Whip Rules

trudij

trudij

Senior Jockey
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
5,617
Location
Hurry up and move!!
There’s a lot of controversy about the whip rules and how to deal with breaking them. Can’t help but feel that this kind of punishment would probably help...
( yet another thing Australian racing seems to have right in my humble opinion, along with a mandatory 3-6 months off after breaking blood vessels - retirement of horses who don’t reach a certain level of talent and also a mandatory upper age limit of 12 for the horses...( not that I have much of an issue with most horses who are still going at that age and older, but there are quite a few who shouldn’t!)

2e6ab7f5f9eb9554167c3d46bdf716ba.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've been banging on about the whip rules for over 20 years.

If the whip rules are breached, the jockey should be severely dealt with and the horse disqualified. Horse and jockey in a race are a unit. If overuse or misuse of the whip has given the horse an an unfair advantage over others, although not the horse's fault, it should still be disqualified. It's hard on the owners but it should at least make them think twice about who to let ride and/or even train the horse.

It's the only way to eliminate unfair use of the whip.

This case adds another dimension and I see the logic.

If, by benefiting from misuse of the whip, a hose has qualified for a final, its qualification should be voided.

This leads to another dimension. If part of the punishment is time off for the horse (I don't know the motivation for this - to allow the horse extra time to recover?) then if it can qualify legitimately for the final upon its return that should be allowed to stand.

Other racing authorities around the world really do make our administrators look like a bunch of fannies.


PS - going off at a tangent, I wonder if there is a collective noun for 'fannies'...
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
I've been banging on about the whip rules for over 20 years.

If the whip rules are breached, the jockey should be severely dealt with and the horse disqualified. Horse and jockey in a race are a unit. If overuse or misuse of the whip has given the horse an an unfair advantage over others, although not the horse's fault, should still be disqualified. It's hard on the owners but it should at least make them think twice about who to let ride and/or even train the horse.

It's the only way to eliminate unfair use of the whip.

This case adds another dimension and I see the logic.

If, by benefiting from misuse of the whip, a hose has qualified for a final, its qualification should be voided.

This leads to another dimension. If part of the punishment is time off for the horse (I don't know the motivation for this - to allow the horse extra time to recover?) then if it can qualify legitimately for the final upon its return that should be allowed to stand.

Other racing authorities around the world really do make our administrators look like a bunch of fannies.


PS - going off at a tangent, I wonder if there is a collective noun for 'fannies'...
Click to expand...

I believe the collective noun for them is a “ cavern “


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
:cool:

Up here we have the expression "couldn't score in a barrel of fannies" but that's not quite the same situation.
 
Aye, I can never get my head round it.

If use of the whip bestows an advantage, then overuse has bestowed an unfair advantage and the horse should be disqualified. The only possible excuse for not disqualifying is that no advantage was gained which, if correct, means that you might as well ban whips altogether.

The jockey should also be stood down, particularly when disqualification is meaningless for horses down the field, and I quite like the idea of penalising the trainer as well since they won’t be happy if their jockeys break the rules and will deal with them accordingly.

Ps: how about A Jockey Club of fannies
 
Last edited:
Jonathan England just been handed an eleven day suspension for hitting the second placed horse, trained by his Father, in the 1.35 at Wetherby thirteen times.If I was the owner the horse would be out of that stable tonight.
 
To be honest I think a lot of owners would value a jockey that is willing to break the rules to maximize their chance of a winner.

The "punishment" for hitting a horse too many times falls on the jockey, not the owner.

Sent from my SM-J415FN using Tapatalk
 
Diamond Geezer said:
Jonathan England just been handed an eleven day suspension for hitting the second placed horse, trained by his Father, in the 1.35 at Wetherby thirteen times.If I was the owner the horse would be out of that stable tonight.
Click to expand...

Would certainly be having a word with the lad.
 
If a horse wins but something happens outside the rules it's disqualified apart from the whip rules. It should be no different.

The owner can then decide what they think about the jockey when the horse is thrown out. You'd imagine the upshot would be that jockeys would stop breaking the whip rules. It's hardly rocket science is it.
 
A Plus Tard won the Savills Chase and became second favourite for the Gold Cup. His jockey picked up a ban for misuse of the whip. The difference in prize-money for first and second was 60k. As someone who lost a share of that 60k I'm wholly against disqualification in the majority of cases.

The whip rules are arbitrary and need a thorough overhaul to ensure horse welfare and jockey safety. The perception of people already predisposed against racing comes a long way down the list of priorities.

If you have to use number of whip strokes as a measure maybe the punishment should include penalising the horse by a length per whip stroke over the limit. As most misuse cases involve a close finish this would often result in losing first place without complete disqualification.
 
Back
Top