Whip use by jockeys

1 furlong = 1/8th of a mile (220 yards), so if the horses are galloping at 40mph, how many (or should I say few) seconds is it going to cover that 1/8th of a mile ? (I used the 40mph as this has been brought up as an argument against changing the rules).
So, WHY is there the NEED to hit the horse that many times in the last few seconds of the race ?
It's ALL about ££££££££££, isn't it ?
 
I am unable to form an opinion on the number of times a horse should or should not be hit, but I do think that the tougher penalties are an excellent idea. So many jockeys flouted the rules with no real punishment, they are bound to think twice about it now!
 
LittleWildOne said:
1 furlong = 1/8th of a mile (220 yards), so if the horses are galloping at 40mph, how many (or should I say few) seconds is it going to cover that 1/8th of a mile ? (I used the 40mph as this has been brought up as an argument against changing the rules).
So, WHY is there the NEED to hit the horse that many times in the last few seconds of the race ?
It's ALL about ££££££££££, isn't it ?
Click to expand...

Yes - and no. It's also about safety. IMHO, the numer of times the whip is used in the last furlong is not the issue - the WAY it is used - and the reason for its use - is! But the rules DON'T differentiate between an almighty whack - and a slap down the shoulder. And - depending on the quality of the horses in the race - and track conditions - and which way the wind is blowing, the final furlong will take ABOUT 10 seconds in a short sprint race and probably at LEAST double that in a steeplechase.

Say you're in the final 100 metres, the winning post in sight and ALL cameras trained on you. Your horse starts to veer - about to cannon into a horse coming alongside (which would lose you the race for interference, at best, and cause a serious accident at worst!) But you stop - and think - "Ah-ha - I've used up the 5 whack quota - I can't do ANYTHING to straighten him so I'll just shut my eyes and pray!" And if you're lucky, you wake up in the ambulance and there isn't one (or more) horses behind a screen!

If a horse is fading fast, and you give him 3 almighty whacks to try to hang on for 4th place, that's too many! If a horse is veering repeatedly and you give him 6 or 8 slaps down the shoulder to keep him straight - that could save your life, his life and the lives of other jockeys and horses!

These new rules have very little to do with horse welfare - and everything to do with silencing the AR lobby and providing some good PR! It won't work!! The AR lobby won't be satisfied until there are NO whips, jumps racing is banned - and then they'll be after flat racing too!

And when horses are racing inconsistently or being injured (or worse) because the jockeys are too busy counting the number of times they use the whip - and avoiding using the whip when needed - then the £££££££ comes in. Owners will be unhappy - and some will get out (more racehorses on the scrap heap!) Punters and racegoers will be unhappy (less money coming into the industry!)

The rules DID need tightening - but this wasn't a smart way of doing it!
 
As soon as I saw the new rules it was obvious there would be trouble, so I can't understand why the professional jockeys association [PJA] allowed them to go through without saying anything, or at least protesting if they were not in agreement with them.
 
JanetGeorge is right - this is NOT a welfare issue, but a public opinion issue. Racing desperately wants Joe Bloggs to be involved in the sport, but Joe Bloggs doesn't like the horses being hit, it looks bad. Rather than try to educate Joe Bloggs about the use of the whip and what it is made of, they have done this. However, I'm firmly of the opinion that if Joe Bloggs doesn't like hitting horses with a piece of foam, he's going to be mightily offended by the sight of a horse breaking down, or falling, or being 'forced' into the stalls.

Banning the whip completely is a massive safety concern. And banning it from being used for reasons other than safety is daft - what if you have a sulky horse who decides he'd rather stay by the stables today then jump off; give him a couple of smacks before the first, he warms to the task and wins going away. What a waste of everyones time and money if you couldn't give him a couple of whacks and he pulled up as a result.

If they ban the whip entirely, we should also ban the whip and spurs from showjumping and eventing. I hear cries of 'that's a safety issue!' - well, same goes for racing. When I see tired horses going as fast as they can towards home at Badminton, and their spurred riders kicking them to go faster, I think to myself 'What is better? A dig in the ribs or a smack with a foam stick?' yet no one says anything, of course.

