Your Opinion On Bans

Tanlic

Tanlic

Banned member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
11,986
Location
Bangkok Thailand
Starting will Lorcan Williams who is expecting a 14 day ban which will mean he will miss Cheltenham.

Claims he was only doing his job in the racing post today.

Absolute bullsh*t he never gave his mount even 2 seconds to respond to the whip unlike Kevin Brogan on the runner up

Giving your horse that 2 or 3 strides to respond to the whip between smacks is one of the first things you learn.


He just went whip happy and the ban is throroughly deserved in my opinion
 
Well said, Tanlic.

Nicholls was sympathetic yesterday, but not overly. He’s had to warn all his jockeys about the new restrictions, particularly over the next week, where any subsequent bans that jockeys do incur will see them miss Cheltenham.

These are the new rules, and there are harsh out of necessity. They should be harsher in my view, but that’s a debate for another thread.
 
I would invoke the following for Jumps (may apply just as well to the Flat, but I wouldn't know):


1. Reduce the number of times a whip can be used, to make counts more manageable for jockeys. I would make it a maximum of 5 inside the final 2 furlongs. This addresses (in part) the visual negative effect, there is an easily identifiable 'starting gate' for the count, and it would compel jockeys to be much more judicious as to when they use the whip.

2. Remove the above-the-shoulder rule. It's like VAR - too open to misinterpretation around fine margins - and serves no purpose other than to (maybe) reduce the visual effect.

3. Jockey forfeits riding fee (and proportion of any prize-money) if breaching the rule.

4. Trainer forfeits prize-money, if jockey has breached the rule. This isn't punitive for the owner (who has no control over matters), and should compel trainers to give absolutely clear instructions to the jockeys they are using. Jockeys will also be mindful of penalising the trainer, with the threat of being used less, or not at all, in future.

5. Jockey is stood-down for two racing days for every stroke above permitted level in a given race. Lengthy bans like Morgan is going to walk into are disproportionate, and are not a deterrent (imo).
 
Last edited:
Only thing I find hard to agree with is puting any sort of responsibility on trainers for a jockeys actions.

They are grown men and are responsible for their own actions.

I would be happy to hear a trainer had told a jockey if you get banned for excessive use of the whip you woun't be riding for me again..not for 1 or 2 which will happen from time to time but excessive use.
 
Tanlic said:
Only thing I find hard to agree with is puting any sort of responsibility on trainers for a jockeys actions.

They are grown men and are responsible for their own actions.

I would be happy to hear a trainer had told a jockey if you get banned for excessive use of the whip you woun't be riding for me again..not for 1 or 2 which will happen from time to time but excessive use.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, there is currently no prize-money penalty for a whip transgression, and the only financial penalty that's incurred is through a jockey missing out on fees when stood-down.

Introducing a financial penalty for the trainer (who is ultimately responsible for both horse and jockey on the racecourse), would perhaps motivate them to ensure their jockey operates within the rules at all times. Currently, that motivation does not exist - quite the opposite in fact.

Anything over the mandated 5 strokes would be considered 'excessive'......because it exceeds the maximum allowed.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
As I understand it, there is currently no prize-money penalty for a whip transgression, and the only financial penalty that's incurred is through a jockey missing out on fees when stood-down.

Introducing a financial penalty for the trainer (who is ultimately responsible for both horse and jockey on the racecourse), would perhaps motivate them to ensure their jockey operates within the rules at all times. Currently, that motivation does not exist - quite the opposite in fact.

Anything over the mandated 5 strokes would be considered 'excessive'......because it exceeds the maximum allowed.
Click to expand...

The highlighted bit of your post is the nub of the problem imo. Infractions would likely be very few and far between if jockeys incurred the wrath of owners and trainers for getting their horse disqualified. So I’d favour the nuclear option :)
 
Last edited:
Roll on Cheltenham and good luck to all owners and trainers finding a jockey on day 2:lol:

Strike and cancel racing is what has to be done to make the BHA grow a pair of balls
 
Beef or Salmon said:
So the welfare of a horse in a Class 1 or 2 race is twice as important as all others, bizarre rule!
Click to expand...

