horse would impede another. What you don't want is a jock coming in and saying that he hit it becuase he thought it might drift onto the horse five horse widths outside it!! In this case, I would assume guilt and let them prove their innocence.

On proportionality, I have often said that bans are not long enough. That's why so many Irish national hunt riders try to "influence" the result on the run-in or at the last jump by obstructing the other horse ("sir, the horse jumped out of my hands and knocked over the other fella"!!). THey know that they will probably get away with it and the grand in their paw now is worth the risk of a day or two ban. If the ban was ten days as a minimum it might be different. Breaking the rules needs to have a strong penalty and one that acts as a deterrent, not a mere slap across the hand.

Give it some time and see if the jocks can adapt. They are not stupid, they can count, even under pressure.
 
Cantoris said:
Give it some time and see if the jocks can adapt. They are not stupid, they can count, even under pressure.
Click to expand...

It’s nothing to do with how stupid they may or may not be. A jockey should be trying to achieve the best possibly result for his mount. Over-whipping will not achieve this anyway. To come up with an arbitrary number to fit all eventualities to pander to “public perception” (whatever that really is) is ludicrous.
 
BHA to reconvene the Review Group following a submission from the PJA . As stated above they should have consulted properly in the first place eejits
 
Back
Top