Racing; Sir Mark Prescott.

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
On Ch. 4's Morning Line this morning, Sir Mark has come out as saying that jockeys who disobey the latest Whip Ruling should have meaningful bans, rather than the existing system which seems to allow a jockey the ability to decide for themselves when they serve their ban, and whereby the Stewards who police the ruling, to effectively turn a blind eye by making discretionary decisions.

What do you think of the limiting of whip usage, and the interpretation of the rule itself?

Alec.
 

Exploding Chestnuts

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2013
Messages
8,436
Visit site
On Ch. 4's Morning Line this morning, Sir Mark has come out as saying that jockeys who disobey the latest Whip Ruling should have meaningful bans, rather than the existing system which seems to allow a jockey the ability to decide for themselves when they serve their ban, and whereby the Stewards who police the ruling, to effectively turn a blind eye by making discretionary decisions.

What do you think of the limiting of whip usage, and the interpretation of the rule itself?

Alec.
Discretion is not the same as turning a blind eye it is looking at how the whip is used.
In the past abuse it was always taken in to account if a horse bled due to whipping, but while this sounds desperate, in fact some horses are very thin skinned and they are usually clipped just before racing, so there may be tiny beads of blood, which is not the same as weals............................. OK this is probably unnaceptable, so the whip ban would be enforced, but often the jockey, especially in flat racing, will just give the horse a light flick as encouragement, in this case presumably stewards can use discretion. Not to allow discretion is to remove human judgement.
The main problem is that in the case of top races where large megabucks are involved, it is just not possible to stop rules being abused with the current system.
There will always be a few cases where [sometimes younger jockeys] hit a horse too hard when the race is lost, hopefully their training plus the current rules will reduce this.
I think Sir Mark [supporter of bull fighting anf greyhound coursing] is thinking of flat racing when jockeys can negotiate when the bans take place , in NH racing there is less flxeibility, hence Dickie Johnstone sitting out the festive racing.
 
Last edited:

Maesfen

Extremely Old Nag!
Joined
20 June 2005
Messages
16,720
Location
Wynnstay - the Best!
photobucket.com
I personally think a ban should take immediate effect from the day it is given or from the next racing day that jockey is qualified/booked to ride in and be doubled anyway; a two day ban is a joke.
 

Exploding Chestnuts

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2013
Messages
8,436
Visit site
I personally think a ban should take immediate effect from the day it is given or from the next racing day that jockey is qualified/booked to ride in and be doubled anyway; a two day ban is a joke.
Not sure, but it may be there is a totting up system so that jocks who are getting short bans end up in Portman Square and sent for re-training
 

MyBoyChe

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 April 2008
Messages
4,554
Location
N. Bucks
Visit site
I think its one of those things that is almost impossible to get right! Its a welfare issue and what is the right amount of 'encouragement' for one horse will not be right for another. I would think the majority of people who follow racing have some sort of understanding of the horse, but there are those who dont and usually they are the ones who are up in arms about over use of the whip. Personally I hate to see a tired horse having the whip used to try and encourage him to up his game but as I am not the jockey I cant know how tired he is or whether he will genuinely run on with pressure applied. Im not sure how the stewards would be able to tell this either? I suppose setting a limit and then using discretion is the nearest they can come to it. To my mind that still makes it almost impossible to police though, whose word do you take as to whether 10 smacks were needed or whether that was 5 too many. If you want to simplify it right down I suppose giving a set number of smacks allowed and an immediate disqualification of the horse and jockey (which is what I think Sir Mark was suggesting) if that number is exceeded would be the easiest way forward. The current system whereby the jockey sits out a ban but the horse keeps the race isnt going to stop the top jocks from breaking the rule, they will still have the support of the yard and the incentive to win will be greater than the crime.
 
Joined
28 February 2011
Messages
16,451
Visit site
I personally think a ban should take immediate effect from the day it is given or from the next racing day that jockey is qualified/booked to ride in and be doubled anyway; a two day ban is a joke.

Normally the ban comes into effect 10-14 days after it is given to allow trainers to make alternative arrangements for where they run their horses if they want a specific jockey on board. Starting the ban that day or the next is no good for trainers and owners as the jockeys are booked to ride 24/48 hours in advance depending under which code you are racing. They also cover days when you code is racing so say there is racing at Perth but nothing down south a southern jockey wouldn't be riding there any way so they don't lose a days wages. I think it should be enforced locally and to where the jockey rides most.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
…….. . Starting the ban that day or the next is no good for trainers and owners as the jockeys are booked to ride 24/48 hours in advance depending under which code you are racing. …….. .

