Ascot Gold Cup, overuse of the whip

whether you think it's right or not that's what happens, there is a lot at stake in racing and it's worth a jockey getting a ban if it means he wins an important race. I very much doubt the rules will ever change that anyone other than the jockey would be penalised and I don't think the owner or the horse should be.
In answer to your question no, I wouldn't consider it cheating.
 
bonny said:
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.
Click to expand...

My argument has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the 'Whip Ruling', as I happen to think that it's daft, BUT; My argument is to do with a level playing field, and one rider abiding by the rules, and another one doesn't. The rider who breaks the rules (the rules that you, and presumably he, don't agree with), and Hey Ho, the winner was the winner, despite the fact that the jockey was a cheat. The win was flawed, despite your interoperation of right and wrong.

Right, I'm off to bed, as it seems that you and I have totally different understandings, or place differing emphases, upon the rules by which we live our lives.

Night night.

Alec.
 
Actually the jockey on the third got a ban too and if the jockey on the 2nd had thought it would have made the difference he would have done the same so your argument doesn't stand up anyway. The winning jockey wasn't giving himself an advantage, his horse just responded differently. Horses are not all the same !
 
The Rules are constantly tweaked and vary in different countries, it will always be unsatisfactory from one point of view. UK rules are pretty reasonable, that is all we can hope for..............
 
Not trying to cause an argument here but just wandered what peoples views were when you compare this to Jock Paget being disqualified and stripped from his Burghley title? Despite being 2 very different things the end result is that the rules were broken and what had been done (doping or whipping too much) could have changed the result. I am not comparing whipping too much to doping the horse but in the discussion on here it's evident that people think that whipping the horse too much could have meant the result was different, the same can be said for Jock Paget, no-one knows if the horse would've won had it not been doped. So anyway, 1 got to keep the win, the other didn't. If Jock Paget had got to keep the win and was just disqualified, do you think it would have caused uproar?
 
bonny said:
whether you think it's right or not that's what happens, there is a lot at stake in racing and it's worth a jockey getting a ban if it means he wins an important race. I very much doubt the rules will ever change that anyone other than the jockey would be penalised and I don't think the owner or the horse should be.
In answer to your question no, I wouldn't consider it cheating.
Click to expand...


But that is why they will carry on breaking the rules because the 'punishment' isn't relative to the benefit.

Essentially there is space for an engineer to manage a stick with a motion sensor which means you can't move it again after x many hits :p
 
Your right - whipping and doping are completely different things. One only affects the rule breaker, the other could be potentially lethal to life. No brainer for disqualification for doping and not for whipping!
 
I actually think that whipping could have been life threatening, did you see the state of that horse in the enclosure? He was totally out of it.

Sports have rules, I cannot understand how you can break the rules (especially by professionals who know them inside out, I understand how they got it wrong when it was new, but they've worked with it long enough now) and still win. If you break the rules you care trying to achieve an ilegal advantage over your rivals, that is you cheat. You cheat, you should not win.
 
pip6 said:
I actually think that whipping could have been life threatening, did you see the state of that horse in the enclosure? He was totally out of it.

Sports have rules, I cannot understand how you can break the rules (especially by professionals who know them inside out, I understand how they got it wrong when it was new, but they've worked with it long enough now) and still win. If you break the rules you care trying to achieve an ilegal advantage over your rivals, that is you cheat. You cheat, you should not win.
Click to expand...
I did not see the horse in the paddock, but he has not died.
There are rules .. a drugged horse will not keep the race, but by that time many people will have had bets settled. So one could say they have been cheated.
 
He blew hard for a while, hardly life threatening and not surprising considering he ran 2 and a half miles on a hot day ! You can hardly blame misuse of the whip for that !
 
MrsD123 said:
I did not see the horse in the paddock, but he has not died.
There are rules .. a drugged horse will not keep the race, but by that time many people will have had bets settled. So one could say they have been cheated.
Click to expand...

Have those who backed the horse which could or should have been placed as the winner, been cheated of their right to succeed? If we're talking about colts, has the owner of the horse which was correctly ridden been denied the win, which would support the animal in his stud career?

I understand that O'Brien received a 7 day ban, but he was riding today. When do they serve their ban, when we start jump racing?

What is the point of a racing rule which when it's broken, has no apparent consequence of any realistic weight? Perhaps more to the point, what is the point of a whip rule?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Have those who backed the horse which could or should have been placed as the winner, been cheated of their right to succeed? If we're talking about colts, has the owner of the horse which was correctly ridden been denied the win, which would support the animal in his stud career?

I understand that O'Brien received a 7 day ban, but he was riding today. When do they serve their ban, when we start jump racing?

What is the point of a racing rule which when it's broken, has no apparent consequence of any realistic weight? Perhaps more to the point, what is the point of a whip rule?

Alec.
Click to expand...

His ban will be in July which means he will miss the next intended run of Australia, so hardly of no consequence to him. A ban cannot be immediate as a jockey could appeal and he needs to fulfill booked rides over the coming week.
 
Bans start 14 days after they are received BUT jockeys can appeal for a change of day when they have a ride in a Group 1 race. A bit of a piss take really! If your banned your banned - no exceptions. If Australia runs in a Group 1 then Joseph will be on him.
 
