New Whip Rules

Reports that Richard Hughes has given up his licence as a result of another 5 day ban tonight that means he misses the Breeders Cup.

From RP

RICHARD HUGHES has given up his riding licence in protest at the new whip regulations after receiving a second five-day riding ban in the space of four days.

The top jockey said he would relinquish his licence until the new rules, introduced on Monday, were reviewed and gave up his two remaining rides at Kempton.

The freshpunishment means Hughes will miss the Breeders' Cup at Churchill Downs next month when he was due to ride Strong Suit in the Breeders' Cup Mile.
 
Last edited:
Fair dues to him. This is a farcical situation.

Can anyone explain to me the difference in terms of cruelty to a horse between 7 and say 10 hits?
 
Ardross said:
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
Click to expand...

Perhaps some sanity will be restored... Precisely why they have chosen introduce them ahead of Ascot is a fiasco in itself. Why not the start of next season?
 
Last edited:
Its the only way that the jocks can probably see to have their say on the rules - its their livelihoods at stake.

What other way could they protest - start a race then just trot to the finish?
 
I think the jockeys should get together, and resolve to not ride on Champions day. That would expose these clowns behind these new rules.
 
My thoughts on this have been clear from the start. I thought the fiasco would wait until Saturday to be fully played out on Sundays newspapers. I cannot understand how anyone with a deep interest in racing could possibly support this absolute nonsense. The jockeys should strike immediately - the BHA are a farce!
 
Hang on a minute...before we all rush to give Richard Hughes a knighthood, aren't there a few things to bear in mind:

1) The PJA were consulted as part of the review
2) The majority of jockeys who were interviewed in the run-up to the implementation of the rule were reported as being supportive of the new whip quotas ("now it's black and white for us" etc)
3) The main area of contention amongst jockeys was the severity of the PENALTIES, not the restriction on the number of strokes per se
4) Hughes himself commented "I'm not a whip jockey so it won't really affect me"

I'm not an apologist for the BHA - I think deliberately bringing in the new rule five days before Champions' Day was badly thought-out; I think the '7 times in all but only 5 in the final furlong' element is ridiculous; if it's deemed ok to hit a horse 7 times then it shouldn't matter at what stage those 7 strokes are administered - but some of this reaction from jockeys smacks (no pun intended, sorry) of petulance, stirring and jumping on a bandwagon because a smal number are unable to follow a set of clear-cut rules on which their own representative body was consulted.
 
The PJA were consulted - obviously they werent listened to! Just because a "rule" is implemented does not mean it's correct! Some people live their lives by rules others live their lives doing the right thing - there is a difference.
 
PJA statement regarding the whip review, 27/9/11:

"The Professional Jockeys Association today commended the British Horseracing Authority for introducing revised rules regarding the use of the whip that are “concise and easy to understand”.

PJA Chief Executive Kevin Darley said: “We have worked closely with the BHA during this important Review for racing and have been consulted throughout.

“Jockeys are pleased that the Authority has recognised that the whip is an important tool of the trade and that these changes will ultimately help protect the integrity of the sport. While there are always differences of opinion, the PJA is advising its members to endorse the changes and react positively to them.”
 
You got me there Cruella - I wonder did Darley or the PJA in general consult with their members? I cannot see how so many people could be so blatantly blind!
 
Richard Hughes quits in protest at new whip rules


By JAMES PUGH & TOM KERR 8:08PM 13 OCT 2011
RICHARD HUGHES has given up his riding licence in protest at the new whip regulations after receiving a ten-day ban at Kempton on Thursday night.
It was his second whip ban in the four days since the tough new regulations were introduced.
The top jockey said he would relinquish his licence until the new rules were reviewed and gave up his two remaining rides on Kempton's all-weather card.
"I can't ride horses knowing that I'm not doing myself and the owners who pay £100 a time justice," said Hughes. "I will only consider starting again if there is a review of the rules. I'd rather sweep roads than do half a job. I've notified Richard [Hannon]."
The fresh punishment means Hughes will miss the Breeders' Cup at Churchill Downs next month when he was due to ride Strong Suit in the Breeders' Cup Mile. He also stated he would not ride at Ascot's British Champions Days on Saturday.
Hughesregistered his disgust with the new rules after his first whip ban on Monday, the day regulations were introduced. The rules limit jockeys to seven strikes (five in the last furlong) on the Flat and eight over jumps.
Thursday night's second ban, picked up on More Than Words and increased from five to ten days for being his second such offence, appeared to be the final straw for Hughes, who took particular aim at the limit of five whip strikes in the final furlong.
He said: "We're allowed to hit them seven times and both times I've been done, I've hit them six times, which is less than the amount you're allowed and I've got a fifteen day ban because of it and I miss the Breeders' Cup.
"They've made the rules so you hit them more, so you have to get two into them before the furlong pole as then you've only got five left. I was always told as a young jockey the last jockey who goes for his whip normally wins."
In an interview with Racing UK, Hughes added: "They're taking the art of race riding away from me, it's like telling Messi not to use his left foot anymore."
Hughes is one of the sport's leading lights and finished a close second to Paul Hanagan in an epic duel during last season's Flat jockeys' championship.
Earlier on Thursday, the BHA announced they would review the penalties for whip offences.
Fellow jockey James Doyle also received a five-day whip ban at Kempton for his ride on Tigers Tale in the 7f nursery, while on Wednesday William Buick, Pat Cosgrave and NataliaGemelova all fell foul of the beefed-up penalty structure, which has stoked ill feeling in the weighing room.
Click to expand...
 