So is it the Trainer who issues instructions to his Rider? The Trainer who claims "Not my fault Gov", is as guilty and as responsible as the man who he employs. I'm with Prescott on this one, and thought that the Ch. 4 comments were skewed.

The current whip ban is ridiculous, there's no question of that, but just about every comment to date focuses upon excuses rather than facing the fact that the ruling, in it's current form, is unworkable, to wit, the system has been set up by the very same authorities who police it, but the policing and the Rule, seem to be at odds with each other.

Consider this; Two jockeys, riding for the line, one obeys the rule, and the other doesn't. The jockey who breaks the ruling wins, and what of those who backed, owned or trained the second or third placed horse? Are they not entitled to expect that the Rule-breaker be reduced to the ranks?

The 'whip ban' is a farce. Should a horse return to the paddocks, damaged by over use of the whip, then the rider, and if he's been in receipt of clear instructions, then so too the Trainer, should be facing disciplinary actions.

The current regulations are unworkable.

Alec.
 
Last edited:

KautoStar1

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2008
Messages
1,632
Location
Cheshire
Visit site
I saw the morning line too and my take on sir marks views were not that jockeys needed to be banned further but that races should be taken away completely from those who disobey the rules. Effectively what he was saying was if the jockey hits the horse more than the permitted 8 (for NH) & wins the race he has to all intense & purpose cheated & therefore the horse should be demoted. I don't think sir mark is playing the welfare card, I think he is a savvy old stick who is trying to bring the whip debate back to the table because it is a silly rule and isn't practical for anyone.
The BHA, who IMHO, are about as useful as a kick in the head, bowed down at the time to appease the likes of Animal Aid & the RSPCA to introduce something the once a year punter would find acceptable in terms of horse welfare.

I thought Graham Cunningham made some interesting & relevant points. You may not agree with them Alec, but they are points to be considered none the less. & further high light the many grey areas of this rule. Sir Mark is saying make it black & white.

On another point I am liking Graham Cunningham more and more. He is articulate, thought provoking, always makes his views clear but without getting his knickers in a knot (like fat mac used to do, so the point was lost). And GC is funny & warm too. I like him. Plus he lives round the corner from me.
 

Echo Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 August 2009
Messages
6,753
Location
bedfordshire
Visit site
Over use of the whip to win the race, horse disquailfied. These jockeys are pro's so should be able to ride hands and heels and if need to use the whip be able to use it when it is needed, have watched some races recently and a lot of horses that are either tiring or absolutely not up to the job being whipped when it's not going to do any good, these are the jockeys that should get a warning and watched.
 
Joined
28 February 2011
Messages
16,451
Visit site
I agree the current rulings are a farce. I would say 1 smack over is a 4-5 day ban, any more than 1 and you look at being demoted or disqualified depending on just how many times you over used the whip and the distance you won by. The trainer will always play the card of - I told the jockey to do the best job possible on the horse, it's not my fault if he is thick and can't count! You will never get a trainer saying they were willing to break the rules - because they can get away with it!

I admit that I give horses a good look over both sides when collecting them in to see if I need to hide things and keep the sheet completely covering the horse or not but that rarely happens with our lads to be fair to them. Yes some freshly clipped horses do mark easier, as do thin skinned and over heated ones so it is easier to mark them. But at the end of the day the jockey shouldn't be hitting them in such soft places as to be able to mark them.
 

splashgirl45

Lurcher lover
Joined
6 March 2010
Messages
15,043
Location
suffolk
Visit site
Over use of the whip to win the race, horse disquailfied. These jockeys are pro's so should be able to ride hands and heels and if need to use the whip be able to use it when it is needed, have watched some races recently and a lot of horses that are either tiring or absolutely not up to the job being whipped when it's not going to do any good, these are the jockeys that should get a warning and watched.

agree..the current rules are nearly always broken when its a very valuable race, and by the top jockeys as well. although this would affect the owners and punters I bet it would change jockeys behaviour, if it doesn't the owners/trainers will not use them... no one will have the guts to put this rule in place but we can hope...
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
……..

……... You may not agree with them Alec, but they are points to be considered none the less. & further high light the many grey areas of this rule. Sir Mark is saying make it black & white.

On another point I am liking Graham Cunningham more and more. He is articulate, thought provoking, …….. .