Havent read all the replies but if EKW is correct (and I have no doubt she knows what shes talking about) it would seem to further reinforce the view that in a case like this, big yard, retained jockey and powerful owners then the only losers where there is an infringement of the whip rule are the connections of the horse whose jockey stuck to the rules.
 
pip6 said:
I actually think that whipping could have been life threatening, did you see the state of that horse in the enclosure? He was totally out of it.
Click to expand...

I agree - he was absolutely heaving.

Personally I'm not a massive fan of Joseph O'Brien, but each to their own. I thought Estimate ran absolutely wonderfully, what a brave mare.
 
MrsD123 said:
I did not see the horse in the paddock, but he has not died.
There are rules .. a drugged horse will not keep the race, but by that time many people will have had bets settled. So one could say they have been cheated.
Click to expand...

With all due respect Mrs D, see tape of the horse in the paddock before you decide how tired he was. Any horse, even a fit racehorse can be bottomed out, and he was out of it. I would be mortified to have a horse in that state after an endurance race of 50 miles. No, I just wouldn't do it to a horse TBH. That a very fit horse took about 10 mins to stop blowing hard (not just stop blowing), shows the level of oxygen debt his muscles were in. To put it into context, top (& this was a high level race) endurance horses racing would come in after the first loop, which is usually about 40km (25 miles), doing over 20kph, and have their heart rates under 64bpm to go into the vetting in 30 secs to 5 min. If a horse is in severe oxygen debt, his heart rate wont come down until it has been paid back. This horse should not have been excessively hit (as has been proven) to push him to a point where he is at exhaustion. A racehorse should finish tired, not utterly exhausted.
 
pip6 said:
With all due respect Mrs D, see tape of the horse in the paddock before you decide how tired he was. Any horse, even a fit racehorse can be bottomed out, and he was out of it. I would be mortified to have a horse in that state after an endurance race of 50 miles. No, I just wouldn't do it to a horse TBH. That a very fit horse took about 10 mins to stop blowing hard (not just stop blowing), shows the level of oxygen debt his muscles were in. To put it into context, top (& this was a high level race) endurance horses racing would come in after the first loop, which is usually about 40km (25 miles), doing over 20kph, and have their heart rates under 64bpm to go into the vetting in 30 secs to 5 min. If a horse is in severe oxygen debt, his heart rate wont come down until it has been paid back. This horse should not have been excessively hit (as has been proven) to push him to a point where he is at exhaustion. A racehorse should finish tired, not utterly exhausted.
Click to expand...

He is a top racehorse, running in a high class staying race which had three horses in a line at the end. Of course he was blowing, they all would have been, hardly the end of the world for a racehorse. A blowing horse does not mean he is "utterly exhausted" and I'm sure he will be seen out racing again before too long.
 
pip6 said:
With all due respect Mrs D, see tape of the horse in the paddock before you decide how tired he was. Any horse, even a fit racehorse can be bottomed out, and he was out of it. I would be mortified to have a horse in that state after an endurance race of 50 miles. No, I just wouldn't do it to a horse TBH. That a very fit horse took about 10 mins to stop blowing hard (not just stop blowing), shows the level of oxygen debt his muscles were in. To put it into context, top (& this was a high level race) endurance horses racing would come in after the first loop, which is usually about 40km (25 miles), doing over 20kph, and have their heart rates under 64bpm to go into the vetting in 30 secs to 5 min. If a horse is in severe oxygen debt, his heart rate wont come down until it has been paid back. This horse should not have been excessively hit (as has been proven) to push him to a point where he is at exhaustion. A racehorse should finish tired, not utterly exhausted.
Click to expand...
As has been said many times, you can't force a horse to run. If he didn't enjoy running as fast as he did, he wouldn't have done it, presumably. Of course, this is a naive view because a horse can be pushed (or "forced", or "encouraged", depending on your slant) into a state of distress / discomfort quite easily. We are responsible for this, not the horse. But where do you draw the line?
 
He was absolutely out of it, not just tired. I love racing, I expect horses to be pushed in races. However I don't condone one being pushed to exhaustion for entertainment.
 
pip6 said:
He was absolutely out of it, not just tired. I love racing, I expect horses to be pushed in races. However I don't condone one being pushed to exhaustion for entertainment.
Click to expand...

To me he looked like a horse blowing hard after a long race on a hot day, what makes you think differently ? In what way do you think he was exhausted ? There was certainly not the concern you see for some horses who have got too hot and are needing cooled down quickly, his connections didn't do anything with him out of the ordinary, he walked around normally, no one threw water on him or called a vet.
 
One possible penalty that could be imposed on the jockey would be if his share of the prize money was removed and donated to a racing welfare charity when the jockey has a whip ban.

I also agree with other posters that the horse was exhausted after the race.
 
sparhawk said:
One possible penalty that could be imposed on the jockey would be if his share of the prize money was removed and donated to a racing welfare charity when the jockey has a whip ban.

I also agree with other posters that the horse was exhausted after the race.
Click to expand...
That might be possible, it must have been considered, but again the owners would compensate jock in the case of the horse winning something which puts its value in to the zillions, and this would include some Ascot races., there is also prestige eg winning the GN, [which also has huge prize money]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top