# Ascot Gold Cup, overuse of the whip



## millikins (20 June 2014)

Joseph O'Brien received a 7 day ban for hitting Leading Light 11 times to win the Gold Cup by a neck. Who shares my opinion that he should lose the race for that? If 2nd and 3rd were in those placings because they didn't break the rules, why is horse welfare deemed a less serious offence than interference?


----------



## TrasaM (20 June 2014)

I was so caught up cheering Missunited on that I didn't notice  didn't realise he'd got a ban. Problem is by the time the investigation happens the bookies have all paid out and trophies have been presented so it would be very difficult to take the placing away from the horse. As you say though, it's a shame when the other jockeys have stayed within the rules.


----------



## sparhawk (20 June 2014)

I'm glad he got a ban - cannot stand either him or his father.

As the result was so close he should lose the race. The other jockeys stayed within the rules PLUS o'brian blocked Estimate and forced her to be re-routed which cost her ground.


----------



## pip6 (20 June 2014)

I cannot understand why when he clearly broke the rules he gets to keep the race? What's that saying to all other jocks? If you're in a tight finish hell with the rules just get the win?? 

He broke the rules he should be put behind to 3rd place, as it is VERY doubtful he'd have beaten either of them if he had stuck to the rules as they did. Something seriously wrong in racing when you can effectively cheat openly and win.

Also highly unimpressed at ch4 presenter saying he didn't care horse was hit more than allowed. I know working horses can get cheaky, not against reminders, but being hit (air whip of not being hit by a whip hurts, maybe presented would like 11 hits) that number of times is wrong. Horse looked shattered beyond belief in winners enclosure. I do endurance & have asked my mounts for serious effort, but have to say I never carry a whip (they give me everything, why would I hit them), and would feel ashamed if a horse finished in that state. For a very fit animal to take that amount of time to get his breath back says it all.

BTW, would be saying this whoever winner was, not got any bias.


----------



## millikins (20 June 2014)

I googled "Joseph O'Brien, whip ban", there's plenty of results including another 2 day one from yesterday, he's a very whip happy chappy isn't he?


----------



## millikins (20 June 2014)

Problem is by the time the investigation happens the bookies have all paid out and trophies have been presented so it would be very difficult to take the placing away from the horse. 

But if a horse (don't mean this one) was subsequently found to be doped say then they would lose the race.


----------



## Rollin (20 June 2014)

I watched the race yesterday and thought the Queen's horse would have won, had he been less whip happy.

Fore certain HM should have the Gold Cup for the second year running.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (20 June 2014)

In any other sport, wins/medals etc HAVE been stripped if rules have been broken.
Cannot see why its any different for racing.....


----------



## MyBoyChe (20 June 2014)

I tend to agree with the poster who thought that the horse should lose the race where a whip ban has been infringed.  Im summising here but in this case I doubt whether the fine would bother the jockey too much, Im guessing the winning connections will stump up, the ban will no doubt be a bit inconvenient but they have other jockeys available and Im sure JO will still be able to pay his mortgate if he loses a few days income.  A lesser known jockey might suffer more with a ban and a fine and be less inclined to fall foul of the rule.  I fail to see how someone who broke the rules can be allowed to win, although Im sure that those who understand the rules of racing more will have an explanation.  It does suggest that the great and powerful can do as they please with no real comeback, I think losing the race would have a greater impact that a fine and a ban.


----------



## MICHAELA8228 (20 June 2014)

Third place jockey got a ban too, plus several others at the meeting (as mentioned on the Morning Line).


----------



## splashgirl45 (20 June 2014)

agree, losing the race would hurt both the jockey and the trainer (and the owner)  that jockey may then have trouble getting rides unless he/she abided by the rules.or  the ban should come into effect immediately which would cause trainer and owner a big headache finding a replacement quickly...jockeys in the big races will bend the rules as there is so much money on offer...


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (20 June 2014)

I do not agree with breaking the rules but I do think people forget that this was 2 and half miles - jumping distance. It wasn't some zippy 5furlong. The only excuse he can use is that the horse drifted away from the whip and into other horses. He didn't block the other jockey in, he just didn't give him a space to get through, he held his line which he is perfectly entitled to do. A jockey got done in Japan? Dubai? recently for obviously making a space for a stable mate to come through so your damned if you do and your damned if you don't in that respect. 