You're right, I don't agree with him. Not at all I don't! As you though, I am warming to him! Did Tania S make a valid point this morning, when she pointed out that there were no clear answers? I'm not too sure about that, either.

The whip ban is a sop to placate the welfare groups, nothing more or less. Were the 'whip' known as an 'encourager', then there wouldn't have been the fuss that there is.

Again, Prescott was right, his argument has nothing to do with the use of a whip, but the interpretation of the rules. It's a simple fact that if one jockey breaks the rules and wins a race, over another who operates within the rules, then the winning jockey should be banned, and the horse should lose its place. It's simple, basic, and ask Lance Armstrong if he still disagrees. Those who cheat should not benefit from their dishonesty.

'Sir Mark is saying make it black and white'? I agree with him and you. Integrity will stand alone, cheating won't. The answer is simple; Scrap the rules or abide by them. It needs to be one, or the other. As it is, we have ever more muddy waters for the corrupt to work their interpretations

Alec.
 

Colouredwelsh

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 December 2014
Messages
139
Location
Yorkshire
Visit site
Crikey, how many racehorses have you ridden to the line EB using 'hands & heels' either on the track or working at home???

Also, regarding the trainers being disciplined too, don't agree. I've given instructions to jockeys on many occasions and I can assure you the trainers don't tell the jockeys to bray the horse senseless to get it home. You instruct the jockey on the horse, how it likes to race, where to place it in the field and when to press the button.

The jockeys are the ones on top, they read the rule books, they know how many times & how hard they can hit a horse. Although I do wonder how when you are riding for the line in a prestigious race you are supposed to count the smacks.

I don't condone over use of the whip in any shape or form but we have to be sensible here.
 

Exploding Chestnuts

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2013
Messages
8,436
Visit site
Crikey, how many racehorses have you ridden to the line EB using 'hands & heels' either on the track or working at home???

Also, regarding the trainers being disciplined too, don't agree. I've given instructions to jockeys on many occasions and I can assure you the trainers don't tell the jockeys to bray the horse senseless to get it home. You instruct the jockey on the horse, how it likes to race, where to place it in the field and when to press the button.

The jockeys are the ones on top, they read the rule books, they know how many times & how hard they can hit a horse. Although I do wonder how when you are riding for the line in a prestigious race you are supposed to count the smacks.

I don't condone over use of the whip in any shape or form but we have to be sensible here.
The trainer has to be very careful in his instructions as he will often be called in to the stewards room if there is an infingement and will be required to explain, there is no way any trainer would condone excessive use of the whip, most owners won't condone it either. Yes, there has been cause for criticiism in the past, but things have improved, a lot.
The whip itself has been re designed in recent years, as have attitudes generally, its not only the RSPCA and extremist groups who have brought this about, it is general public attitudes The UK probably has the best racehorse welfare in the world, we should celebrate that.
Sir Mark has raised this issue, but I suspect that the outcome of his proposal [if it is a proposal], would actually be very difficult to police, and would lead to general dissatisfaction in the public arena, as well as connections, and other stakeholders, among them, sponsors and bookmakers.
 
Last edited:

amage

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 December 2004
Messages
3,888
Visit site
It is very apparent that the current whip rules do not appear to be working effectively. Not a week goes by without some high profile discussion or rider banned. By contrast I have just gone through the Irish daily stewards room reports from 26th Dec - Jan 3rd which comprised 13 national hunt meetings and 1 flat meeting. There were 5 jockeys cautioned for overuse of the whip all in closing stages. One was a flat jockey, of the 4 national hunt jockeys 3 were amateurs all riding in bumpers. None were noted to be serial offenders and previous good conduct was taken into account. Why is it that we can run numerous Grade1s, run 85+races over the 9 day period I looked at and the whip or its use is not even mentioned or needed to be discussed? I know we don't suffer the militiant anti racing animal welfare groups to the extent that UK racing does but even still our rules and governing body seem to work far more effectively.
 

KautoStar1

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2008
Messages
1,632
Location
Cheshire
Visit site
The BHA's biggest mistake was letting Animal Aid & the RSPCA form part of the decision making process.
I don't think the general public are actually that fussed until they get whipped up (pardon the pun) into a frenzy by the likes of Fat Mac. Bit equally I don't think we should dress up the whip by calling it an encourager or such. That's a bit patronising & suggests racing is trying to hid something. Education of its purpose would be far better. And I've yet to hear a jockey say he lost a race because he'd used his allocation of whip use. Wonder how that would go down if a jock actually did follow the law & subsequently loose a race because of it. It's a silly rule that needs to be readdressed.
 

