The whip again

[barjon]

Silvestre De Sousa, the rider of the winner, ISLAND BRAVE (IRE), used his whip above the permitted level from inside 3 furlongs out. As the offence warranted a suspension of between 2 and 6 days and taking into account that this was the rider’s fifth such suspension within the previous 6 months, De Sousa was referred to the Head Office of the British Horseracing Authority.

Island Brave was certainly very brave at Haydock, but I simply can’t understand why he is allowed to keep the race. If the whip does indeed spur a horse to greater effort, then use above the permitted level must surely be considered an unfair advantage and penalised accordingly.

The only feasible excuse is that the whip does not spur the horse to greater effort, in which case why have the damn thing at all.

 

[Desert Orchid]

I reckon the only people who disagree with you are the owners, trainers, jockeys and the BHA.

 

[barjon]

 

[LUKE]

Silvestre De Sousa, the rider of the winner, ISLAND BRAVE (IRE), used his whip above the permitted level from inside 3 furlongs out. As the offence warranted a suspension of between 2 and 6 days and taking into account that this was the rider’s fifth such suspension within the previous 6 months, De Sousa was referred to the Head Office of the British Horseracing Authority.

Island Brave was certainly very brave at Haydock, but I simply can’t understand why he is allowed to keep the race. If the whip does indeed spur a horse to greater effort, then use above the permitted level must surely be considered an unfair advantage and penalised accordingly.

The only feasible excuse is that the whip does not spur the horse to greater effort, in which case why have the damn thing at all.

Let me explain -he kept the race because he won on merit and there is nothing in the rules regarding disqualification for overuse of the whip.

 

[barjon]

Let me explain -he kept the race because he won on merit and there is nothing in the rules regarding disqualification for overuse of the whip.

No, there is nothing in the rules, that’s what I can’t understand. Perhaps he wouldn’t have won without the excessive use of the whip. Or maybe the others would have beaten him if they, too, received such excessive whipping. It can’t be certain he won on merit if it wasn’t a level playing field to start with.

 

[Len Madeiros]

There’s an easy solution just waiting to be approved: the industry bans the whip, except for emergency corrective purposes. Forget disqualification of horses - just ban the bloody thing.

 

[G-G]

I was discussing with with assistant trainer/former jockey at the weekend: a horse he was riding was beaten a short head by a horse ridden by Will Kennedy, who got a ban for excessive use. So would he have won if hadn't used it excessively? Would he have won if hadn't used it at all? He, ex jock felt hard done by which is understandable. Very difficult to tell in some cases but if the rules say you can't do it then you can't do it. His view was that the punishment has to be harsher to stop it if going to keep rules as they are now: no riding fee/no prize money to jockey or larger percent as a fine, but he really thought unless you ban someone for a considerable length of time such as a month at least, never going to stop it with the current rules as they are. I thought that was harsh, and would you ban an apprentice for breaking the rules in the same way as one of the 'top' jockeys?
I don't agree with disqualifying the horse/penalising the owners. Absolutely no control over what the jockey does once out of the parade ring.
I think they should be allowed to carry one absolutely, maybe ban use in the last furlong? Would that 'penalise' a horse way out in front who then idles?
Very difficult topic.

 

[FiftyP]

The problem with the whip is the absolute lunatics. It's legislating for the wild rider who doesn't give a notion and goes to town on a horse when he (or she) thinks he knows better than the relatively small brain in the horse's head. If you could freely whip the arse out of horses you'd have far more of them acting up unless a trainer takes a strong hand to the jockey. This then gets diluted down to the jockey who thinks they'll get an edge with "excessive" use, going for those extra few encouragements. They want to get in good with someone, they want to prove their worth in a watched race (a winner beats out a ban any day) and they go once or twice too much.

I really don't think a horse cares too much about the whip. I've been hit with a cheap one myself (as a child messing around, so don't go there) and it doesn't really hurt. What does hurt is someone acting abusive. The horse knows the encouragement needed and if it's not there then it's not there. No amount of extra will change that. And that's the balance that should be met. If a jockey goes one too many, in a smart way, because the horse needed and could handle it, and is willing to risk their rides and readies for a small ban, that's part of the variance. The issue should be stopping fellas scaring horses on the track, when they've no more to give, and letting the horse's mindset and attitude rest with the trainer.

We absolutely accept some young horses use a race as part of their final training. Whipping a horse over-and-above in that situation should not be part of it. Apart from that, a jockey playing their ban is just part of the game, if the jockey is sensible enough not to do the dog on the horse. Which is where, I think, whip bans should start. You would hope, these days, jockeys are better than that, though.

 

[Desert Orchid]

I'm not sure I can agree with that, FiftyP.

Can anyone name a top 20 jockey who hasn't been found guilty of misuse of the whip? A top 50?

They all do it and they all do it because they can get away with it. They are happy to accept bans that amount to a slap on the wrist or fines (probably paid by wealthy owners who see them as a small price to pay for the success they've had).

Of those of us who drive, have any of us never exceeded the speed limit or parked illegally? I know, for example, that I'm comfortable with the idea of setting my cruise control at 62mph in a 60mph limit. I know the polis aren't going to pull me over for it 'cos it's a waste of their time; they need to prioritise the loonies who are doing 75mph on the same stretch.

Innate attitudes are part of the problem. People growing up in an environment in which giving a horse a smack is seen as training them to respond probably won't mind seeing a jockey giving it a hefty one.

People who grow up in an environment in which a hierarchy of life is deemed important (humans being at the top) don't get too emotional when an animal is sacrificed for a 'greater cause' (eg the ongoing wellbeing of the higher life form).