I'm all for keeping horses safe, and there should OF COURSE be rules for jockeys who think it is acceptable to hit a horse too many times. But with these new rules, the punishment does not fit the crime. I've seen showjumpers hitting their horses A LOT more than 6 times with a 'proper' whip and nothing being done, yet yesterday Soumillon hit his horse 6 times with a foam racing stick (bear in mind, the limit is 7!) and gets a ban and his £50,000 taken away.
 
teagreen said:
JanetGeorge is right - this is NOT a welfare issue, but a public opinion issue. Racing desperately wants Joe Bloggs to be involved in the sport, but Joe Bloggs doesn't like the horses being hit, it looks bad. Rather than try to educate Joe Bloggs about the use of the whip and what it is made of, they have done this.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've not seen or heard one word about why jockeys have a whip, or what the whips are made of (or if there has been anything said, it's been said quietly and not repeated over and over)
 
I wish joe public would go away and wake up to greyhound racing - the welfare standards of this sport are a million miles worse than for horse racing, and the fall out rate is far far higher - when i was in country durham a chap was being prosecuted for having 10,000 greyhound skelatons (sp) in his back garden.... I often wonder how many more places like this exist.

Poor poor dogs.
 
As JG and others have said, this shouldn't be a black and white "numbers" issue - there is a huge difference between slapping a horse to keep it straight, and beating an exhausted horse that can give no more.

Overuse or misuse of the whip should be strictly regulated but judged on individual circumstances, rather than looking at "x" number of hits as acceptable and "y" number not.
 
Gingerwitch said:
I wish joe public would go away and wake up to greyhound racing - the welfare standards of this sport are a million miles worse than for horse racing, and the fall out rate is far far higher - when i was in country durham a chap was being prosecuted for having 10,000 greyhound skelatons (sp) in his back garden.... I often wonder how many more places like this exist.

Poor poor dogs.
Click to expand...

Nothing new there I`m afraid,but then racing at the lower end is far from squeaky clean..people in glass houses..or are you just trying to throw the scent?:confused:
 
These new rules for whip use have not been a positive move for either the sport, jockey punishment or indeed horse welfare.
It is not the number of times that a whip is used that should be regulated but its severity and not giving the horse time to respond to its use.
Having said that racing whips are very, very mild and more so than conventional whips. I can categorically state that as I indeed have one and do use one when either schooling or hacking, and no I don't ride racehorses.
I have never marked my horse by using this whip, however I have with a conventional whip, even when using with more force than the conventional.
It was accidental why the horse indeed got marked however it did prove that conventional whips are not as cushioned or soft as racing whips.
I admit that I don't enjoy seeing tired horses being whipped in a race, however there are horses which are lazy and not putting it all in. Aside from using a whip during a race to help jump a fence/hurdle or for correcting a drift/running out, whips are indeed used to a good effect to try and maximise the effort from a horse.
I have personally never seen a racehorse return home marked after a race. This has been on both the flat and jumps. However the horses seen were either viewed on tv or else up and close in the placed positions in the winners enclosure which I used to frequent as part of a former job.
I have though seen two horses collapse and die from possible heart attacks as they were likely not fit enough to take part in the race and ran above their own fitness and paid the price.
Also seen a horse with not very nice saddle and girth sores, the officials did have a word with this trainer though when the marks were seen. The marks didn't look that fresh as though caused on that day and looked as though they were there and aggravated by riding. To me personally that was unacceptable.
I think there are far more pressing issues in racing that need addressing ahead of how many times a jockey hits a horse. The PC AR brigade should be getting their teeth into those and butt out of the policing of jockeys.
Matters like I witnessed with the saddle sores, which is a welfare issue. Along with the dehydration of racehorses ( at least one trainer was found guilty of this in the last twelve months), more inspections of racing yards/trainers to ensure welfare needs are met. Have known of horses that have been rehomed via trainers ( some well known) which have not been kept in the best of health and discarded.
More research collated into the lives of racehorses after leaving their racing career and policing of this to ensure that more racehorses are found suitable homes or else pts quickly, rather than frequenting the sale rings.
More tighter breeding regulations to help end the production of inferior racing stock which we all no doubt know where they end up.
These are the real matters that should be being dealt with by the BHA.
 
