New Whip Rules

Grasshopper said:
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?
Click to expand...

Assuming this is a serious suggestion, there are too many flaws and variables. If the jockey is left on at the revised weight, he suffers no penalty but the horse is subjected to carrying increased weight (and what happens if the next ride is scheduled to carry the permitted maximum topweight already?), the trainer and owner - who may not be the same connections as for the horse upon which the transgression occurred - are disadvantaged, and as for the effect on punters...you back a horse based on it carrying X weight and then find that at half an hour's notice or less it has to carry Y weight, which could be pounds more?

Even if the jockey lost his next ride, the onus is switched to the trainer - who again, may not have trained the horse on whom the jockey broke the whip rules - to run round like the proverbial finding a short-notice replacement, and once more the punter is left in the dark as to which jockey will be carrying his money.

The jockeys seem to be, mostly, in agreement that it's not the reduced number of permitted strikes in and of itself that is the problem - if this 'final furlong' anomaly could be ironed out. That suggests that they don't actually see anything wrong or difficult in adhering to the lowered number if they can deploy them anytime. That being the case, I see no reason why the severity of the penalties should be reduced. If the number of permitted whip strokes agreed on is reasonable, and the initial PJA feedback plus Richard Hughes's comments in yesterday's RP suggests that it is, then why shouldn't the penalties for trangression be severe? Otherwise, the jockeys are saying "yeah, we can stick to 7/8 strokes but just in case we can't, we don't think we should be particularly punished for hitting the horse more often. Just give us a soft penalty for hitting it one time more. Or two times more, that's not much either. Or three times more, in case I'm riding a lazy bugger..." Where does it end? Confusion, subjectivity, one steward's view being X, another's on the same ride being Y, some poor beast being leathered 24 times to win a Group 1 because the sanctions for the jockey are sufficiently toothless to make it worthwhile...
 
Cruella said:
Assuming this is a serious suggestion
Click to expand...

It is. :cool:

....there are too many flaws and variables. If the jockey is left on at the revised weight, he suffers no penalty but the horse is subjected to carrying increased weight (and what happens if the next ride is scheduled to carry the permitted maximum topweight already?), the trainer and owner - who may not be the same connections as for the horse upon which the transgression occurred - are disadvantaged, and as for the effect on punters...you back a horse based on it carrying X weight and then find that at half an hour's notice or less it has to carry Y weight, which could be pounds more?
Click to expand...

Simple. Connections of the 'next' horse get a different jockey, and the original jock misses his riding fee. This means that connections of the 'next' horse incur no penalty. If it increases the top-weight, so be it - the form book will show what weight was carried in the race and it can be annotated in as over-weight in the usual manner.

Even if the jockey lost his next ride, the onus is switched to the trainer - who again, may not have trained the horse on whom the jockey broke the whip rules - to run round like the proverbial finding a short-notice replacement, and once more the punter is left in the dark as to which jockey will be carrying his money.
Click to expand...

Fair comment, though presumably trainers will not have to look too hard to find replacement jockeys, and it's not like pilots are inclined to knock-back any spares. Agree that the punter might be inconvenienced, though it's worth remembering that the amount of instances where this applies will hopefully be fairly low anyway.

The jockeys seem to be, mostly, in agreement that it's not the reduced number of permitted strikes in and of itself that is the problem - if this 'final furlong' anomaly could be ironed out. That suggests that they don't actually see anything wrong or difficult in adhering to the lowered number if they can deploy them anytime. That being the case, I see no reason why the severity of the penalties should be reduced. If the number of permitted whip strokes agreed on is reasonable, and the initial PJA feedback plus Richard Hughes's comments in yesterday's RP suggests that it is, then why shouldn't the penalties for trangression be severe? Otherwise, the jockeys are saying "yeah, we can stick to 7/8 strokes but just in case we can't, we don't think we should be particularly punished for hitting the horse more often. Just give us a soft penalty for hitting it one time more. Or two times more, that's not much either. Or three times more, in case I'm riding a lazy bugger..." Where does it end? Confusion, subjectivity, one steward's view being X, another's on the same ride being Y, some poor beast being leathered 24 times to win a Group 1 because the sanctions for the jockey are sufficiently toothless to make it worthwhile...
Click to expand...

As you say, jockeys are broadly in agreement with the revised rules, although a bit of fine-tuning is clearly necessary. Their beef is almost wholly with the current penalty system, therefore little will be achieved if that is not also revised. My contribution was based on this premise.

:cool:
 
I agree that the 5 in the final furlong rule must go but I do not agree that the current penalty structure should stay .

In my view a much more proportionate penalty scale should be introduced for one or two over the limits but that the rides that constituted a breach of the old rules should be subject to the hefty penalties .

Also , there must be discretion for the stewards when dealing with smacks administered for legitimate corrective reasons and to allow those to be discounted .
 
Ardross said:
I agree that the 5 in the final furlong rule must go but I do not agree that the current penalty structure should stay .

In my view a much more proportionate penalty scale should be introduced for one or two over the limits but that the rides that constituted a breach of the old rules should be subject to the hefty penalties .

Also , there must be discretion for the stewards when dealing with smacks administered for legitimate corrective reasons and to allow those to be discounted .
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to differ on your second point but re discretion: in principle I am in agreement with this BUT, realistically how could/would it be policed? If every jock simply said "sorry sir, I know you can't see this on the video but I can guarantee that I could feel my horse was about to wander/veer/lean/run out at the hurdle and that's why I gave him those three extra cracks as a preventative safety measure". Would it only apply if there was clear and irrefutable visual evidence that the horse had already started to wander/veer/lean/run out etc?
 