There is only way sensible way forward - the rules should be withdrawn for reconsideration immediately with an amnesty for anyone who transgressed this week .

They are arbitrary, disproportionate and disgraceful. Hughes would have arguable grounds for proceedings on the basis that they are disproportionate restraint of trade.
 
Cruella said:
Hang on a minute...before we all rush to give Richard Hughes a knighthood, aren't there a few things to bear in mind:

1) The PJA were consulted as part of the review
2) The majority of jockeys who were interviewed in the run-up to the implementation of the rule were reported as being supportive of the new whip quotas ("now it's black and white for us" etc)
3) The main area of contention amongst jockeys was the severity of the PENALTIES, not the restriction on the number of strokes per se
4) Hughes himself commented "I'm not a whip jockey so it won't really affect me"

I'm not an apologist for the BHA - I think deliberately bringing in the new rule five days before Champions' Day was badly thought-out; I think the '7 times in all but only 5 in the final furlong' element is ridiculous; if it's deemed ok to hit a horse 7 times then it shouldn't matter at what stage those 7 strokes are administered - but some of this reaction from jockeys smacks (no pun intended, sorry) of petulance, stirring and jumping on a bandwagon because a smal number are unable to follow a set of clear-cut rules on which their own representative body was consulted.
Click to expand...

This sir/madam, is absolutely spot on and I couldn't have put it any better myself. I don't necessary agree with the new rules and the timing is shocking but the reaction is also appalling, anyone would think the country was at war listening to some people in the industry.
 
Cruella said:
Hang on a minute...before we all rush to give Richard Hughes a knighthood, aren't there a few things to bear in mind:

1) The PJA were consulted as part of the review
2) The majority of jockeys who were interviewed in the run-up to the implementation of the rule were reported as being supportive of the new whip quotas ("now it's black and white for us" etc)
3) The main area of contention amongst jockeys was the severity of the PENALTIES, not the restriction on the number of strokes per se
4) Hughes himself commented "I'm not a whip jockey so it won't really affect me"

I'm not an apologist for the BHA - I think deliberately bringing in the new rule five days before Champions' Day was badly thought-out; I think the '7 times in all but only 5 in the final furlong' element is ridiculous; if it's deemed ok to hit a horse 7 times then it shouldn't matter at what stage those 7 strokes are administered - but some of this reaction from jockeys smacks (no pun intended, sorry) of petulance, stirring and jumping on a bandwagon because a smal number are unable to follow a set of clear-cut rules on which their own representative body was consulted.
Click to expand...


The problem with this is post IMO , is that it fails to grapple with the essential points

1 The PJA was consulted on the generalities but not on the detailed proposals - nobody was they were just revealed on the 27th SEpt .

2 Lots of jockeys have said they were not asked their views Jamie Spencer for example

3 This is the point the penalties are utterly disproportionate to the offence - jockeys are being punished for use of the whip not misuse

4 So he thought and indeed I cannot remember when he was last banned for whip misuse if ever - he has been done once for using the whip in corrective fashion when one would have thought that was never intended to fall wthin the rules and for using the whip once more than he should have done - neither come anywhere near whip misuse .
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
A jockey should be trying to achieve the best possibly result for his mount.
Click to expand...

No. A jockey should be trying to achieve the best possible result within the rules. He cannot run a horse out at the final flight, just to improve the result. He must ride within the rules, and the whip rule was good enough at 12 for everyone to manage so it should be good enough at less. How many jocks rode this week? How many got banned? If it was that bad, why no more bans? Can anyone tell me a horse that lost because it didn't get a few more slaps?