What the Fluffy Bunny Hugging Brigade forget is that every single time these jockey's go out on the horses they are risking their life. They need that silly piece of foam to give them more of a chance of survival. If you have a horse that is hanging across the track but you can't use your stick as you have reached your limit then you are going to get done for careless or dangerous riding. You stand more of a chance of injuring your horse, yourself and those around you for the sake of a couple of smacks of foam. What if the horse threatens to jam on or run down a fence? Do you just sit there and let it happen thus causing danger and interferance to those around you? It's an utter load of twoddle and needs to be thought through properly!

I don't agree in the slightest that jockeys should have their riding fee and prize money taken away from them. They get the riding fee for getting the horse to the start and under starters orders - no whips inolved in that. As for the prize money - Cristophe Soumillon had £55k taken off of him yesterday and was given a 10 day whip ban. Utterly ridiculous. As he himself said, British Racing is turning into a joke.

The BHA need to stop pandering to the Fluffy Bunny Huggers and start listening to the industry professionals.

If you want some serious whip abuse then go and watch show jumping and eventing - they beat their horses out of frustration more often than not with proper, stinging, hard whips.
 
Laafet said:
....... Horse racing is the only sport where you get punished for trying too hard and not trying hard enough.
Click to expand...

A strange anomaly, but quite true. It's also true that this is an exercise in PR, not horse welfare.

When we have an argument, where both sides make equally valid points, I fail to see, how without compromise, there will be any way forward. The only point which I would offer, would be that the authorities, place the problem squarely in the court of the professional jockeys, and ask for their opinions as to how the public image of whip use is to be addressed.

Soumilon(sp), had his £50k winning purse withdrawn. That was a crippling and damaging over reaction, and to return to Laafet's point, it will discourage jockeys from giving of their best.

Alec.
 
the trouble is the BHA have got themselves caught up in this whole issue of 'public perception' and instead of educating the public, they've chosen a far easier route and that is to make jockeys more culpable for crimes most of them were not committing anyway (some yes, but deal with them appropriately). As far as I can see, there have been no reported incidents (in the last 12 months ?) of horses being physically injured by the whip.
That is not to say that use of the whip should not be regulated and monitored, but it needs to be taken into context of the race, the horse, the jockey, the conditions etc etc etc. It seems all of the jockeys who have been banned / fined so far, have used their whip the permitted number of times, but unfortunately too many times within the final furlong. And then they've been banned and had their fees and prize money taken away. I wonder if that is actually legal ?
Its a badly thought out rule, badly implemented and has done enormous damage to racing over the last week.

The BHA only have themselves to blame. They seem more interested in keeping the RSPCA and AR happy than understanding the needs of the racing industry, which actually pays their wages. On Grand National Day, the procedures were already in place for jockeys to dismount at the finish line and for horses to be watered and monitored on the track before returning to the winners enclosure / paddock. A great idea, promoting horse welfare first. But did they promote that fact. NOPE. Not until after the race when people were assuming that the horses were being dismounted because they were too exhausted to go any further, not because that was always the plan. How hard can it be, in those circumstances, to print it in the programme and have it announced on the BBC during their live coverage. Talk about missing a prime opportunity to educate the masses.


Furthermore, and this really really irritates me, that fat oaf John McCririck is there on main stream TV shouting his mouth off about cruelty and incompetent jockeys who can't count and aren't fit to be race riding, blah blah blah. If he loves racing so much, why isn't he speaking in positive terms, why isn't he trying to educate the public on how the whip is used and why. This is a man who's made his money from racing and has been given his public voice via the likes of Chan 4 racing. Yet, he seems intent on bring racing into disrepute. And its funny that his anti-whip tirade seems to have taken force since his disastrous appearance of Big Brother (what a load of *****e that is) and his subsequent removal from Chan 4 on a regular basis. I wonder if all this anti whip is more about bolstering his own public perception. A man who calls his wife the Booby and publicly announces that she's only there for his sexual gratification and to cook his dinner is not, IMHO, the voice of reason. Last week they had him on breakfast telly, spouting his rubbish, with Mark Pitman in the 'for' camp and he was about as much use as a kick in the head anyway, and up against motor mouth Mac he had no chance. So public perception even worse. Well done. Tremendous work Mr McCririck.

