Whip rules - how ridiculous we appear to the ROTW ......

[fburton]

My impression, which could of course be wrong, from watching many, many hours of racing, both NH and flat, is that there were some horses where whip use behind the saddle made what looked like a difference in that there was a noticeable acceleration (although it's hard as a mere observer to know for sure that was the reason). However, I would say these were very much in the minority and for most horses being whipped didn't make the slightest difference as they appeared to be running as fast as they could already.

My question, still unanswered, remains: why would it be unacceptable for all whip "encouragement" to be removed completely and the race result determined, on a level playing field (so to speak), by which horse ran the fastest on its own merits, being ridden as normal but without whipping? Yes, the result might well be different - though probably not that much different, given the apparently minor role of whipping. It would still be a result, I would argue no less valid than one achieved with the whip. Does it or does it not work in Norway, where the whip was banned many years ago? If it does work there, why would it not work here? I find it very hard to imagine, given what I have seen of racing myself, that it would make such a big difference to the quality of racing.

 

[Caledonia]

Now, I don't see it as that at all. I see it as recognising that hitting six bells out of a horse that's allready running it's heart out isn't going to make it run any faster.........

OK, this is where your reasoning is flawed - sorry!

Not every horse is running it's heart out. And using a whip does make the horse go faster, the same way spurs do. It can't make an exhausted horse go faster though, but those horses are usually eased and you don't see them in the finish.

They do hear the noise of the whip, they hear you speak to them galloping, they hear Fallon whistle, they hear the shouts and growls.

Something to ponder - the NH horses are clipped and fine-skinned - if they were hit at all hard they would mark, but that is a very rare occurrence - I think there were 20 cases overall last year of marked horses. Thats out of tens of thousands in training. I've marked a freshly clipped (napping) horse with a whip with one smack. I'm not cruel to my horses, it was a safety issue.

If the whip really was abusive, far more of these animals would be marked.

 

[Caledonia]

I while I think WHW do a great job, for Roly Owers to say on the Morning Line on Sat that racing is the only sport that uses the whip is utter nonsense. Er, showjumping, dressage, eventing, driving ???? Not to mention spurs, horrendous bits - polo and SJ especially. Come on Mr Owers, don't pick on racing because its the biggest equine spectator sport, open your eyes.

He was awful - god help the WHW if he's at the helm - he's clueless.
Not only did he did he say it was the only equine sport where the whip was used he said that marking the horse meant the skin was broken, which is utter nonsense.

Never mind, the donations ensure he's got a nice car to drive around in whilst spouting a load of rubbish.

 

[Caledonia]

My question, still unanswered, remains: why would it be unacceptable for all whip "encouragement" to be removed completely and the race result determined, on a level playing field (so to speak), by which horse ran the fastest on its own merits, being ridden as normal but without whipping? Yes, the result might well be different - though probably not that much different, given the apparently minor role of whipping.

Because the whip is needed to keep the horses straight, even on the run in, and that returns to your previous point, where it's hard to differentiate between encouragement and control.

 

[fburton]

Because the whip is needed to keep the horses straight, even on the run in, and that returns to your previous point, where it's hard to differentiate between encouragement and control.

Can't that be done without striking behind the saddle? I thought the steering was done by letting the horse see the whip on one side or the other, or by striking the shoulder.

Which leads to another question (sorry, I'm just trying to understand all the issues involved): how is the whip able to steer if it can only produce a sound? I can't see how a sound coming from way back (especially amongst all the other sounds going on) is going to have any significant effect on a horse's direction.

 

[fburton]

Something to ponder - the NH horses are clipped and fine-skinned - if they were hit at all hard they would mark, but that is a very rare occurrence - I think there were 20 cases overall last year of marked horses. Thats out of tens of thousands in training. I've marked a freshly clipped (napping) horse with a whip with one smack. I'm not cruel to my horses, it was a safety issue.

If the whip really was abusive, far more of these animals would be marked.

I don't see how a whip that can't hurt (person or horse) can leave any mark worthy of concern. Could it leave a mark on a person? Or is it the case that the whip can hurt but it depends on how it is used?

 

[Caledonia]

Can't that be done without striking behind the saddle? I thought the steering was done by letting the horse see the whip on one side or the other, or by striking the shoulder.

Which leads to another question (sorry, I'm just trying to understand all the issues involved): how is the whip able to steer if it can only produce a sound? I can't see how a sound coming from way back (especially amongst all the other sounds going on) is going to have any significant effect on a horse's direction.

