New Whip Rules

Simon said:
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 have to take issue with that. There's a lot of rawmeishing about 'lazy horses won't win anymore' - well, good! If a horse needs more than 7/8 strikes with a whip to do the job it's bred and trained for, there's an argument that it doesn't deserve to win. That's assuming the bollox is even true in the first place. There's no horse currently in training more notorious for 'just doing enough' and pulling himself up in front than Big Buck's - but he did alright in his championship race at Cheltenham when Ruby dropped his whip over the last flight, with the hill ahead of them.

What should theoretically happen is that the willing horses, who run on without having to be 'stoked up' by over-use of the whip, will win more races, therefore becoming the more attractive breeding propositions and ultimately resulting in the trait of 'genuineness' being bred into the Thoroughbred - which can only be good for the breed and the game. It won't happen overnight, but it's a potential long-term positive benefit.
 
I think Soumillon has a strong case under Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. His property has been confiscated for reasons which are disproportionate.
 
But doesn't it only become his property if he has fulfilled the prerequisite conditions by which it then passes to him - in this case to ride to, and abide by, the current Rules of Racing? By taking the ride he has implicitly accepted the terms of those conditions.
 
Last edited:
Cruella said:
But doesn't it only become his property if he has fulfilled the prerequisite conditions by which it then passes to him - in this case to ride to, and abide by, the current Rules of Racing? By taking the ride he has implicitly accepted the terms of those conditions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If he has a case then I don't see how any sport can realistically function.
 
To all those thinking jockeys are idiots who can't count - do any of you drive? Ever gone over the speed limit?

Everyone knows the speed limits yet speeding occurs god alone knows how many times per day. I'd imagine it would be harder to count the number of strikes whilst flailing away on top of a horse than it is to drive a car within the speed limit.

And before anyone says it, funnily enough I have driven before ( I've also had a go on that horse racing arcade game and by Christ it's hard work ).
 
Flagship uberalles said:
To all those thinking jockeys are idiots who can't count - do any of you drive? Ever gone over the speed limit?

Everyone knows the speed limits yet speeding occurs god alone knows how many times per day. I'd imagine it would be harder to count the number of strikes whilst flailing away on top of a horse than it is to drive a car within the speed limit.

And before anyone says it, funnily enough I have driven before ( I've also had a go on that horse racing arcade game and by Christ it's hard work ).
Click to expand...

Difference is, most people choose to speed and hope they'll get away with it. I know I do.

Here's a different take on that analogy: I've had a driving licence for 23 years (points-free, I might add). Last year, I took the car to France - my first experience of driving abroad. I'd had 22 years of driving on the left, giving way to the right on roundabouts and judging my speed in miles per hour. It's second nature. From the minute I drove off the ferry, without any opportunity to practice beforehand, I had to adjust to driving on the right, giving way to the left at roundabouts and keeping to the speed limit in kilometres while dealing with traffic, unfamiliar roads, road signs in a foreign language and all the rest of it. And guess what? I managed it, without any accidents, collisions or speed tickets. Driving isn't my job, and there was a damn sight more at stake than a few days off and the loss of some money - I could have killed someone if I'd got it wrong. And yes, I had to concentrate that bit harder, take the step back to 'conscious competence' rather than 'unconscious competence', but I did it, and if I'd done it for longer and kept concentrating, that in turn would have become second nature.
 
But what if you'd been told that you could only change gear, say, ten times in an hour regardless of driving conditions, speed limit etc? Would you have still been able to concentrate on your driving in the same way?
 
These analogies are terrible.

Professional sportspeople should be capable of being thoroughly aware of where they are, what they've done, and what they still can do within the rules of their sport. Regardless of whether the new rules are just or not, the idea that jockeys can't remain aware of how many times they've made the physical effort to slap their horse with their whip is absolutely ridiculous.
 
moehat said:
But what if you'd been told that you could only change gear, say, ten times in an hour regardless of driving conditions, speed limit etc? Would you have still been able to concentrate on your driving in the same way?
Click to expand...

I drive an automatic :D
 
The size of the fine is irrelevant. It's merely a function of the overall prize money. Surely there's no suggestion that the rules should be different depending on how much the race is worth!
 
Gareth Flynn said:
The size of the fine is irrelevant. It's merely a function of the overall prize money. Surely there's no suggestion that the rules should be different depending on how much the race is worth!
Click to expand...

It's not the size of the fine (although it is somewhat relevant) it's the fact that a fantastic ride that in no way was injurious to the horse or this much coveted perception of the sport has been judged by illogically rigid rules to be a crime worthy of a five day ban.
 
The result stands, the backers got their money, the owners got their Group 1 and their prize money - the only person this affects is the guy who knowingly broke the rules.
 
Reading through this thread it does seem the for & against have 'dug in' and could never budge from their stance, but there is a clear & obvious need for comproimise and I have no doubt the BHA & PJA willl do just that.
 
On The Bridle said:
Plenty on here would have the rule changed to toss the winner out as well!! Sometimes I wonder...
Click to expand...