In the big scheme of things, if one does exist, the horse is no more than a means to an end - money. And people within the sport, in my opinion, genuinely do not care as much about the horse as they do about the money.

Even some of the trainers (and owners) for whom I have the highest regard are guilty of this. It isn't unusual for us to hear them say something along the lines of 'he was carrying a minor injury but the race is so valuable...'

Again, I don't have a problem with a horse racing while carrying a 'minor' injury, so long as that is what it really is. Those of us who have played sports will know that you can perform at close to your best while carrying a minor injury which might either be irrelevant to the nature of the sport or which adrenaline might mask.

I've always been an advocate of disqualifying winners who have been helped by over-use of the whip. That, to me, would be punishment enough. Connections losing out on their prize money or percentages for those involved along the way would soon see a change of attitude. Bans would then only be required for repeat offenders who would soon see themselves marginalised out of the game anyway for being too risky.

I'm coming round to the idea that the whip should be banned altogether. It might be the only solution.

 

[barjon]

I was discussing with with assistant trainer/former jockey at the weekend: a horse he was riding was beaten a short head by a horse ridden by Will Kennedy, who got a ban for excessive use. So would he have won if hadn't used it excessively? Would he have won if hadn't used it at all? He, ex jock felt hard done by which is understandable. Very difficult to tell in some cases but if the rules say you can't do it then you can't do it. His view was that the punishment has to be harsher to stop it if going to keep rules as they are now: no riding fee/no prize money to jockey or larger percent as a fine, but he really thought unless you ban someone for a considerable length of time such as a month at least, never going to stop it with the current rules as they are. I thought that was harsh, and would you ban an apprentice for breaking the rules in the same way as one of the 'top' jockeys?
I don't agree with disqualifying the horse/penalising the owners. Absolutely no control over what the jockey does once out of the parade ring.
I think they should be allowed to carry one absolutely, maybe ban use in the last furlong? Would that 'penalise' a horse way out in front who then idles?
Very difficult topic.

Horses get disqualified for other things jockeys do, so why not this one? Jockeys might be prepared to risk a ban to win, but surely they would think twice if they were risking disqualification and the wrath of the trainer and owner.

 

[Grasshopper]

I was discussing with with assistant trainer/former jockey at the weekend: a horse he was riding was beaten a short head by a horse ridden by Will Kennedy, who got a ban for excessive use. So would he have won if hadn't used it excessively? Would he have won if hadn't used it at all? He, ex jock felt hard done by which is understandable. Very difficult to tell in some cases but if the rules say you can't do it then you can't do it. His view was that the punishment has to be harsher to stop it if going to keep rules as they are now: no riding fee/no prize money to jockey or larger percent as a fine, but he really thought unless you ban someone for a considerable length of time such as a month at least, never going to stop it with the current rules as they are. I thought that was harsh, and would you ban an apprentice for breaking the rules in the same way as one of the 'top' jockeys?
I don't agree with disqualifying the horse/penalising the owners. Absolutely no control over what the jockey does once out of the parade ring.
I think they should be allowed to carry one absolutely, maybe ban use in the last furlong? Would that 'penalise' a horse way out in front who then idles?
Very difficult topic.

I dunno about this.

If the owner was penalised i.e. their horse was disqualified and they lost the prize-money, they might be inclined to use the miscreant jockey less....or jock him/her off altogether, in favour of someone less 'reckless'. This may actually lead to improved discipline amongst those jockeys who more frequently transgress the rules, and some degree of self-correction of this problem over time.

As it stands, if the owner is still getting the prize-money - and by extension, the jockey is still copping his/her 10% and getting (effectively) a nominal ban which doesn't really hurt him/her - then this problem will persist.

I don't buy the line that owners have "no control over what the jockey does". Most owners know exactly what they're getting when they put a jockey up, and given their prize-money isn't currently at-risk even if the jock cops a ban, there's really no incentive for them to care one way or the other, as things stand.

 

[reet hard]

Simple answer: if it looks bad, it is bad - fortnight off.
Should also appease the less well informed.

 

[G-G]

I dunno about this.

If the owner was penalised i.e. their horse was disqualified and they lost the prize-money, they might be inclined to use the miscreant jockey less....or jock him/her off altogether, in favour of someone less 'reckless'. This may actually lead to improved discipline amongst those jockeys who more frequently transgress the rules, and some degree of self-correction of this problem over time.

As it stands, if the owner is still getting the prize-money - and by extension, the jockey is still copping his/her 10% and getting (effectively) a nominal ban which doesn't really hurt him/her - then this problem will persist.

I don't buy the line that owners have "no control over what the jockey does". Most owners know exactly what they're getting when they put a jockey up, and given their prize-money isn't currently at-risk even if the jock cops a ban, there's really no incentive for them to care one way or the other, as things stand.

Agree to disagree but as an owner if my horse was disqualified, after all the trials and tribulations I have had to get to him to a racecourse, I'd be so clucking angry at something was completely out of my control, which it is totally and utterly. Nothing to do with prize money at all. No one can 'direct' a jockey once they leave the paddock. I might not want to use the jockey again but damage done as far as I would be concerned. Jocks don't get 10%, trainers do.

 

[Grasshopper]

Understood, G-G.

My general point still stands though. Currently there is no (effective) punishment for this type of rule violation, and until one is applied, there is no real compulsion for a jockey to stay within the limit.

As was suggested earlier by DO, the status quo appears to be acceptable to the industry (fair enough), and it’s perhaps more of a ‘punter’ issue……and over the long run, it’s probably Evs these things going for/against the punter anyway.

 

[Maxbet]

5Lb penalty for every smack over the allotted number......

That would make them all think before they leaped...