To me this is like trying to explain rising trot. I've ridden enough of all sorts of horses to understand why it works, although it's difficult to put into words. I've given it my best shot, but it seems like you are being deliberately obtuse. If I recall you were very anti-racing in previous threads?

Do you ride?

 

[Caledonia]

I don't see how a whip that can't hurt (person or horse) can leave any mark worthy of concern. Could it leave a mark on a person? Or is it the case that the whip can hurt but it depends on how it is used?

I'm getting the impression you are not very knowledgeable about horses. Horses can mark with clippers, they don't hurt them.

 

[fburton]

To me this is like trying to explain rising trot. I've ridden enough of all sorts of horses to understand why it works, although it's difficult to put into words. I've given it my best shot,

I'm grateful for that - thanks.

but it seems like you are being deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm not - just a bit stubborn in trying to get to the truth.

If I recall you were very anti-racing in previous threads?

I don't think I am very anti-racing. I used to be a great fan of racing (though not betting) but then went off it somewhat.

Do you ride?

I used to quite a lot, yes. Not these days though due to lower back pain.

 

[Caledonia]

I'm grateful for that - thanks.


No, I'm not - just a bit stubborn in trying to get to the truth.


I don't think I am very anti-racing. I used to be a great fan of racing (though not betting) but then went off it somewhat.


I used to quite a lot, yes. Not these days though due to lower back pain.

Did you ever use either spurs or a whip?

 

[fburton]

I'm getting the impression you are not very knowledgeable about horses. Horses can mark with clippers, they don't hurt them.

Well then that would not be a correct impression. I thought we were talking about marks that were a genuine concern i.e. weals, not simply a rearrangement of the hair or a wet streak. If the marks you were referring to - the 20 cases - were of the latter type, I don't see why there would be any fuss made about them.

 

[fburton]

Did you ever use either spurs or a whip?

A whip, yes, of course; spurs, seldom. I also carry a whip if I am leading a horse in hand in a situation where it is prudent and/or expected to carry one, e.g. at a show or leading a horse up a busy main road.

 

[Caledonia]

Well then that would not be a correct impression. I thought we were talking about marks that were a genuine concern i.e. weals, not simply a rearrangement of the hair or a wet streak. If the marks you were referring to - the 20 cases - were of the latter type, I don't see why there would be any fuss made about them.

I have owned and seen other (fine skinned) horses whose skin will 'weal' ie raise, where the edge of the clippers have been. Would you class that as a welfare issue? Or is purely the use of the word 'whip' that you seem fixated on?

To answer your other post, I wondered about your knowledge, simply because your questions seem to bear no relation to anyone who has had experience of the riding of large fully fit horses in a professional capacity, and how the horse operates as a performance animal.

Perhaps you should address your questions to jockeys such as Richard Hughes or Ruby Walsh to put your mind at rest as I seem to be confusing you?

 

[PaddyMonty]

OP -
1) To use one persons oppinion and claim it is the rest of the world is a far stretch.
2) To claim that jockeys do not have the ability to count to six given all the other things going on is doing them a dis-service. F1 drivers have as much if not more to do for almost 2 hours, not a few minutes and they manage to keep concentration whilst multitasking.
3) The opinion of the great unwashed public does matter. It is the money they spend betting that supports horse racing. You may not agree with their feelings but the should not be ignored.
4) Dramatics such as "the end of racing" really dont do you any favours. Racing will continue as long as it produces a revenue stream for the gov. Hunting does not so is a much easier target.
5) Be thankfull the great unwashed are focussing on what happens on the track whilst remaining blissfully ignorant about the real issue off the track.

 

[KautoStar1]

JunoXV

I think jockeys can count, but I think after say a 3m chase, when you are riding hard to the line, to recall exactly whether you've used the whip 7 or 8 times is quite a call, bearing in mind a slap down the shoulder counts. And to then be punished so heavily.
I don't think its fair to use F1 as a comparative. F1 drivers have a multitude of electronic equipment telling them what they've done and what the car is doing, along with someone in their earpiece giving advice. A jockey just has his own judgement and skill to rely on and he's trying to encourage 500kg of horse to give its best effort.
The proper and effective use of the whip is being confused with abuse. For instance, you could strike a horse around the head once and that would clearly be unacceptable and would be punished hard. However, you could give a horse 9 smacks, as Ruby did at Aintree on Sat, and now that is also classed as abusive use of the whip. What's the difference between 8 & 9 ?