Thank god for Frankel this weekend. A real positive story for racing , another great PR opportunity, but nothing on the main or sporting news.

Sorry, rant over :(
 
Agree that this is all about PR and has been so badly managed it's untrue. If they are going to fine a jockey their fee, then the equivalent fine should apply to the trainer and the owner so that no-one benefits from a win achieved through perceived overuse of the whip. It's incredibly unfair that all the responsibility lies on the jockey, who get's all the blame, loses his fee and yet owners and trainers retain theirs.

I think it's a ridiculous rule that needs removing and rethinking. Absolutely, no horse should be whipped and whipped, but I do not think that the whip should be banned at all - rather the sanctions for those who obviously misuse it should be consistent, fair and properly applied across the board.
 
What are the public to be educated in though? Why horses need to or must be whipped to run? :confused: I've said this before but the image of horses being whipped is with us on TV from birth to death and is part of our culture and runs deep in some parts. Perhaps some of the supposedly un educated public wish to challenge this? I'm afraid the days of the horse world hiding behind "you don't understand" are numbered.

Just to add, from the bits I've gleaned the new rule does seem to have been badly managed and thought out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KautoStar1 said:
Furthermore, and this really really irritates me, that fat oaf John McCririck is there on main stream TV shouting his mouth off about cruelty and incompetent jockeys who can't count and aren't fit to be race riding, blah blah blah....This is a man who's made his money from racing and has been given his public voice via the likes of Chan 4 racing. Yet, he seems intent on bring racing into disrepute... since his disastrous appearance of Big Brother... I wonder if all this anti whip is more about bolstering his own public perception. A man who calls his wife the Booby and publicly announces that she's only there for his sexual gratification and to cook his dinner is not, IMHO, the voice of reason.
Click to expand...

Well said. Before the big brother disaster I actually liked and respected the man. Now, well, what a loser!

frostyfingers said:
Agree that this is all about PR and has been so badly managed it's untrue. If they are going to fine a jockey their fee, then the equivalent fine should apply to the trainer and the owner so that no-one benefits from a win achieved through perceived overuse of the whip. It's incredibly unfair that all the responsibility lies on the jockey, who get's all the blame, loses his fee and yet owners and trainers retain theirs.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. I think if a race has been won with overuse of the whip, well then that first place should be forefited, plain and simple. That would soon sort things out, surely?

I'm afraid the days of the horse world hiding behind "you don't understand" are numbered.
Click to expand...

Agree. Look at parelli's disaster with Catwalk. If "you don't understand" doesn't work with the rest of the horse world (including people from within his sector!) it sure shouldn't work on the general public.
 
Last edited:
I never said anything like 'you don't understand'. I think if we are going to continue with the whip rules then we should do it for all equestrian sports then. Dressage without those long flicky whips that hurt a hell of a lot more than a racing whip hmmmm that would go down well. I was at both a BD event and a hunter trial this weekend and saw horses hit more than the number allowed by the BHA, one horse was struck beind the saddle around 8 - 10 times between the penultimate and last fence. Now is that any less cruel than a professional jockey helping his horse to achieve its best?! Anyway I am going to step away from the argument, I agree that there need to be rules but as we know horses are individuals and the one size fits all whip rule does not take into account length of race, age/experience of said horse or jockey.
 
The point was made on the beeb on sat that for a 3rd offence the jockey is banned for 6 months under these stupid new rules and how are they then to feed their families and live. The punishment outweighs the offence totally atm. Hughes if he doesn't stop riding will be banned for 6 months if he counts to 6 instead of 5 for a 3rd time.

Another valid point made by Soumion in his interview was that racing is an international sport and should have international rules. Atm the whips rules are very variable (believe it is 3 smacks in Norway, 7 now in the UK, don't know the limits elsewhere)

When you consider the fines and bans given by the FEI for horse 'doping' are around 3k and 3 months which in my view is much more serious this brings the whole fiasco into perspective.