He won't and shouldn't lose the race for the whip ban as it wasn't majorly excessive, didn't mark the horse or hit the horse in the wrong place. He just hit him a few too many times. 

If anyone wants to see blatent overuse of the whip watch Danedream's Arc. Her jockey absolutely leathered her - twice every stride - shoulder, behind, should, behind - with every scrub in the last furlong. I think it came to something daft like 30 odd times in that 1 furlong alone. 

If A jockey builds up too many days on a whip ban (might be 21 days in total) They have to go on a course back at jockey school to remind them of the rules.


----------



## NU ABO (20 June 2014)

This whole thing is very frustrating both as a spectator and I'd imagine as a jockey.

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't Irish rules on use of the whip different? If this is the case than as Joseph O'Brien spend the majority of his time riding in Ireland and only rides over here in the big races (where he's under a vast amount of pressure as a young jockey riding for the biggest owners in the racing world and half the racing community thinking he's only there because of his dad) I can only imagine that under the circumstances it must be difficult to remember to count the amount of times you use the whip.

Also, having watched the race, I thought at least some of the whips he gave were to try and keep the horse straight.

I understand why they are adamant for restrictions on whip use, but sometimes it can be ridiculous. I remember when the news rules first came in and one of the first jockeys banned was Richard Hughes, and I don't think there is a more quiet rider out there!

Now am I saying that Joseph O'Brien shouldn't have been punished.... of course not! He absolutely should get a few days ban for overuse of the whip, and yes the fine as well. Should the race placings be changed... of course not! In what way can anyone prove the horse wouldn't have won anyway? You can't punish the ownership and the trainer for what is most likely jockey error!

Also well said EKW!


----------



## splashgirl45 (20 June 2014)

EKW said:



			I do not agree with breaking the rules but I do think people forget that this was 2 and half miles - jumping distance. It wasn't some zippy 5furlong. The only excuse he can use is that the horse drifted away from the whip and into other horses. He didn't block the other jockey in, he just didn't give him a space to get through, he held his line which he is perfectly entitled to do. A jockey got done in Japan? Dubai? recently for obviously making a space for a stable mate to come through so your damned if you do and your damned if you don't in that respect. 

He won't and shouldn't lose the race for the whip ban as it wasn't majorly excessive, didn't mark the horse or hit the horse in the wrong place. He just hit him a few too many times. 

If anyone wants to see blatent overuse of the whip watch Danedream's Arc. Her jockey absolutely leathered her - twice every stride - shoulder, behind, should, behind - with every scrub in the last furlong. I think it came to something daft like 30 odd times in that 1 furlong alone. 

If A jockey builds up too many days on a whip ban (might be 21 days in total) They have to go on a course back at jockey school to remind them of the rules.
		
Click to expand...

don't you think that the distance he won by makes a difference.   agreed if he had won by a couple of lengths  but 2nd jockey abided by the rules and lost by a very small amount, whats to say that he wouldn't have won if he had hit his horse a few more times....


----------



## TrasaM (20 June 2014)

Inquiry underway now and being televised .. Infringement ?


----------



## bonny (20 June 2014)

splashgirl45 said:



			don't you think that the distance he won by makes a difference.   agreed if he had won by a couple of lengths  but 2nd jockey abided by the rules and lost by a very small amount, whats to say that he wouldn't have won if he had hit his horse a few more times....
		
Click to expand...

Only the jockey knows at that point in a race whether a horse is responding to the whip or not and some horses especially mares will try harder for not being hit. I'm sure that if the jockey on Estimate thought hitting her would have meant winning the race he would have done. A fine and a few days "holiday" are worth risking for the sake of winning an important race.


----------



## millikins (20 June 2014)

EKW, I usually agree with you but not on this one. If using the whip more than twice the agreed amount is only a minor infringement, then why bother setting that limit in the first place? The Gold Cup is probably the 3rd most watched race in this country, are the BHA and Jockey club not bothered about the public image of racing? The fact is he may well have won this race because he broke the rules. I like to think had he done that to HRH's horse, he wouldn't be riding for her again.