As for the unwashed public, the people who prop up racing - the punter on course, the TV viewer and those in the betting shops don't appear to have a negative view of the whip. People like me, for instance.
The rest of the public, unwashed or otherwise, don't seem to know or care. The storm was whipped up (pardon the pun) because of the Grand National. And the bigger issue there was the death of 2 horses. its all got blown out of proportion, helped along by that fat oaf John McCririck, who seems to have his own personal agenda.
I don't anyone who has been asked by the BHA what they think of the whip in racing.

but I do agree, the welfare of horses after racing is a far bigger issue that the BHA and WHW etc should be focusing on.

 

[Little Squirrel]

OP -

5) Be thankfull the great unwashed are focussing on what happens on the track whilst remaining blissfully ignorant about the real issue off the track.

What issue may that be then Juno?

Also big difference between an F1 car and a horse, cars don't have brains they can't think for themselves and have their own opinions so there is no relevance between the two what so ever.

 

[scarymare]

Hmmm, I'm no pink fluffy parellite (sp) but way I see it is that racing is struggling, less people are coming to courses etc etc. As Joe Public does not understand the whole whip/danger/lazy horse/backing off horse thing then in order to keep the sport popular this kind of legislation is necessary (if only for PR reasons). Lets just hope the lunatics don't escape from the asylum long enough to ban completely.......

 

[Caledonia]

OP -
1) To use one persons oppinion and claim it is the rest of the world is a far stretch.

Unfortunately it is what the ROTW think - HK is one of the premier global racing centres, and the author refers to disquiet from French and Irish jockeys in the article.

To claim that jockeys do not have the ability to count to six given all the other things going on is doing them a dis-service. F1 drivers have as much if not more to do for almost 2 hours, not a few minutes and they manage to keep concentration whilst multitasking.

Not comparable - cars (unless they have a catastrophic failure) do what the driver tells them, horses are neither 100% responsive or predictable.
It's not doing a jockey a disservice at all - it's comparable to asking a driver to only change gear so many times in a race. Changing gear, like the use of the whip, is instinctive.

The opinion of the great unwashed public does matter. It is the money they spend betting that supports horse racing. You may not agree with their feelings but the should not be ignored.

Those fussing about the whip use have nothing to do with racing. They don't bet except on the National, so racing can happily live without their annual £1 and misguided opinions.

Dramatics such as "the end of racing" really dont do you any favours. Racing will continue as long as it produces a revenue stream for the gov. Hunting does not so is a much easier target.

And have you researched that? Because it's precisely this kind of uneducated outrage that has already got jumps racing banned in some regions in Australia.

Be thankfull the great unwashed are focussing on what happens on the track whilst remaining blissfully ignorant about the real issue off the track.

I assume you include all horses in that? Ex SJ, ex event, native ponies being exported live for meat, people breeding from their old lame mares because they can't think what else to do with them and a wee foal sounds like a plan?
Racing is no worse than any other section of the equine world, just more transparent.

 

[RunToEarth]

QR
The racing industry is under a lot of pressure, I see it as just as vulnerable. Whilst I am no expert (and not professing to be, Stencilface) my housemate at uni last year wrote her dissertation on the racing industry, specifically the diversification of racecourses following the decline in participation, the industry really is struggling, rules such as this do little to help.
I have never raced, so I cannot be dead on the money, but from what I have been told, the entire concept of the padded whip lies with the sound more than anything else.
I find it interesting reading about the marks made by a whip, it is genuinely something I had never considered before. I have marked my coloured before with not the most tremendous force, he is thin skinned but I would guess not as much as a TB, and my OH has marked his pointer with little more than a tickle out on exercise before, so I feel there is a lot of strength in that argument.
I really found the patronising of jockeys' being able to count the whip strokes very uncalled for, I can't even begin to imagine how hard it must be for them to hold back something so instinctive.

 

[Elbie]

I think it's a positive thing they are being seen by the general public to be reviewing the use of the whip. However, the rules and bans they have now imposed are flipping ridiculous.

This has already been said but how can you not differentiate the use of a whip in different length races? That is absurd. Why is it the same use for 2 times the distance?

Secondly, how can they count a tap on the shoulder as a hit? Its hard to actually do more than a tap down the shoulder if your holding the reins. I think they should just count backwards hits, ie behind the shoulder.