Good luck to the jockeys in getting the rule and punishments modified today. If the rules aren't changed I hope that Soumion takes his case to the Court of Arbitration in Sport.
 
Laafet said:
I never said anything like 'you don't understand'. I think if we are going to continue with the whip rules then we should do it for all equestrian sports then. Dressage without those long flicky whips that hurt a hell of a lot more than a racing whip hmmmm that would go down well. I was at both a BD event and a hunter trial this weekend and saw horses hit more than the number allowed by the BHA, one horse was struck beind the saddle around 8 - 10 times between the penultimate and last fence. Now is that any less cruel than a professional jockey helping his horse to achieve its best?! Anyway I am going to step away from the argument, I agree that there need to be rules but as we know horses are individuals and the one size fits all whip rule does not take into account length of race, age/experience of said horse or jockey.
Click to expand...

At the risk of being labelled your follower!! :D, again you are right.

Stewards, in the main highly experienced people, are there to monitor the conduct of jockeys, and importantly, the condition of horses. Abuse is not acceptable, and that's that, but it takes the eye of the experienced, to differentiate between abuse, and a horse being encouraged to give its best.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that it all comes down to the conduct of the jockey, and such conduct is there to be policed by race stewards. To put whip restrictions on the caring and thoughtful, for the simple reason that they've been lumped together with the thoughtless, is wrong.

I agree with others, in that McCrick is a buffoon. His occasionally stupid tirades, do little to support the industry which he claims to view with a passion. The man's a ****ing idiot, and a damaging one at that.

Alec.
 
When i heard McCririck interviewed on this subject the other week the logic with which he supported the new rules was "Well you can't hit your wife any more and you can't hit your dog so why should you be able to hit a racehorse....."

Aside from being a totally foolish and misinformed statement there was a distinct hint in his tone that he thought it was not entirely a good thing that you can't legally hit your wife or your dog....

I agree entirely with JanetGeorge's post on this. The rule is stupid, and done for entirely the wrong reasons. People who dislike racing will not suddenly decide it is ok because the number of whips per race has been reduced. They will still dislike it for the starting stalls, the horse accidents, and the percieved "using" of animals for entertainment.

Personally I think the racing industry is at unsustainable levels and needs to contract somewhat and the authorities are desparately trying to preserve it as it stands with their attempts to appease the public.

What happens to ex-racehorses is a far greater welfare concern than the difference between 6 or 7 smacks with a racing whip.
 
My comments are general and were not specifically in response to any comments on this thread.

I am unable to comment on John McCririck without resorting to unhelpful, derogatory descriptors. :cool: :rolleyes:
Needless to say I can't even watch him never mind listen to anything that comes out of his mouth.
 
Yes, Mr McCririck did indeed use the wife / dog analogy in a tone that suggested it was also wrong to not be able to hit your wife or dog, causing me to throw my ready to be put on tights (well hold ups actually ;) ) at the telly and scream "you fat ignorant ******". I was tempted to e-mail Daybreak to complain, but thought better of it. What's the point, that ignorant moran Adrian Chiles is just as bad. After interviewing 2 surgeons who had spent hours operating on conjoined twins, he stupidly told them that they must be very good at DIY. Honestly, what's the point when you are dealing with people who have the intelligence level of a peanut !!

But getting back to the point in hand, I don't think anyone advocates that hitting any animal to cause pain and fear is acceptable. but everyone who rides, knows that the whip is a useful tool to back up your leg aid and as an encouragement to ask for additional effort. the skill is knowing how and when to use that tool. Most jockeys are excellent horsemen and the likes of Richard Hughes is exceptional in his skill at getting the best out of his mounts while making as little use of the whip as he can. Some jockeys are a bit too whip happy and they need to be dealt with appropriately.
Actually, maybe everyone who rides doesn't know that its a tool to be used appropriately. there are too many riders - professional and otherwise who swing their whips about wily nilly. And spurs - I see people at unaffiliated dressage using spurs to ride prelim 4. For gods sake.