Then, with just one stroke at the wrong distance, we might really have seen how punters, and racing generally, regard the new rules.
The mind boggles.:lol:
 
I have to disagree in part with Gareth, yes jockeys should be able to count to 5 or 7 but I do think distinguishing where exactly the furlong pole is when travelling between 35 and 40mph on horseback is harder than you may think. Especially with a large crowd and advertising everywhere. They'll have to start painting a line on the track!

The total limit of 7 doesn't bother me too much but the final furlong rule is just a nonsense.

Whilst Soumillon didn't have to ride yesterday, he still had little time to prepare for the new rules and was only informed seven days ago (I can believe this). You cannot expect him to give up his ride in the race and he and other riders should be applauded for not taking the childish route that Richard Hughes decided to take.

A fine of £55,000 is insane. Whilst obviously not backing fines based on the race value, I do think that exceeding the final furlong quota should get a significantly less fine than someone who hits the horse 12 times during the entire race.

I hope the BHA sort this out this week, I suspect the final furlong rule will be scrapped but race limits kept in place with the punishments also tinkered with. I hope they do the decent thing and give the prize money back. The whole week has been embarrassing for all; the BHA with their incredibly poor timing and misjudgement of the rules and the behaviour of certain jockeys during the week, Soumillon spoke more sense than any other on the issue for me.
 
Gamla Stan said:
I have to disagree in part with Gareth, yes jockeys should be able to count to 5 or 7 but I do think distinguishing where exactly the furlong pole is when travelling between 35 and 40mph on horseback is harder than you may think. Especially with a large crowd and advertising everywhere. They'll have to start painting a line on the track!

The total limit of 7 doesn't bother me too much but the final furlong rule is just a nonsense.

Whilst Soumillon didn't have to ride yesterday, he still had little time to prepare for the new rules and was only informed seven days ago (I can believe this). You cannot expect him to give up his ride in the race and he and other riders should be applauded for not taking the childish route that Richard Hughes decided to take.

A fine of £55,000 is insane. Whilst obviously not backing fines based on the race value, I do think that exceeding the final furlong quota should get a significantly less fine than someone who hits the horse 12 times during the entire race.

I hope the BHA sort this out this week, I suspect the final furlong rule will be scrapped but race limits kept in place with the punishments also tinkered with. I hope they do the decent thing and give the prize money back. The whole week has been embarrassing for all; the BHA with their incredibly poor timing and misjudgement of the rules and the behaviour of certain jockeys during the week, Soumillon spoke more sense than any other on the issue for me.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with these comments. I think that nearly all owners, trainers and jockeys recognise that more stringent whip regulations were necessary, if only to assuage the majority public perception that horseracing is a "cruel" sport. But the manner in which it's been introduced just beggars belief -- overnight, without any bedding-in period and draconian penalties for jockeys who exceed the limit by only one smack.

I thought Christophe Soumillon was most impressive in his interview on RUK. Despite his obvious sense of outrage he was able to articulate a compelling case against the "5 strokes in final furlong" rule far better than any UK-based jockey has done so far. I'm fairly sure that after tomorrow's meeting this nonsensical rule will be binned and the BHA would then be morally compelled to reinstate Soumillon's %age. Failure to do so would surely leave them on shaky ground legally and Soumillon would have every justification to sue.
 
Amusing to see Ruby ride into the winner's enclosure at Cheltenham the other day, grinning ear-to-ear and gently waving his whip back and forth between finger and thumb, then changing hands so that everyone in the weighing room could see him do it, too.
 
michael_o said:
I completely agree with these comments. I think that nearly all owners, trainers and jockeys recognise that more stringent whip regulations were necessary, if only to assuage the majority public perception that horseracing is a "cruel" sport. But the manner in which it's been introduced just beggars belief -- overnight, without any bedding-in period and draconian penalties for jockeys who exceed the limit by only one smack.

I thought Christophe Soumillon was most impressive in his interview on RUK. Despite his obvious sense of outrage he was able to articulate a compelling case against the "5 strokes in final furlong" rule far better than any UK-based jockey has done so far. I'm fairly sure that after tomorrow's meeting this nonsensical rule will be binned and the BHA would then be morally compelled to reinstate Soumillon's %age. Failure to do so would surely leave them on shaky ground legally and Soumillon would have every justification to sue.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, I completely agree that splitting the maximum permitted strokes between the first part of the race and the final furlong was a mistake. I really hope the BHA amend that (even if it's unlikely they adopt the other measures I put forward in my earlier post), and retrospectively too so that the bans since Monday which were imposed purely for the jockey having administered 6/7 strokes but all in the final furlong are rescinded.

This would be a sensible compromise by the BHA, would give Richard Hughes the means to return to race riding and would reinstate his and Soumillon's prize money/riding fee. I would however hope that the reduced number of minimum strokes (minus the 'final furlong' element) and new penalty structure are retained and any bans/forfeits for excessive use over 7/8 strikes upheld.
 
The BHA should do something more creative around the penalties (which now seem to the nub of the issue, rather than the whip-count itself).

Instead of forfeiting a jockey's riding fee, instead fine them over-weight in their next race..............say 1lb for every strike over the limit on the Flat, and 2lbs over Jumps.

At least some jockeys would lose rides on this basis, as doubtless owners would prefer to switch pilots than have their horses carry extra weight. By extension, transgressors will still receive a punishment - but one perhaps more proportionate than they face at present?
 
Back
Top