I agree there need to be some changes but jocks need to realise that there are rules. A little slap on the wrist is no good. Let Hughes hand in his licence. It will give those jocks that can adapt to the rules a chance to pick up some winners from him. Rattles and prams.

Ardross, if Jamie Spencer had a view, he should have made it known to Darley. If it meant enough to him, he would have made the effort. Talk about closing the gate after the horse has bolted.

And OTB, if my aunite had balls..........

PS How did Hughes manage to let himself get done twice in a week??
 
Last edited:
Ardross said:
The problem with this is post IMO , is that it fails to grapple with the essential points

1 The PJA was consulted on the generalities but not on the detailed proposals - nobody was they were just revealed on the 27th SEpt .

2 Lots of jockeys have said they were not asked their views Jamie Spencer for example

3 This is the point the penalties are utterly disproportionate to the offence - jockeys are being punished for use of the whip not misuse

4 So he thought and indeed I cannot remember when he was last banned for whip misuse if ever - he has been done once for using the whip in corrective fashion when one would have thought that was never intended to fall wthin the rules and for using the whip once more than he should have done - neither come anywhere near whip misuse .
Click to expand...

1. You know this for a fact? The press release I copied above would suggest the PJA were perfectly content with the consultation process.

2. With the best will in the world, it wouldn't be possible to canvas the views of every jockey riding today. The BHA, with input from the PJA, selected to consult, as individuals, a cross-section of jockeys to give a representative view. AP McCoy being one of them and initially reported as supportive before this week's volte-face. Quote from Hughes himself on the day the new rule was unveiled:

"This was a milestone event for jockeys in this country. It marked a behavioural change in the ranks, endorsed by Frankie Dettori and A P McCoy, and best summed up by jockey Richard Hughes: “The big problem for us was the inconsistency of the previous rule. Some people were battering them and getting away with it, but now there should be no grey area. Most lads will be happy with it. A few will have to change [their riding style]and they know who they are,” he said."

3. If the penalties aren't severe enough to act as a deterrent, what's the point of having a rule (any rule) in the first place? Otherwise we continue with the status quo, where a jockey considers it's worth it to break the rules because the consequences are worth it. Personally I would have gone the whole hog and introduced disqualification where the jockey breaches the whip rules, to even up this anomaly where any other serious riding breach bar over-use of the whip results in the offending jockey's horse being disqualified.

4. I do think (as already stated) that splitting the maximum permitted strikes into 'final furlong' and 'rest of race' is IMO pointless, so I do have a certain amount of sympathy for Hughes's first ban, particularly as he thought a slap down the shoulder for correction was not counted as a hit. But having been through that experience and faced the consequences, I would expect him to have learnt from it and not repeated his mistake a mere two days later. He's had several whip bans btw. In a three month period earlier this year he had two short-duration whip bans. In that same period Ryan Moore, to pluck a random example of a similar-status jockey, had none (and no, it wasn't while Moore was sidelined, before anyone jumps on that!)
 
Cantoris said:
PS How did Hughes manage to let himself get done twice in a week??
Click to expand...

Possibly because the rules are ridiculous. Ardross is right. They are so clearly ludicrous (Ascot is confidently predicted to be a shambles under these rules by the likes of Carson and Gosden, among a host of others) the only sensible course of action is to ditch them and review for the beginning of next season.

This country has become the laughing stock of the horseracing community.
 
SteveM said:
Possibly because the rules are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, I can't accept that. How many jockeys rode within the ridiculous rule this week. I think four or five got banned and they will all learn....except Hughes. Surely once bitten twice shy is a common saying for a reason. The rule is not ridiculous. It might need to be amended for some peculiarities but it is not ridiculous. There must have been 20 races a day over the last week, with 5 days, that's 100 races of say 7 runners each. That's 700 rides and only 4 or 5 got bans. That's 0.5%. And lets say that only 3 horses were involved in a finish in each race as these are the ones most vulnerable to the "ridiculous" rule. That would be 60 rides and 4/5 bans which is around 6-7%. I can live with that for a new rule. And the 4/5 included one fella twice!!

SteveM said:
This country has become the laughing stock of the horseracing community.
Click to expand...

I'm not laughing at ye. I wish the Irish stewards would bring in lengthy bans for indescretions.
 
Last edited:
He hit the horse 6 times and got a ten day ban. Terry is the problem in a nutshell, regardless of anything else.
 
So now PFN is up in arms about it. Why the BHA didnt Pilot the new rules is the main issue for me. Its really stupid to just throw the rules straight in without a few weeks of trial & error. The good point being made by the jocks & trainers is the penalty system, not the actual rule. Just change that and most will be happy. A day for every smack over the limit...
 
Back
Top