New Whip Rules

krizon said:
Hughes cannot have hit his horse six times and got a ban, when the rules say seven hits are permissible.
Click to expand...

Krizon,

He twice hit the horse 6 times in the final furlong - when only 5 are allowed. I've only seen one of the races, but it's my understanding that he didn't exceed the total of 7 in either case.

Jockeys aren't robots - as Ardross says, there's an awful lot going on near the end of the race. I accept they should be able to count to seven (or whatever figure) for the whole race, but I'd imagine it would be a lot trickier to ensure you only did 5 in the final furlong. What if you have your arm raised before the furlong pole but connect with the horse just afterwards? Or the issue with interference as has been previously raised. What about a horse which decides it wants to go back to the stables on the first circuit - the jockey may as well let it, because if he uses the whip to persuade the horse to race, he'll lose out in a finish anyway.

Stewards in general don't seem very competent, I would imagine we will see a case of this being zealously applied in some instances but completely missed in others. How much effort would it take to watch a cavalry charge like the stewards cup and check each rider throughout the race? Can a jockey really only use the whip 7 times in a race like the Grand National - 7 times in 4 and a half miles?

The 'final furlong' part of the rule is ridiculous - a total ban of 15 days for hitting a horse a single time over on two occasions is completely disproportionate. Looking at Hughe's past history - 2 single day bans in 3 years would indicate that he indeed isn't a whip jockey - has he suddenly transformed into one just as these new rules are out?

To those claiming most jockeys are following the rules - so far this does seem to be the case, but answer me this - if they are happy about doing so, why were they all prepared to strike?
 
Good piece from Paul Nicholls on Betfair and I agree with him 100%, particularly about Harry Skelton.

Embarrassment - that is the prevailing mood among racing. And under no circumstances can that be good for the sport, or how it is viewed by the public.

And that is what prompted me to tweet the following this morning: "Oh my god what a mess. Old whip rules should be reinstated with immediate effect until a sensible compromise can be reached."

As everyone knows, I am not a political person and on this issue I have been deliberately low key before now, even though I put my name to the BHA press release - along with the likes of AP, Frankie and Sir Henry - when the new whip rules were announced.

Everyone agreed change had to happen.

And I hadn't planned to say any more on the matter. But after every media organisation under the sun was calling me, and Sky Sports News flagging up my tweet every hour it seems, I suppose I cannot leave it there.

Last week, I wrote in this column that we have to "give the new rules a chance" while at the same time adding: "I certainly wouldn't want to be riding these days and personally I was happy enough with the old rules. And having spoken to AP and Ruby about this at length this week, I can see both sides of the argument and the worries that some jockeys have."

So what has changed?

Well, the sport is being dragged into chaos and ridicule on the eve of one of the most important days in the racing calendar - probably the most important, if you are the BHA and RFC - that's what has changed. And when you get whispers of jockeys' protests and strikes next week, you surely have to confront the matter head on.

The headlines at the moment are all for the wrong reasons. Imagine how QIPCO, sponsors of the Champions Day, must be feeling.

You can debate the merits of Richard Hughes' actions as long as you want, but when men of the wisdom and experience of Paul Barber and Andy Stewart use words such as "embarrassed" to describe the current situation, then isn't it time for firm and immediate action?

And the BHA listening to those within racing, and drawing a line under these new whip rules until mature and balanced discussions have taken place, is surely an option that now must be seriously being considered?

The new rules were brought home to me on a personal level when Harry Skelton was the first jumps jockeys to be given a five day ban after striking El Diego nine times at Wincanton yesterday.

As everyone who saw that race would attest to, it was a peach of a ride, even in defeat. He pushed and cajoled an unco-operative horse into contention from a long way out, and only lost out near the line.

But he hit the horse nine times, and so got the ban. I spoke to Harry last night and he told me with so much going on in the 3m1f race - and remember these jockeys are putting their lives on the line here - it is simply impossible for jockeys to count with any accuracy how many times they hit the horse.

We, in racing, fully appreciate that we have a wider responsibility now and that the days of "win at all costs" should be banished to the past.