 

[Fantasy_World]

Is the real issue off the track is connected to what happens to all the horses that don't make the racing grade, break down or are simply not good enough?
If so then unfortunately these new whip rules will just add to this problem as more and more horses are found to be unsuitable on both codes.
Some people argue that having no whip will encourage a level playing field. WRONG!
ALL horses are different. Some racehorses like to front run and can either be a one paced galloper, ie they give their all from the start and try to burn the rest off. Some can front run and have a turn of foot where it matters, either in the last few hundred yards or in the last furlong and catch out napping jockeys, believing the horse will stop in front ( have seen this happen on the flat and jumps). Others like to race up with the pace and accelerate when needed, while others are hold up horses and once they are let out idle when they hit the front or empty quickly ( usually seen with horses with palate problems, unfit horses, or trying an extended trip for the first time).
All these horses have on days and off days.
Some are genuine and others are not so.
Often this does not come to light until after a few runs or when a horse goes up in grade after beating lesser individuals and they they have to dig deep to score. Some will have the desire to win and others will throw in the towel or are simply not good enough at that level, trip or ground.
This is when pacifiers come into play, visors, eye shields, hoods and blinkers. As well as other tack gadgets of nosebands and assorted bits.
The whip is used not only to steer and correct horses that veer off a true line either due to a 'green' run, because they are under pressure or due to being intimidated by other runners ( either by barging, cornering falling etc).
It is also used to help encourage horses to go forward.
Horses that would otherwise not have won races have done so because of the whip.
Many owners and breeders are not interested in being second, third or even fourth.
They are in the game to win.
Whether that win is to help pay back some of the buying and training costs or to enhance future paddock/potential depends on if the horse is entire and what races it is actually taking part in, ie handicaps/sellers or grade or group races.
Now remove the potential of an un-genuine or quirky horse to win because the jockey has used up their quota in either trying to keep the horse up with the pace, or straight, or even to make sure it jumps obstacles cleanly and to not interfere or cause a danger to other horses and jockeys in the race, and what do you have?
A horse that is no longer earning its keep. The owner cannot afford to keep the horse in training any more because the little prize money that the horse may be lucky enough to win because the field cut up to few runners or there were many that fell or pulled up, is outweighed by the thousands it is costing to keep the horse.
Cue what then happens to this horse that is both quirky and lazy and that in previous years would have had a better chance of winning a race than it did before the new count rule?
The trainer in question now has around 2o or so of these type of horses in their yard. He/she cannot make them win or pay their way no matter how hard they try. One of these horses was an amazing staying hurdler and was embarking on a chasing career and had potential. However it was a lazy brute and even blinkers didn't make it go any faster. In the past jockeys had been made to work hard in a race to get the horse's head in front and yet it did respond to whip urgings both in jumping and when approaching the run in.
This horse drew a blank in its start to chasing registering just one place in 6 starts.
The owner has the option of moving to a cheaper trainer which is further away but feels that they will still not get the horse to win as the jockeys have used up their quota by the time they reach the run in after racing for nearly 3 miles.
Luckily for this horse, its owner has a conscience and a genuine concern for the horse. They have their own land ( daughter has horses) and so it is retired gracefully to become a hack on the farm.
This horse though was lucky. Unfortunately ten of the others that left the yard ended up going to the sales with mixed results. Some ended up moving trainers/owners, others as hacks and ROR. However for a couple of them their sale was to be their last and they ended up going to the slaughterer.
The trainer after losing 20 owners is now struggling and because they are already a small yard they can no longer afford the 40 box yard. Currently looking for a smaller stables to run but there is already talk of a few other owners leaving and moving horses to elsewhere. If this was the happen the trainer is at a loss what to do next. Do they move to somewhere smaller, meaning the whole family has to upsticks as well? Do they look for vacancies at yards for assistant trainers and try and encourage owners to go with them. Or do they after almost ten years in the game decide it is no longer worth the early mornings, headaches, stress, money and having only one proper holiday during their time as a trainer.
Of course the above is just a story, it is not real.
To some it may seem a complete exaggeration.
But why would it be?
Yes jockeys, trainers and owners can adapt.
But at what cost?
What cost to the horses now in training and those about to start in the forthcoming years.
Owners who are budget owners and can only afford low grade handicappers/sellers finding that their horses can no longer win races like they used to.
Mass disposal of horses. Maybe not all at once. But mark my word it will happen.
Trainers and owners will be looking to buy horses that are neither lazy nor quirky.
The days of the old fashioned 'when the mud is flying' staying chasers will be gone.
No one will want a horse that may need to be whipped in order to win, because they are a 'plodder'.
At first glance these whip rules may not seem as though they will cause much harm to racing. But mark my word they WILL!
What may seem insignificant to some won't to others.
Unless this ruling is reviewed and changed, not only the count, but also the bans/fines of jockeys then it will change the future of racing in the UK. For many it will also mark the death of it too.