The likelihood of someone who is offended by such a transgression seeing such a race is multiplied by many more times than a factor of two. The biggest profile cases we've seen have been in such races.

Seems perfectly logical to me.
 
simmo said:
The likelihood of someone who is offended by such a transgression seeing such a race is multiplied by many more times than a factor of two. The biggest profile cases we've seen have been in such races.

Seems perfectly logical to me.
Click to expand...
So we don't actually give a flying fcuk about the horses just as long as no one sees it??
 
Beef or Salmon said:
So we don't actually give a flying fcuk about the horses just as long as no one sees it??
Click to expand...

It suits your view to look at it like that, but it doesn't make it true. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that works properly that the outside perception is the most important in this subject, whether we like that or agree that it is right. Therefore it makes sense to have the outside perception put at the most jeopardy.
 
I also can't recall if you are from Ireland or not - which is relevant because my perception is that there is less of a clamour for change with the whip in Ireland than in GB. My apologies if I've misremembered.
 
I reckon a campaign educating the public about the use of the whip, and its negligible impact on horse welfare, is a much better use of the BHA’s time, than fretting about how it looks.
 
Excuse the ignorance if it is ignorance but change the number of times it can be used and which way you can use it, but not inflate the punishments to what seems excess? I can't follow that logic. Why not just keep the same amount of strikes, the way it's used but increase the punishments? Plus seems to me that they haven't given a long enough transition period either. Never mind the whole thing being run by people who have no clue either basically. Wait for outcry when top jock A can't ride horse X , and inexperienced/less experienced jock B rides X horse and horse is fatally injured.
 
Grasshopper said:
I reckon a campaign educating the public about the use of the whip, and its negligible impact on horse welfare, is a much better use of the BHA’s time, than fretting about how it looks.
Click to expand...

An education campaign that actually had a measurable impact would cost far more than telling some jockeys not to hit the beasts as much or as hard. It's really not that difficult.
 
One thing I don't agree with is the time of the ban. In this case Lorcan will miss Cheltenham.

Just for one minute let's imagine he was down to ride Constitution Hill compare that to the finacial loss of losing a ride at Sedgefield.

You could say "Just your luck sunshine" but it does seem out of proportion to me.
 
Tanlic said:
One thing I don't agree with is the time of the ban. In this case Lorcan will miss Cheltenham.

Just for one minute let's imagine he was down to ride Constitution Hill compare that to the finacial loss of losing a ride at Sedgefield.

You could say "Just your luck sunshine" but it does seem out of proportion to me.
Click to expand...

Is this the same Lorcan Williams who said he thought he would get a ban immediately after the race finished? So he knew he was breaking the rules in the moment, but he just chose to do it anyway. Nothing to do with luck - a ban was his choice.
 
I wish someone would tell a horsethe whip hurts more if it's a class one and two races than it does in a novice hurdle.

The 1.40 at Punchestown yesterday is a classic example is why jockeys should continue to carry whips.
 
Using a whip efficiently and to get the best out of a horse is, in my mind not abuse. The worst 2 cases of abuse I've seen were at point to points. Most 'point ' riders these days are very efficient but occasionally bad ones emerge. At Little Windsor, years ago (Jinny may remember) I think it was a 3 horse members race and one fell early, my mate and I wanted the rag to be 2nd for a nice amount of money. As they jumped the 5th last my mate said to me 'If that jockey completes I'll give him a hiding.' the exhausted horse pulled himself up at the 2nd last. 9(My mate still had a go at a steward).

In Cornwall it probably should have been deemed unraceable, but they only have one meeting a year and it went ahead. There was a lovely young horse who was very promising B....the Butcher as we still call her, even though she is now married, completed the course even though he obviously hated the ground. The horse did win after but never reached the heights we thought it could attain (maybe wishful thinking by us but we said on journey home that she'd more than likely ruined the horse).
Rather than counting the amount of times a whip is used, the stewards ought to be looking at whether a horse is still responding.
 
Back
Top