But when jockeys relate that would they rather err on the side of caution and finish second, rather than risk a ban going for the win, what sort of message is that sending to punters?

So, maybe let's take a pull on the new whip rules for now until we find the correct solution.

By doing this the BHA will be showing strength of character, not weakness of will.

But of course that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Flagship uberalles said:
Krizon,

He twice hit the horse 6 times in the final furlong - when only 5 are allowed. I've only seen one of the races, but it's my understanding that he didn't exceed the total of 7 in either case.

Jockeys aren't robots - as Ardross says, there's an awful lot going on near the end of the race. I accept they should be able to count to seven (or whatever figure) for the whole race, but I'd imagine it would be a lot trickier to ensure you only did 5 in the final furlong. What if you have your arm raised before the furlong pole but connect with the horse just afterwards? Or the issue with interference as has been previously raised. What about a horse which decides it wants to go back to the stables on the first circuit - the jockey may as well let it, because if he uses the whip to persuade the horse to race, he'll lose out in a finish anyway.

Stewards in general don't seem very competent, I would imagine we will see a case of this being zealously applied in some instances but completely missed in others. How much effort would it take to watch a cavalry charge like the stewards cup and check each rider throughout the race? Can a jockey really only use the whip 7 times in a race like the Grand National - 7 times in 4 and a half miles?

The 'final furlong' part of the rule is ridiculous - a total ban of 15 days for hitting a horse a single time over on two occasions is completely disproportionate. Looking at Hughe's past history - 2 single day bans in 3 years would indicate that he indeed isn't a whip jockey - has he suddenly transformed into one just as these new rules are out?

To those claiming most jockeys are following the rules - so far this does seem to be the case, but answer me this - if they are happy about doing so, why were they all prepared to strike?
Click to expand...


Well said !

As for Cruella's posts I have seen no evidence at all from the BHA that the jockeys were consulted on the final proposals . They all seem to be saying they weren't . Furthermore , the question of inflexibility she fails entirely to address.

As for the old canard that rules are rules and that draconian sanctions are necessary - first rules must command respect and arbitrary and inflexible rules do not and secondly draconian punishments offend entirely against the principle of proportionality . A sanction must pursue a legitimate aim but must be no more than is necessary and proportionate to achieve that aim - the aim is to prevent misuse of the whip and if there is misuse then sanctions may be properly stiff . The current penalties punish jockeys disproportionately for minor transgressions that do nto even count as misuse.
 
Flagship uberalles said:
To those claiming most jockeys are following the rules - so far this does seem to be the case, but answer me this - if they are happy about doing so, why were they all prepared to strike?
Click to expand...

Strike action is seen as an absolute last resort in any industrial relations process. I say that because there has been no discussion about it. If a company reduces pay and workers dont like it, they keep working for the lower pay while negotiations are ongoing before going on strike as a last resort. Have the jocks been working through this with the BHA over the last week. Are they really saying they have reached the point of last resort......after less than a week?? Rattles and prams.

When Cool Ground won the Gold Cup, Maguire got suspended for use of the whipe. Maguire's reaction was "what did you expect me to do....it was the Gold Cup". So the ban was not sufficient penalty to put him off. Or Dettori from beating the crap out of Rewilding to win a group 1. Could you honestly see a lad given a horse 24 cracks to win a Redcar seller? No. I believe the penalty of loss of prizemoney is important as it is the only deterrent for the jocks in group 1's and I believe that is what the BHA have their eye on. The public don't care about a Redcar seller but 17 whips of Ballabriggs is too much. So you need to increase the penalty to stop Jason Maguire from giving him the extra 5 cracks. 10% of the grand national pot would have stopped him.

The problem is the penalty is not sufficient for the group 1s, not the Redcar seller. Unfortunately, the penalties might be a bit harsh for the journeyman jock then but unless they apply the penalties differently for each category of race, they all jocks have to put up with it.
 
Ardross said:
Well said !

