Ascot Gold Cup, overuse of the whip

millikins

millikins

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 March 2011
Messages
4,044
Visit site
Joseph O'Brien received a 7 day ban for hitting Leading Light 11 times to win the Gold Cup by a neck. Who shares my opinion that he should lose the race for that? If 2nd and 3rd were in those placings because they didn't break the rules, why is horse welfare deemed a less serious offence than interference?
 
I was so caught up cheering Missunited on that I didn't notice :o didn't realise he'd got a ban. Problem is by the time the investigation happens the bookies have all paid out and trophies have been presented so it would be very difficult to take the placing away from the horse. As you say though, it's a shame when the other jockeys have stayed within the rules.
 
I'm glad he got a ban - cannot stand either him or his father.

As the result was so close he should lose the race. The other jockeys stayed within the rules PLUS o'brian blocked Estimate and forced her to be re-routed which cost her ground.
 
I cannot understand why when he clearly broke the rules he gets to keep the race? What's that saying to all other jocks? If you're in a tight finish hell with the rules just get the win??

He broke the rules he should be put behind to 3rd place, as it is VERY doubtful he'd have beaten either of them if he had stuck to the rules as they did. Something seriously wrong in racing when you can effectively cheat openly and win.

Also highly unimpressed at ch4 presenter saying he didn't care horse was hit more than allowed. I know working horses can get cheaky, not against reminders, but being hit (air whip of not being hit by a whip hurts, maybe presented would like 11 hits) that number of times is wrong. Horse looked shattered beyond belief in winners enclosure. I do endurance & have asked my mounts for serious effort, but have to say I never carry a whip (they give me everything, why would I hit them), and would feel ashamed if a horse finished in that state. For a very fit animal to take that amount of time to get his breath back says it all.

BTW, would be saying this whoever winner was, not got any bias.
 
Last edited:
I googled "Joseph O'Brien, whip ban", there's plenty of results including another 2 day one from yesterday, he's a very whip happy chappy isn't he?
 
Problem is by the time the investigation happens the bookies have all paid out and trophies have been presented so it would be very difficult to take the placing away from the horse.

But if a horse (don't mean this one) was subsequently found to be doped say then they would lose the race.
 
I watched the race yesterday and thought the Queen's horse would have won, had he been less whip happy.

Fore certain HM should have the Gold Cup for the second year running.
 
I tend to agree with the poster who thought that the horse should lose the race where a whip ban has been infringed. Im summising here but in this case I doubt whether the fine would bother the jockey too much, Im guessing the winning connections will stump up, the ban will no doubt be a bit inconvenient but they have other jockeys available and Im sure JO will still be able to pay his mortgate if he loses a few days income. A lesser known jockey might suffer more with a ban and a fine and be less inclined to fall foul of the rule. I fail to see how someone who broke the rules can be allowed to win, although Im sure that those who understand the rules of racing more will have an explanation. It does suggest that the great and powerful can do as they please with no real comeback, I think losing the race would have a greater impact that a fine and a ban.
 
agree, losing the race would hurt both the jockey and the trainer (and the owner) that jockey may then have trouble getting rides unless he/she abided by the rules.or the ban should come into effect immediately which would cause trainer and owner a big headache finding a replacement quickly...jockeys in the big races will bend the rules as there is so much money on offer...
 
I do not agree with breaking the rules but I do think people forget that this was 2 and half miles - jumping distance. It wasn't some zippy 5furlong. The only excuse he can use is that the horse drifted away from the whip and into other horses. He didn't block the other jockey in, he just didn't give him a space to get through, he held his line which he is perfectly entitled to do. A jockey got done in Japan? Dubai? recently for obviously making a space for a stable mate to come through so your damned if you do and your damned if you don't in that respect.

He won't and shouldn't lose the race for the whip ban as it wasn't majorly excessive, didn't mark the horse or hit the horse in the wrong place. He just hit him a few too many times.

If anyone wants to see blatent overuse of the whip watch Danedream's Arc. Her jockey absolutely leathered her - twice every stride - shoulder, behind, should, behind - with every scrub in the last furlong. I think it came to something daft like 30 odd times in that 1 furlong alone.

If A jockey builds up too many days on a whip ban (might be 21 days in total) They have to go on a course back at jockey school to remind them of the rules.
 
This whole thing is very frustrating both as a spectator and I'd imagine as a jockey.

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't Irish rules on use of the whip different? If this is the case than as Joseph O'Brien spend the majority of his time riding in Ireland and only rides over here in the big races (where he's under a vast amount of pressure as a young jockey riding for the biggest owners in the racing world and half the racing community thinking he's only there because of his dad) I can only imagine that under the circumstances it must be difficult to remember to count the amount of times you use the whip.