 

[fburton]

I think that the whip rules were updated in line with general welfare upgrades over the decades, which included introducing "whip training" following excessive use.
In the 1990's horses were routinely inspected after racing for whip damage, and jocks and trainers were taken to task, at the time M Pipe responded by NOT clipping horses bellies.
Jockeys who flouted whip rules had to change their ways, or end up getting banned, AP McCoy took note, and changed his ideas and his whip technique.
The rules were introduced and refined, now we have a situation with "good for welfare" rules, but in practice the rules are causing major problems, as was predictable, and inevitable.

This is helpful info, thanks. I haven't kept up with developments since my 1980s racing-obsessed period. Do you think that there is an argument to row back a bit on welfare in order to ameliorate some of those predicted problems?

 

[KautoStar1]

Oh, Fantesy World, you are so so so right.
The long term effect to racing and therefore the TB in general is very worrying.
I am penning my e-mail of disgust to the BHA right now.

 

[fburton]

I have owned and seen other (fine skinned) horses whose skin will 'weal' ie raise, where the edge of the clippers have been. Would you class that as a welfare issue? Or is purely the use of the word 'whip' that you seem fixated on?

It's not me who saying it's a welfare issue - it's the BHA! I'm just trying to clarify some assertions which seem inconsistent to me - such as using a whip that only creates a sound more than a certain number of times should be considered excessive. That just doesn't make any sense to me - unless it can do more than just making a sound.

To answer your other post, I wondered about your knowledge, simply because your questions seem to bear no relation to anyone who has had experience of the riding of large fully fit horses in a professional capacity, and how the horse operates as a performance animal.

As far as riding is concerned, I am (or was) mostly just a happy hacker who was also motivated to learn and improve by taking regular lessons over many years. I did own and ride a non-racing TB for 17 years, and have ridden ex-racehorses in Malaysia - though not in a professional capacity. My riding experience is admittedly much less than my non-ridden, so I am more dependent on the experience of others for riding-specific info. I wouldn't say that not being a professional rider makes me a complete ignoramus though, as much as some would doubtless like to put that label on me!

Perhaps you should address your questions to jockeys such as Richard Hughes or Ruby Walsh to put your mind at rest as I seem to be confusing you?

I can assure you I am not confused. However, I would be very glad for the opportunity to put my naive questions to the jockeys you mentioned.

 

[fburton]

Some people argue that having no whip will encourage a level playing field. WRONG!

I don't buy your argument - sorry. It would be a level playing field, but one that favours different types of horses. Precisely the same number of horses would win under different rules, just not all the same horses! It would mean the genuine types would stand a better chance, and the 'lazy' ones would be penalized relatively speaking. You have explained that. What is not clear to me (at least not yet) is why this would be a bad thing for racing overall. How is the fate of the horses that don't win under current rules different from the fate of the horses that wouldn't win under no-whip-for-acceleration rules? All the arguments about owners and breeders are not interested in being second etc. would still apply, surely?

Unless this ruling is reviewed and changed, not only the count, but also the bans/fines of jockeys then it will change the future of racing in the UK. For many it will also mark the death of it too.

Did racing die in Norway where there was a whip ban? If not, how exactly does the situation differ between Norway and UK? Are you talking about a death in the sense of racing being catastrophically reduced in terms of activity, or in the minds of traditionalists who have a fixed idea of 'how things should be'?

 

[Caledonia]

I can assure you I am not confused. However, I would be very glad for the opportunity to put my naive questions to the jockeys you mentioned.

Nothing to stop you - they're both accessible. Google is your friend.

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

I'm impressed that this has gone on for 9 pages!

 

[Little Squirrel]

Yes Fburton I think you should give Ruby a call. I'm sure he'd delighted to hear your point of view!!

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

Ask Peter Scudamore - he'll tell you in no uncertain terms what he thinks of the new whips rules.

 

[ISHmad]

I couldn't give a stuff what China or anyone else thinks about the new rules about the whip and the penalties associated with over using one. To my mind this is a good thing and I'm glad these rules have been implemented. Its up to the jockey if they choose to break those rules and get penalised as a result but I'd much rather that they didn't whip the horses full stop.