As for Cruella's posts I have seen no evidence at all from the BHA that the jockeys were consulted on the final proposals . They all seem to be saying they weren't .
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you require evidence from the BHA when the jockeys' own representative body stated after the new rules were unveiled - "draconian" penalties and all - that they were consulted and "commended the BHA" on the new "clear-cut" rules.

Is there a head/brick wall emoticon?

I've already said I don't think the rule is perfect and outlined where I think it can be improved, and I expressed a certain amount of sympathy for Hughes. I agree that the timing and method of the implentation was also far from perfect. I'm frustrated and disappointed that my favourite sport and my means of earning a living is in a disarray of its own making. However, I don't think that introducing severe penalties for transgression of a clearly defined rule is wrong in and of itself.

If I were the BHA, I would do the following:

1) Scrap the 'split' element of the permitted number of strokes, but keep the reduced maximums at 7 and 8.
2) Make it clear that a slap down the shoulder with the hands remaining on the reins does not count towards the maximum strokes.
3) Announce an amnesty/'bedding-in' period from Monday until the end of October, during which time the old rules will apply but any jockey who would earn a ban under the new rules will be called into the stewards' room, shown the recording of their ride and warned as to what penalty they would receive from 1st November onwards.
4) Rescind all bans handed out under the new rules to date.
5) Retain the new penalty structure.

And then on 1st November, that's it - the new rules are the new rules, and you learn to live with them or get out of the sport. These jockeys are so-called professionals, and the goalposts move all the time in the world of work and in life in general. As a manager, there are a lot of things I can't say or do now that I could when I first started, unless I want to risk a grievance, a formal complaint, suspension or a tribunal. Political correctness gone mad? In some cases maybe, in some cases not. Does it make my job harder? In some respects, yes. But I don't want to lose my pay, my reputation or my job so I abide by the rules of my profession.
 
Just had an email re Plumpton from our supervisor, who's also JC Security in the weighing room at many S/SW courses: "the whip walk-out threat is rapidly receding"... business as usual, it would appear.

Hughes can no doubt, at his age and with his alternative income, afford to swerve riding for quite a while. Trying to muster support from young, hungry, and money-poor jockeys to not work would always be difficult. In fact, if anything would deny someone the ability to make an income, it'd be the PJA calling for a fixtures-wide boycott. Unless they could afford to compensate everyone taking part for their loss of rides - in which case they have far too much dosh!

Thanks, FU, for pointing out that there were six strikes in the last furlong. So, what does that indicate to us? That not only the rider can't count, but can't even see the final furlong marker?

What comes across here is that some jockeys are finding it difficult to meet change and to adapt. Well, they met change in the past to go from flag to tape to stalls starts, they met change from slicing whips that left weals on horses and even drew blood to using the latest version, they met change when horses could be fitted with every device known to man to improve its running, they met change when they had to wear body protectors, they met change when artificial surfaces were introduced just over only 20 years ago, they met change when courses altered their lay-outs and added or removed jumps, they met change when their use of mobile phones was restricted... oh, COME ON! And were they always consulted on every change made? No, of course they weren't. They are, after all, the servants of owners and trainers - they do not direct racing and they may have concerns re day-to-day issues such as dangerous going, low sun, bad jump positions, etc., etc. taken into account, but they don't have the responsibility of addressing all safety and welfare issues, which is one of the many jobs of the BHA.

(Cruella - love the request for head/brick wall emoticon! With you on all this.)
 
Last edited:
Nice to see little Willie getting animatedly annoyed, I had thought he was incapable of caring about anything related to racing.
 
Krizon, have you read the post above where I quote the Paul Nicholls Betfair blog? Harry Skelton (as well as various other jockeys) has said it's not possible to count how many times you count a horse during the race, in the final furlong etc. when you're concentrating on something, like trying to win the race and all the other things jockeys no doubt have to be aware of. I read a good point on another forum, which was when you're playing cricket, you often have to ask the umpire how many balls are left in an over. You may think, christ it's only counting from 1 to 6, but when you're concentrating on something you forget these things pretty easily. I found this a good analogy because I haven't ridden in a race but I have played cricket and it's very true.
 
