New whip rules...

I think the new whip rules are a complete disgrace. Especially being put into practise without any form of grace period. I personally think all the jockeys should follow Hughesy and make the desk jockeys listen to them. If I was riding tomorrow in the Champion Stakes knowing that the horse I am on was going to embark on a stallion career come the end of the season, I would ride it to my fullest capability. If this means getting a ban and losing my prize money so be it. No one in racing wants to see the horses battered but at the same time, the jockeys are unable to do their job at this moment in time. Common sense needs to come into play somewhere here and at the moment it isn't.
 
Well, do you think it makes sense?

Flat jockeys can hit their horses 7 times, 5 inside the final furlong. He hit his horse 6 times in total, but all 6 came inside the final furlong. So even although he was UNDER the overall limit, he got a ban which took his total to 15 days, missing the Breeders Cup in the process. If he had hit the horse 5cm before the furlong pole, he'd have been fine - but what difference does it make?!

I think the new rules are ridiculous, and all to raise public perception of racing. I noted these figures in an earlier post today - in the BHA review, 57% of the public wanted whips in racing banned. After education about the type of whip used, this figure reduced to 33%. However, 58% of those questioned wanted whips banned in recreational riding too. To the public, the word whip means a cane, and that hurts. But when they hear what a racing whip actually is, we can see that a good number change their opinions. It's all bout education.

I've said this before too, and I'll say it again - if Mr Public is so horrified by the use of a foam whip that he can't watch racing, he's going to be even more horrified by the use of blindfolds to get into the starting stalls, or the sight of horses falling, or the unfortunate sight of a horse breaking down. These new whip rules are not going to change things.
 
^^ ah ok, yes- the distance thing does seem rather ridiculous!!

Can i ask a stupid question and ask what the old rules where? I don't know much about this but am finding it rather interesting!!!

Thank you for your replies btw :)
 
Cadfael&Coffee said:
^^ ah ok, yes- the distance thing does seem rather ridiculous!!

Can i ask a stupid question and ask what the old rules where? I don't know much about this but am finding it rather interesting!!!

Thank you for your replies btw :)
Click to expand...

I think it was a 15 time limit but I'm not sure of the limits for the final furlong/after the last fence.

It's not so bad for the big guns like AP McCoy or even Hughes, but for the 'smaller' names, the harsh punishments are not just annoying, they mean no food on the table, no money to feed the family. They rely on thier wages and these extremely harsh penalities, which just do not fit the crime, are very worrying and totally not needed.
 
I think the rules are too confusing- imo, it would be better to say no whips in last furlong of a flat race and no whips after the last fence in NH races.
 
I think this is a sad state of affairs when the use of the whip is this nit-picking :( where will it end. Everything can be taken as cruel if you think about it - just varying degrees, this is a huge industry and jockey's are there to do their job.

I personally feel very sorry for them.
 
I find it bizarre. 7 whips for a flat race, 8 for jumps? So 7 whips in a 1m flat race is fine, but in a 4m grand national race you're only allowed ONE extra whip. I find it disgusting, just plain stupidity.
 
Personally I think it's got nothing what so ever to do with equine welfare. It's purely to keep the people who pump ££££'s into the industry happy, so they continue to do so aka Joe Public. Joe Public don't realise that 16hh of 500kg horse charging at 40 mph can be a bit tricky to steer sometimes. I think that soon enough so many aspects of racing will be dictated by Joe Public including the Grand National. But that's a whooooole other can of worms...


I'm pretty sure it won't be long until it spreads throughout the equine industry and eventually no one will be allowed to use whips. Sounds drastic, but when the ignorant masses decide something is wrong then there's little the minority can do about it.
 
if they're going to change it they should at least have a set amount for each race distance. E.g., 1m - 4 whips. 4m - 10 whips. That sort of thing. I think the people involved seem to no longer care about the job at hand, and care more about pleasing the general public and animal rights campaigners. When to be honest - if you don't like it... Don't watch it!
 
I must admit, were I an owner expecting Richard Hughes to ride my horse tomorrow, I'd be a bit miffed that he's done what he's done. But I do support the sentiment.