Exploding Chestnuts

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2013
Messages
8,436
Visit site
I don t agree, things are better than they were twenty or even ten years ago, the jockeys ARE more self disciplined, the horses are in a better place.
I dont imagine the BHS asked any Amimal Rights people or RSPCA executives to sit in with them when they made whip rules.
 
Last edited:

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
The BHA's biggest mistake was letting Animal Aid & the RSPCA form part of the decision making process.

……...

I'm sure that it staggered most that the rspca were 'consulted' and their opinions sought as to the National course. "Lower the fences" they said. The fences were lowered and the falls were more and of greater severity. Consulting the welfare groups was simply an attempt at a PR exercise which failed, and badly so. Who in their right minds would act upon the opinions of a group who, probably staggered that anyone was prepared to listen to them, blurted out the first thing that occurred to them, and the racing authorities could then sit back and assure those who care enough to complain, that they'd sought the advice of experts! :D:D Experts? The rspca? Really"? :D

Alec.
 
Joined
28 February 2011
Messages
16,451
Visit site
I'm sure that it staggered most that the rspca were 'consulted' and their opinions sought as to the National course. "Lower the fences" they said. The fences were lowered and the falls were more and of greater severity. Consulting the welfare groups was simply an attempt at a PR exercise which failed, and badly so. Who in their right minds would act upon the opinions of a group who, probably staggered that anyone was prepared to listen to them, blurted out the first thing that occurred to them, and the racing authorities could then sit back and assure those who care enough to complain, that they'd sought the advice of experts! :D:D Experts? The rspca? Really"? :D

Alec.

The National course is more dangerous than it has ever been! The only good thing that was brought in as part of these 'consultations' was the run off for each fence so you could go round them. But then they made a hash of that the first year they had them as they made a point of going round a fence that they could have jumped to one side like they always used to and ended up with a dead horse on live tv.
 

KautoStar1

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2008
Messages
1,632
Location
Cheshire
Visit site
Bonkers2 - you are right things are better but I think that's down to better education of jockeys and appropriate bans where poor whip use has been found.
The issue is that there is a rule and it gets broken and races are won and kept.
And yes the RSPCA etc were consulted. The BHA have very small teeth afraid & get pushed around which means that they don't really get to grips with the problem.
 

Exploding Chestnuts

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2013
Messages
8,436
Visit site
I'm sure that it staggered most that the rspca were 'consulted' and their opinions sought as to the National course. "Lower the fences" they said. The fences were lowered and the falls were more and of greater severity. Consulting the welfare groups was simply an attempt at a PR exercise which failed, and badly so. Who in their right minds would act upon the opinions of a group who, probably staggered that anyone was prepared to listen to them, blurted out the first thing that occurred to them, and the racing authorities could then sit back and assure those who care enough to complain, that they'd sought the advice of experts! :D:D Experts? The rspca? Really"? :D

Alec.
Sorry, that was the GN, not the whip rules that we are discussing.
 

Rouletterose

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 October 2008
Messages
930
Visit site
If horses were given a smack with the whip in showjumping speed classes 8 of them, they would be disciplined or banned, probably uproar, the same for eventing, very few smacks are allowed as the horse is nearing the end of the course and galloping on to make the time, 8 smacks of the whip would not be allowed and the rider would be disciplined.

In racing many horses are smacked hard towards then end when they are obviously tired, there is nothing worse than watching this in my opinion, 8 smacks allowed is far too many. I agree with another poster that said more heels and legs would be good.

The ruling as it stands will never work as it allows for the opinion of the jockey, they are biased most certainly, the sensitivity of the horses skin, and one persons view against anothers, the present ruling is ridiculous and will never be fair to jockey or horse, no whips at all would be fairer all round as it would give a fair and straightforward playing ground for all, it would be the only truly fair way.

I love racing and I'm no softee, but you will always get the ones that will use the whip to the maximum allowed, theres nothing worse than watching a horse being whacked/whipped 8 times, money pot or not. No whips at all and a lot of the jockeys would actually have to start riding.
 

KautoStar1

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2008
Messages
1,632
Location
Cheshire
Visit site
Well in that case lets take away spurs and whips in x country, dressage & showjumping. And for those who hack too.