Last edited:
Simon said:
Harry Skelton (as well as various other jockeys) has said it's not possible to count how many times you count a horse during the race, in the final furlong etc. when you're concentrating on something, like trying to win the race and all the other things jockeys no doubt have to be aware of.
Click to expand...

"Not possible"? Does Skelton expect anyone to believe that and still take jockeys seriously as professional sportspeople?
 
Ah, so the idea my colleague and I had at the beginning of last week for Dragon's Den - a whip that audibly counts down from 7 and 8, connected via wireless to a 'heads-up' display between the horse's ears - might just be a goer after all...
 
Why should international cricketers be taken seriously yet still can't count to 6 yet jockeys who can't count to 8 not be?
 
Same old feeble 'have you done so-and-so?' because if you haven't, you're not qualified to comment: bollocks.

Anyway, on to more reasonable things: keep 'em coming, Cruella! Excellent stuff.
 
Soary Stars said:
Same old feeble 'have you done so-and-so?' because if you haven't, you're not qualified to comment: bollocks.

Anyway, on to more reasonable things: keep 'em coming, Cruella! Excellent stuff.
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I said. Anyone is entitled to an opinion, however it's much harder to say definitively that it's possible or impossible to count the strikes of the whip during a race unless you have actually ridden in one.
 
Last edited:
The cricket thing isn't even a point - if there was any real penalty in forgetting, i.e. if you couldn't ask someone else, you can be sure it would focus the concentration, and the period between balls is hardly comparable in any case. And don't umpires call the end of an over anyway?

But there are many examples in professional sport where the participants have to maintain precise concentration within the heat of competition - whether it's Dai Greene keeping count of his stride pattern so he's always leading with the correct leg when winning a World Championship, or Tom Brady keeping an entire playbook in his head as he runs a 4th quarter no-huddle drive to win a Superbowl.
 
Simon said:
That wasn't what I said. Anyone is entitled to an opinion, however it's much harder to say definitively that it's possible or impossible to count the strikes of the whip during a race unless you have actually ridden in one.
Click to expand...

to be fair Simon..when jockeys are apprentices they are encouraged to try and time how many seconds they are running per furlong..clock in head job..if they can master that then surely knowing how many whip strikes should be a piece of piss..coz the second counting must be fookin difficult
 
Some interesting points from both of you in fairness and I can see both sides to the argument. However, my opinion on the rule in general doesn't change. It is complete bollocks, a complete shambles and there are too many problems with it that I haven't heard answers for - like what happens if horses hang once the jockey has used his allocation and various others. I have seen many great rides recently which have in no way looked 'bad' which would have resulted in bans and I simply can't agree with it. Is it a coincide that
there have been a lot of big priced winners since the new rules came in? I have no evidence, just something I've noticed. I think these rules will stop the best horse in the race winning in many cases and will also mean horses with 'character' are much less effective and that can only be bad for the game in my opinion.
 
Simon said:
Some interesting points from both of you in fairness and I can see both sides to the argument. However, my opinion on the rule in general doesn't change. It is complete bollocks, a complete shambles and there are too many problems with it that I haven't heard answers for - like what happens if horses hang once the jockey has used his allocation and various others. I have seen many great rides recently which have in no way looked 'bad' which would have resulted in bans and I simply can't agree with it. Is it a coincide that
there have been a lot of big priced winners since the new rules came in? I have no evidence, just something I've noticed. I think these rules will stop the best horse in the race winning in many cases and will also mean horses with 'character' are much less effective and that can only be bad for the game in my opinion.
Click to expand...

i haven't got any strong feelings about it tbh Simon..but i think splitting the counting between the final furlong and the rest of the race looks absolutely ridiculous to me

just say..you can use the whip x times during the whole race..end of.

some of this is just newness..having to abide by a new rule..the penalties do look very tough..which is what Hughes is objecting to..but he gone too far in putting his license in..bit prima donnaish imo
 
Exactly. For one extra strike with the whip he's been fined £55k. ONE strike. Absolutely ridiculous. The ride was absolutely fine as well.
 
Back
Top