The new rules are totally arbitrary. For someone with a riding style like Richard Hughes, who tends (depending on the animal) to ride his horses covered up and then produce them late, the rules will be almost impossible to adhere to. And why is it OK to hit a horse 5 times but not 6? And what happens if you've used your quota and the horse begins to drift? Are you not then allowed to correct the horse to prevent an accident without incurring a ban?

It's a sad state of affairs when we can't trust jockeys to be professional enough to know when their riding contravenes the acceptable in terms of welfare. Of course there needs to be pentalies if horses are hard ridden with no chance of winning or placing. But the amount of bans there has been in the first 5 days shows this is going to be unworkable. Tomorrow at Ascot should be a celebration of the culmination of a fascinating season's racing, but it will inevitably be marred by this controversy.

Once again, racing is the loser.
 
Last edited:
I agree the new rules are totally arbitrary.

What would be the disadvantages of disallowing whip use for 'acceleration' entirely, as was done in Norway (where the ban was welcomed apparently)?
 
If John Francome, arguably one of the best jump jockeys of his day (and possibly all time) believes that whips should be banned altogether, which would keep the public happy and mean there would be no room for confusion amongst jockeys, and therefore no bans/handing in of licenses, why don't they do what he suggests and have a two week no whip trial period and see what happens?
 
I dont follow the Racing very much. But I did read an article earlier on it, where they were comparing it to driving through a speeding camera, hmmm possibly not the best tact.

personally I Don't think these things should be swayed by public pressure, and should be agreed with between the jockeys, trainers, owners and regulating bodies at the end of day this is a job to them, and if their livelihood is going to be in jeopardy because of one to many smacks on a horses bum its ridiculous. most of the people voicing concerns have probably never been to a race in their lives.


to me its all about the negatives nowadays, I wish they would just let people enjoy the sport rather than focusing on one element all the time. if only they put half the effort they do in trying to be 'pc', into actually helping horses in real need.
 
Good, it doesn't bother me one bit if they don't want to race again. If the whips are only needed for safety then there's no reason to use one more than 5 times in the last few furlongs. I don't care if people enjoy the sport. The horses are more important, they can't just turn off their tvs, they have to do it. And anyway, I doubt not whipping the horse more than 5 times will affect viewing levels or interest in the sport. It's all just backlash as there always is with change, even if its for the better.
 
Rowreach said:
If John Francome, arguably one of the best jump jockeys of his day (and possibly all time) believes that whips should be banned altogether, which would keep the public happy and mean there would be no room for confusion amongst jockeys, and therefore no bans/handing in of licenses, why don't they do what he suggests and have a two week no whip trial period and see what happens?
Click to expand...


Agree^
 
I think Richard Hughes is a master at making horses win where other jocks would struggle, his style has been developed over the years, and he is not known for excessive whip use ie abuse.
There is no doubt some horses are lazy and will never win if they don't see a whip at some stage, the safety thing I assume is a different issue, if a horse has had its five strokes and then starts to lean in to another, it is only safe to make it straighten up, I assume this extra whip use is not counted in the total.
 
AMH said:
The new rules are totally arbitrary.
It's a sad state of affairs when we can't trust jockeys to be professional enough to know when their riding contravenes the acceptable in terms of welfare. Of course there needs to be pentalies if horses are hard ridden with no chance of winning or placing.

Once again, racing is the loser.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there are and always will be cases when jockeys abuse their horse due to inexperience or for competitive and / or financial reasons This all started when the GN winner was hit very hard on the run in, and this caused criticism, and there was limited financial penalty for the jockey compared to the prize.

There have been cases when jockeys have been pulled up in front of the stewards for "not riding out" their horses when they can't win or be placed.
Jockeys are young lads making split second decisions on a 500kg TB going at 40mph, we may be expecting too much.
 
Rowreach said:
If John Francome, arguably one of the best jump jockeys of his day (and possibly all time) believes that whips should be banned altogether, which would keep the public happy and mean there would be no room for confusion amongst jockeys, and therefore no bans/handing in of licenses, why don't they do what he suggests and have a two week no whip trial period and see what happens?
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this to be honest. I don't actually see why horses need to be whipped towards the end of the race - I can see the need for steering especially in the younger horses (but then I don't agree with racing horses so young anyway but that's anothet thread!). I don't actually see the issue and why the jockeys are so miffed. I have heard on the news tonight that some jockeys are considering striking. I mean HOW ridiculous is that (IMO anyway), I'm sorry, it's not like their pay's being docked or they are losing perks, they have just reduced the amount of times they can hit a horse!!!