Also, having watched the race, I thought at least some of the whips he gave were to try and keep the horse straight.

I understand why they are adamant for restrictions on whip use, but sometimes it can be ridiculous. I remember when the news rules first came in and one of the first jockeys banned was Richard Hughes, and I don't think there is a more quiet rider out there!

Now am I saying that Joseph O'Brien shouldn't have been punished.... of course not! He absolutely should get a few days ban for overuse of the whip, and yes the fine as well. Should the race placings be changed... of course not! In what way can anyone prove the horse wouldn't have won anyway? You can't punish the ownership and the trainer for what is most likely jockey error!

Also well said EKW!
 
Last edited:
EKW said:
I do not agree with breaking the rules but I do think people forget that this was 2 and half miles - jumping distance. It wasn't some zippy 5furlong. The only excuse he can use is that the horse drifted away from the whip and into other horses. He didn't block the other jockey in, he just didn't give him a space to get through, he held his line which he is perfectly entitled to do. A jockey got done in Japan? Dubai? recently for obviously making a space for a stable mate to come through so your damned if you do and your damned if you don't in that respect.

He won't and shouldn't lose the race for the whip ban as it wasn't majorly excessive, didn't mark the horse or hit the horse in the wrong place. He just hit him a few too many times.

If anyone wants to see blatent overuse of the whip watch Danedream's Arc. Her jockey absolutely leathered her - twice every stride - shoulder, behind, should, behind - with every scrub in the last furlong. I think it came to something daft like 30 odd times in that 1 furlong alone.

If A jockey builds up too many days on a whip ban (might be 21 days in total) They have to go on a course back at jockey school to remind them of the rules.
Click to expand...
don't you think that the distance he won by makes a difference. agreed if he had won by a couple of lengths but 2nd jockey abided by the rules and lost by a very small amount, whats to say that he wouldn't have won if he had hit his horse a few more times....
 
splashgirl45 said:
don't you think that the distance he won by makes a difference. agreed if he had won by a couple of lengths but 2nd jockey abided by the rules and lost by a very small amount, whats to say that he wouldn't have won if he had hit his horse a few more times....
Click to expand...
Only the jockey knows at that point in a race whether a horse is responding to the whip or not and some horses especially mares will try harder for not being hit. I'm sure that if the jockey on Estimate thought hitting her would have meant winning the race he would have done. A fine and a few days "holiday" are worth risking for the sake of winning an important race.
 
EKW, I usually agree with you but not on this one. If using the whip more than twice the agreed amount is only a minor infringement, then why bother setting that limit in the first place? The Gold Cup is probably the 3rd most watched race in this country, are the BHA and Jockey club not bothered about the public image of racing? The fact is he may well have won this race because he broke the rules. I like to think had he done that to HRH's horse, he wouldn't be riding for her again.
 
millikins said:
EKW, I usually agree with you but not on this one. If using the whip more than twice the agreed amount is only a minor infringement, then why bother setting that limit in the first place? The Gold Cup is probably the 3rd most watched race in this country, are the BHA and Jockey club not bothered about the public image of racing? The fact is he may well have won this race because he broke the rules. I like to think had he done that to HRH's horse, he wouldn't be riding for her again.
Click to expand...
It's a limit that leads to a ban, all the jockeys know after a race when they are facing that but it's worth it if it's an important one. The jockey doesn't own the horse so by taking away the win you would be affecting the owner and the horse, not the jockey which is why the punishment is a ban not disqualifaction. Also the Gold Cup would be a long way from being the 3rd most watched race in the country, where did you get that one from ?
 
If you break the rules, and you win the race, does it really matter to the jockey? The race win will outweigh the 7day holiday.

If you break the rules and you win the race, then you have the victory taken from you, and if you don't believe me, ask Lance Armstrong.

As an aside, I'm sorry to say that I'm with sparhawk. I don't care too much for either father or son.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
If you break the rules, and you win the race, does it really matter to the jockey? The race win will outweigh the 7day holiday.

If you break the rules and you win the race, then you have the victory taken from you, and if you don't believe me, ask Lance Armstrong.

As an aside, I'm sorry to say that I'm with sparhawk. I don't care too much for either father or son.

Alec.
Click to expand...

In cycling the man wins the race, not his bike ! You can't compare the two sports. I like the O'Briens, can't see why anyone wouldn't....plus they have the best horses in the world.
 