Cruella said:
We'll have to agree to differ on your second point but re discretion: in principle I am in agreement with this BUT, realistically how could/would it be policed? If every jock simply said "sorry sir, I know you can't see this on the video but I can guarantee that I could feel my horse was about to wander/veer/lean/run out at the hurdle and that's why I gave him those three extra cracks as a preventative safety measure". Would it only apply if there was clear and irrefutable visual evidence that the horse had already started to wander/veer/lean/run out etc?
Click to expand...

I think it would have to be discretionary and based on the evidence . If the stewards believed that the whip had been applied as a legitimate corrective measure . I imagine that it is likely that a jockey who had not tried to pull the horse off or correct him with his reins before it began to hang would find it difficult to persuade the stewards that he had corrected him in advance.

I cannot accept that draconian penalties are ever justified for minor infringements nor can confiscation of riding fees and percentages be justified.
 
Ardross said:
I cannot accept that draconian penalties are ever justified for minor infringements nor can confiscation of riding fees and percentages be justified.
Click to expand...


Agree totally, Ardross.

It's their actual salary being taken from them. Maybe not missed by the top boys, but the ones lower down the scale will certainly feel it, particularly with another 5 days without a chance to earn on top of that.

Very unfair and totaly unjustifiable, especially when it could affect the welfare of a whole family.
 
Last edited:
It beggars belief that they are doing nothing till Friday supposedly on the grounds that other stakeholders need to be consulted - the true reason is a desperate attempt to save face .
 
The BHA's definition of "stakeholders" and the dicitionary definition vary greatly - given that the BHA will consult jockeys, trainers, owners and racecourses rather than anyone with an interest/stake in racing.
 
Punters, bookmakers, racegoers generally not consulted Grey.

It maybe a question of semantics but wrong to bracket only chums of the BHA as "stakeholders".
 
Ardross said:
It beggars belief that they are doing nothing till Friday supposedly on the grounds that other stakeholders need to be consulted - the true reason is a desperate attempt to save face .
Click to expand...

If only they had been to circumspect in the initial implementation. That would have been to expect too much!
 
Exactly - they could at least quite easily have suspended the five hits in the final furlong rule which nobody seems to seek to justify any longer .
 
During the discussion on this thread most of the focus has been on the number of times the whip is used and the severity with which it is used seems to have been overlooked.

Anyone who has watched the sport for any length of time will know if a horse has been abused without having to know exactly many times the horse has been.

Richard Hughes, to my mind has never come into the 'butcher' class, his shots on many occasions being no more than love taps.

Having the rules based purely on the number of strokes of the whip is a bit of a cop out on the part of the authorities. Under this system no judgement is made about the severity of the ride all they have to do is to be able to count.

It's difficult to see what they can come up with today to dig themselves out of the hole they've created for themselves without scrapping the whole idea.
 
Colin Phillips said:
Having the rules based purely on the number of strokes of the whip is a bit of a cop out on the part of the authorities. Under this system no judgement is made about the severity of the ride all they have to do is to be able to count.
Click to expand...
Rules about excessive force and using the whip above shoulder height, when out of contention etc ALL still stand Colin - the new whip rules are additions to those, not replacements.
 
Last edited:
Major amendments made - in particular Final furlong and fence rules abolished. Riding fees to be kept by jockeys and prize money only taken away if a 7 day ban i.e 2 hits over the limit

Hughes and Soumillon have had their suspensions annulled .
 
Ardross said:
Major amendments made - in particular Final furlong and fence rules abolished. Riding fees to be kept by jockeys and prize money only taken away if a 7 day ban i.e 2 hits over the limit

Hughes and Soumillon have had their suspensions annulled .
Click to expand...
Hughes has had only one of his suspensions overturned if I'm not mistaken. The second was a 10 day ban which will stand. If he was unhappy then, there's nothing which has changed in regards to how he would have been treated for the Kempton ride, so he should still feel the same way.
 
rorydelargy said:
Hughes has had only one of his suspensions overturned if I'm not mistaken. The second was a 10 day ban which will stand. If he was unhappy then, there's nothing which has changed in regards to how he would have been treated for the Kempton ride, so he should still feel the same way.
Click to expand...

I think (though not 100% sure) it was a second breach of the 'only 5 strokes in the final furlong' rule as he administered 6 on both occasions, so neither ride would be subject to a penalty under the amendments. He was given a 10-day ban because it was still classed as a 2nd offence under the new, unamended Rule. I think both of his bans will be rescinded.
 
Well, they've seen it in action; that's the big difference. Difficult to evaluate sometimes until the experience comes along & now it has.

Now the jockeys won't have to know when they're in the final furlong or over the final fence, life will be so much less complicated!
:D
 
rorydelargy said:
Hughes has had only one of his suspensions overturned if I'm not mistaken. The second was a 10 day ban which will stand. If he was unhappy then, there's nothing which has changed in regards to how he would have been treated for the Kempton ride, so he should still feel the same way.
Click to expand...

This seems at odds with the following (as Cruella states his second offence was applied with reference to the original offence and if the original is rescinded the following must surely also be rescinded):

The BHA have also considered the impact on those jockeys who have received penalties that would not have been applied if the changes had been in place since the introduction of the new rules.

These penalties will be rescinded and appropriate measures have been taken, including the release of riding fees and prize-money, where applicable, and riding suspensions either annulled or adjusted.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top