If I was a race horse owner I'd say fine, I'll one of the eager amateurs ride my horse then!! I think a strike is pretty petty.
 
To be fair it is often at the end of a race that horses go off to one side as they are tired and get unbalanced.
The very phrase "whipping" conjours up an image of "thrashing", but over the years the whip itself has been padded and the jockeys are now better trained in its use.
Owners are quite often using jockeys known [known within the industry] for being hard on horses, because they want to win, not because they want the pleasure of owning a horse in a sporting manner, but the owners themselves may not realise that these jocks are quite hard riders,
As to allowing amateurs to ride some of these horse, well just go to a point to point and see the standard of riding, no way is it safe to put a load of amateurs on every horse entered to run.
 
Last edited:
ladyt25 said:
I don't actually see the issue and why the jockeys are so miffed. I have heard on the news tonight that some jockeys are considering striking. I mean HOW ridiculous is that (IMO anyway), I'm sorry, it's not like their pay's being docked or they are losing perks, they have just reduced the amount of times they can hit a horse!!!

If I was a race horse owner I'd say fine, I'll one of the eager amateurs ride my horse then!! I think a strike is pretty petty.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're wrong. If they get banned, they lose their riding fee and any percentage of the prize money, plus they lose the fee's they'd get from all the rides they miss during their long period off. So it's actually a matter of food on the table or no food on the table for these guys - no riding = no salary. So I can completely see why they are striking (although it looks like they're not now).

Until we can invent a talking horse, we do not know how much a whip hurts or does not hurt it. But with the exception of a few, racing doesn't want to see the whip banned and I doubt it'll ever get to that (God help this country if it does). I do not understand they desperate want to appease the public, the huge majority of the public don't give a monkeys bum about racing other than GN day. Leave our wonderful sport alone and focus on the real welfare problems that exist within racing and other equine sports.

Anyone see the spur marks on the showjumpers at HOYS?.....
 
MrsD123 said:
There is no doubt some horses are lazy and will never win if they don't see a whip at some stage
Click to expand...

Erm, yes, they are HORSES. What the flipping heck do they care about winning races? Not being the slowest when chased by predators, yes. Generating winnings for their owners and so forth I think it is hard to expect them to understand!

As previous posters have said many of us work in regulated industries. Very few of us make such a fuss when regulations change. And to strike/refuse to ride for the opportunity to hit an animal more times without penalisation shows how very far removed the mindset of racing is from welfare.
 
I like the theory behind this. I know nothing about racing but TBH I dont see why you need to. I doubt I've hit my horse 7 times over his entire life let alone in one race. There's no need for it, unacceptable in my opinion. A total ban would be brilliant. I'd love to see this whip rule (or ban!) brought into other sports like eventing. But then I'd love to see spurs banned as well, anything "artificial" as such as at the end of the day a sign of a well trained horse (which is the aim of the game is it not?) is one which doesnt need to be smacked or spurred to go...

Alltheprettyhorses knocks it on the head for me. Wonder if racers think it would be ok to smack greyhounds in order to make them run faster?
 
Last edited:
Firstly can I say the new whip rules are a joke.

Secondly I wish that people could be far more educated when it comes to racing. The whip is used in a race as an aid it is not there to thrash a horse to pieces in the closing stages of a race. Jockeys for the most part are horsemen they know when a horse is responding and when the whip is being beneficial and when it's not.
Some horses will halve a few fences and need a reminder to get their mind on the job. How would you feel if you were coming to a fence at 30mph and the horse wasn't concentrating?
I have never sat on a racehorse who is afraid of the whip, not one and I must have ridden thousands. No horse has ever shied away when I've been passed a stick.
People must remember that the whip in other disciplines is used not only as an aid but mostly as a form of punishment, to repremand a horse when it refuses or is naughty. Many horses who refuse anticcipate being beaten. I think that this is where the racing world and equine world differ vastly and this is where I also think that people should open their eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top