Maybe they should give longer bans, for misuse of the whip and then perhaps the jockeys will start riding the horses properly, because the horse,owner and trainer will keep the race and money, the jockey will lose out, but there again the trainer tells the jockey how the horse should be ridden, so maybe ban the trainer from entering their horses for a month or two in races, maybe that will sort the problem out. :D
 
bonny said:
In cycling the man wins the race, not his bike ! You can't compare the two sports. ........
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The jockey rides a horse to victory by ignoring rules which others stick to. So would you suggest that the horse or the bike win the race, but not the rider?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Nonsense. The jockey rides a horse to victory by ignoring rules which others stick to. So would you suggest that the horse or the bike win the race, but not the rider?

Alec.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that they are completely different sports, the horse wins the race, needs a jockey obviously but he's easily changed for another one. In cycling the rider is everything, you couldn't change the rider and get the same result. I think in the important races the jockey does what is necessary to win and I don't believe if the placed horses had been hit more often the result would be different. In fact the third placed jockey got a ban too....
 
bonny said:
I would suggest that they are completely different sports, the horse wins the race, needs a jockey obviously but he's easily changed for another one. In cycling the rider is everything, you couldn't change the rider and get the same result. I think in the important races the jockey does what is necessary to win and I don't believe if the placed horses had been hit more often the result would be different. In fact the third placed jockey got a ban too....
Click to expand...

.... and the horse placed second? If the jockey restricted his activities so that he stayed within the rules? Tough ****? Not in my book.

Another point for you, had I ridden any of those horses, the results would have been the same. The result is as much about the rider, as the animal.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that those who cheat, and win, should keep their place?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
.... and the horse placed second? If the jockey restricted his activities so that he stayed within the rules? Tough ****? Not in my book.

Another point for you, had I ridden any of those horses, the results would have been the same. The result is as much about the rider, as the animal.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that those who cheat, and win, should keep their place?

Alec.
Click to expand...

Now you are the one writing rubbish, the top jockeys could all have won yesterday, you can't compare yourself with them ! Yes, I think the whip rules are right now, of course the horse and owner should keep the race, the only one at fault is the jockey who got a fine and a ban.
 
bonny said:
Now you are the one writing rubbish, the top jockeys could all have won yesterday, you can't compare yourself with them ! Yes, I think the whip rules are right now, of course the horse and owner should keep the race, the only one at fault is the jockey who got a fine and a ban.
Click to expand...

So, let me understand you now...... What you're saying is that if the jockey, owner and trainer, are all prepared for a 7 day riding ban (for the jockey) and a modest fine, and because the jockey, whilst almost certainly under precise instruction, broke the rules, whilst others didn't, then that's a small price to pay for the accolade of winning the Gold Cup? It would seem from your argument that to cheat in sport, and still win is acceptable and that the rules of racing are of no matter. Honestly? Are you a supporter of Maktoum, by any chance?

My point about my riding any of those horses being the same was that failure would have been the outcome, which ever horse I'd ridden!

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
So, let me understand you now...... What you're saying is that if the jockey, owner and trainer, are all prepared for a 7 day riding ban (for the jockey) and a modest fine, and because the jockey, whilst almost certainly under precise instruction, broke the rules, whilst others didn't, then that's a small price to pay for the accolade of winning the Gold Cup? It would seem from your argument that to cheat in sport, and still win is acceptable and that the rules of racing are of no matter. Honestly? Are you a supporter of Maktoum, by any chance?

My point about my riding any of those horses being the same was that failure would have been the outcome, which ever horse I'd ridden!

Alec.
Click to expand...

Firstly I don't consider it cheating and secondly, of course it's worth it for the jockey, owner and trainer, that's why it happens. What happens with steroid misuse is totally different and can't be compared. Leading Light has gone down as the Ascot Gold Cup winner, no one will remember how many times he was hit in order to win it !
 
bonny, I'm still struggling with your argument. Tell me that I've got this wrong, but it seems that your case would be that to cheat in racing by the misuse of drugs isn't acceptable, but to use a whip, and to an extent which is beyond not only the rules, but the usage of another jockey, is quite acceptable. Have I misread your argument?

Whilst you're at it, could you explain to me how there are one set of rules which are acceptable, to you, and one set which aren't?

Alec.
 
I think you are missing the point that all of the jockeys in an important race will do what they can to win, only the jockey on the horse will know if it's still responding to the whip, some won't go for being hit at all and some will keep finding more. The whip is part of racing, it's allowed and the rules concerning it's use are constantly being looked at. The use of certain drugs is strictly forbidden and quite rightly anyone caught using steroids etc will face harsh penalties. I don't see why you insist on comparing the two scenarios.
 
bonny said:
Firstly I don't consider it cheating and secondly, of course it's worth it for the jockey, owner and trainer, that's why it happens. ....... !
Click to expand...

Now, having read further, it seems that breaking the rules of racing shouldn't be considered as cheating...... am I right in this?

I very much doubt that you and I will find common ground, on this one!!

Alec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top