The thing is, racing needs to move with the times, like all sports, to be able to compete, but the general public have to accept that there are rules and regulations that go with racing, that are integral to the sport and the whip is one of them - used properly it ensures maximum effort and control of 1/2 tonne of galloping horse. God help the poor jockey coming down to Beachers for the 2nd time, who needs to his whip to ensure his horse takes on the fence, doesn't veer etc and thinks ****, in 4 miles how many times have I used my whip, maybe I'd better not. Oooops, crunch !
There is too much emphasis on supposed cruelty by the likes of the publicity mad JMcC and not enough fact. It is up to the sport to ensure people are properly informed with facts, rather than the emotional outpourings from self obsessed fatties and the tree huggers.

I see far worse cases of cruelty and neglect on my way to work everyday, but when I phone the RSPCA to complain about horses in paddocks full of ragwort, with scungy or no water to drink, lame because they've got lami or impaled themselves on the old rotting farm machinery left in their field or galloping about on the road, because the fencing round their field is so inadequate a baby could escape, I get told they have a lot of cases to deal with. What ? Richard Hughes 'hitting' his horse with a bit of foam 6 times instead of 7.

Um, some perspective and common sense is required I think !
 
Had to giggle at your tights comment, Kautostar :D

Agree that its a skill, and my pet hate is also too many people using spurs (and whips) instead of training. Particularly around here, there are lots of riders wearing spurs and happily booting away. No wonder the horses became dead to the leg in the first place! Anyhoo thats a rant for a different day. We all know people should use equipment which can be harsh in a sensible and minimal way. Its just that I think it also needs to be legislated for, to counter those who do abuse it.

I guess it boils down to.. is it better to have broad legislation which is open to (miss)interpretation but allows some slack, or legislation which is strict and prescriptive, and as a result things are viewed as black and white?

Perspective and common sense, yes. But come on, if we only ever dealt with the more important things, we none of us would move on from dealing with (war, famine, illness, corporate greed, religion, take your pick). Just because there are more important issues out there, should not mean that other significant issues should be ignored.
 
Last edited:
KautoStar1 said:
Yes, Mr McCririck did indeed use the wife / dog analogy in a tone that suggested it was also wrong to not be able to hit your wife or dog, causing me to throw my ready to be put on tights (well hold ups actually ;) ) at the telly and scream "you fat ignorant ******". I was tempted to e-mail Daybreak to complain, but thought better of it. What's the point, that ignorant moran Adrian Chiles is just as bad. After interviewing 2 surgeons who had spent hours operating on conjoined twins, he stupidly told them that they must be very good at DIY. Honestly, what's the point when you are dealing with people who have the intelligence level of a peanut !!
Click to expand...

Why doesn't this blasted forum have a like button??!!!

I agreed with the whole post but this first bit just made me laugh, I don't know why the awful McCririck is allowed on TV - urrgghhh any man who calls his wife "The Booby" without the slightest hint of irony deserves to be...... uummm..... argh.......can't think of a punnishment suitable for such a horrid person. urgh
 
I own horses, I do not own a whip. I find the way that its deemed acceptable, infact encouraged, in the horse industry to hit a living animal absolutely abhorrant. By this I mean the pretty pink whips sold to little girls in tack shops, when they have no idea of timing or effect in its use.

As a horse I would far rather be hit by a jockey than a child in a riding school. That said (as a regular punter) I dislike to see tired horses being hit at the end of an especially long and testing race - thinking 2/3 milers as opposed to sprints perhaps, and I can understand that changes need to be made.

I think each case needs to be dealt with within guidelines... and based on severity and use.

I particularly dislike the way a jockey can flaunt the rules but the horse retains its place. I'm thinking of the last GN when Jason Maguire was banned after but the horse still won, I had a bet on the second horse who was ridden correctly within the rules and came second. How is that fair for punters? Its the only sport where cheating means you still win!
 
Its a race. Racing has changed so many times. This merely moves the goal posts ,but it does it for everyone. The big problem is that jockeys earn a living by getting rides. If they seem ineffective(to a reletively ignorant owner)they dont get booked. Flash a whip about and you are trying, scrub with hands and heals in perfect ballance and you are a looser.Ban it altogether ? But then I used to ride point to point with spurs. Dont look for logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top