Of course the jockeys opinion counts. He's the one sat on the horse. He should therefore know whether an extra smack or to put his whip down. I'm not suggesting every jockey gets it right all the time but you suggestion implies the man on board is simply steering. Races are won and lost by the skill of the man on top.
 
Joined
28 February 2011
Messages
16,451
Visit site
You would never be able to have no whips as they are seen as a safety aspect. To stop a horse drifting into another, to keep them straight on and forwards into a fence et al. Even the Conditionals/Apprentices Hands And Heels races they have to carry whips - they are allowed 3 smacks down the shoulder during the entire race IF deemed necessary for safety, using those 3 smacks just because gets them told off and banned. They are also allowed to show the horse the whip in a driving finish but hell mend them if they make contact with the horse with the whip. Jockeys ride too short to use their legs for guidance and to keep them straight.
 

Rouletterose

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 October 2008
Messages
930
Visit site
Well in that case lets take away spurs and whips in x country, dressage & showjumping. And for those who hack too.

Of course the jockeys opinion counts. He's the one sat on the horse. He should therefore know whether an extra smack or to put his whip down. I'm not suggesting every jockey gets it right all the time but you suggestion implies the man on board is simply steering. Races are won and lost by the skill of the man on top.

Yes of course the skill of the jockey counts, absolutely, but many of them use the whip too much, and the jockeys decision is often biaised because they want to win, and I am talking about a minority, not all, but you can't have a level playing field if some dont play by the rules.
 

Rouletterose

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 October 2008
Messages
930
Visit site
You would never be able to have no whips as they are seen as a safety aspect. To stop a horse drifting into another, to keep them straight on and forwards into a fence et al. Even the Conditionals/Apprentices Hands And Heels races they have to carry whips - they are allowed 3 smacks down the shoulder during the entire race IF deemed necessary for safety, using those 3 smacks just because gets them told off and banned. They are also allowed to show the horse the whip in a driving finish but hell mend them if they make contact with the horse with the whip. Jockeys ride too short to use their legs for guidance and to keep them straight.

No whips at all means no using the whip one handed on the horses backside, carrying the whip down the shoulder for help with keeping straight of course would still be allowed, to put what I meant bluntly, no whacking the horses backside. As far as I am concerned up to 8 whips of the horses bum to make it win is too many.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
…….. , to put what I meant bluntly, no whacking the horses backside. …….. .

I wonder if this might not be the answer. There's no question that the force needed when applying a whip in front of the saddle can't be the same as when the whip is applied behind the saddle. If a whip is used as a steering aid, when it's applied to the shoulder, or when the whip is 'shown' to the horse, again to correct 'drifting', then it isn't pain which is being applied, rather the threat of pain. When a whip is shown to a horse, there's no contact, and it becomes a harmless tool for the rider.


From EKW; …….. 'They are also allowed to show the horse the whip in a driving finish but hell mend them if they make contact with the horse with the whip. Jockeys ride too short to use their legs for guidance and to keep them straight' …….. I can see the sense in that. If the safety aspect of whip usage means that it's used to straighten the animal's path, and the safety aspect is such that the whip is used in front of the saddle only, then when applied behind the saddle, it can only be to encourage more effort from the animal.

I accept that there's justification for whip usage, but what I don't understand is how there's a justification in having separate rules for flat and jump racing. I also wonder at the difference in the application of the penalties whereby with jump racing any ban is immediate, but with flat racing, or so it seems, the jockey can elect when the penalty is applied!! I can see that working in our Courts, can't you?;

"I'm sentencing you to one year in prison for burglary".

"Fair enough M'lord, but I'm going on holiday next week so can I serve out the penalty, when I come home"?

"Yeah, 'course you can" said the Judge! :D

It's laughable. Racing needs to set its own house in order, before the welfare lot worsen an already chaotic situation.

Alec.

ps. and as a footnote, I don't race ride and never have, my points are only raised as an interested spectator, so may well be considered invalid!
 

Clodagh

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2005
Messages
24,952
Location
Devon
Visit site
Firstly, I like Graham Cunningham now too, he has either relaxed a bit or I have got used to him. I am even getting used to Rishi, although he is the Mike Tucker of the team in that he seems to get it all wrong!

Whip bans, I don't really have an answer, nobody wants to see a Ballabriggs again but equally it must be hard to count in the heat of the moment. When did AP last have a ban though? And there aren't many stronger than him in a finish.
 
Top