----------



## bonny (20 June 2014)

millikins said:



			EKW, I usually agree with you but not on this one. If using the whip more than twice the agreed amount is only a minor infringement, then why bother setting that limit in the first place? The Gold Cup is probably the 3rd most watched race in this country, are the BHA and Jockey club not bothered about the public image of racing? The fact is he may well have won this race because he broke the rules. I like to think had he done that to HRH's horse, he wouldn't be riding for her again.
		
Click to expand...

It's a limit that leads to a ban, all the jockeys know after a race when they are facing that but it's worth it if it's an important one. The jockey doesn't own the horse so by taking away the win you would be affecting the owner and the horse, not the jockey which is why the punishment is a ban not disqualifaction. Also the Gold Cup would be a long way from being the 3rd most watched race in the country, where did you get that one from ?


----------



## Alec Swan (20 June 2014)

If you break the rules,  and you win the race,  does it really matter to the jockey?  The race win will outweigh the 7day holiday.

If you break the rules and you win the race,  then you have the victory taken from you,  and if you don't believe me,  ask Lance Armstrong.

As an aside,  I'm sorry to say that I'm with sparhawk.  I don't care too much for either father or son.

Alec.


----------



## bonny (20 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			If you break the rules,  and you win the race,  does it really matter to the jockey?  The race win will outweigh the 7day holiday.

If you break the rules and you win the race,  then you have the victory taken from you,  and if you don't believe me,  ask Lance Armstrong.

As an aside,  I'm sorry to say that I'm with sparhawk.  I don't care too much for either father or son.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

In cycling the man wins the race, not his bike ! You can't compare the two sports. I like the O'Briens, can't see why anyone wouldn't....plus they have the best horses in the world.


----------



## Echo Bravo (20 June 2014)

Maybe they should give longer bans, for misuse of the whip and then perhaps the jockeys will start riding the horses properly, because the horse,owner and trainer will keep the race and money, the jockey will lose out, but there again the trainer tells the jockey how the horse should be ridden, so maybe ban the trainer from entering their horses for a month or two in races, maybe that will sort the problem out.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 June 2014)

bonny said:



			In cycling the man wins the race, not his bike ! You can't compare the two sports. ........
		
Click to expand...

Nonsense.  The jockey rides a horse to victory by ignoring rules which others stick to.  So would you suggest that the horse or the bike win the race,  but not the rider?

Alec.


----------



## bonny (20 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Nonsense.  The jockey rides a horse to victory by ignoring rules which others stick to.  So would you suggest that the horse or the bike win the race,  but not the rider?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I would suggest that they are completely different sports, the horse wins the race, needs a jockey obviously but he's easily changed for another one. In cycling the rider is everything, you couldn't change the rider and get the same result. I think in the important races the jockey does what is necessary to win and I don't believe if the placed horses had been hit more often the result would be different. In fact the third placed jockey got a ban too....


----------



## Alec Swan (20 June 2014)

bonny said:



			I would suggest that they are completely different sports, the horse wins the race, needs a jockey obviously but he's easily changed for another one. In cycling the rider is everything, you couldn't change the rider and get the same result. I think in the important races the jockey does what is necessary to win and I don't believe if the placed horses had been hit more often the result would be different. In fact the third placed jockey got a ban too....
		
Click to expand...

.... and the horse placed second?  If the jockey restricted his activities so that he stayed within the rules?  Tough ****?  Not in my book.  

Another point for you,  had I ridden any of those horses,  the results would have been the same.  The result is as much about the rider,  as the animal.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that those who cheat,  and win,  should keep their place?

Alec.


----------



## bonny (20 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			.... and the horse placed second?  If the jockey restricted his activities so that he stayed within the rules?  Tough ****?  Not in my book.  

Another point for you,  had I ridden any of those horses,  the results would have been the same.  The result is as much about the rider,  as the animal.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that those who cheat,  and win,  should keep their place?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Now you are the one writing rubbish, the top jockeys could all have won yesterday, you can't compare yourself with them ! Yes, I think the whip rules are right now, of course the horse and owner should keep the race, the only one at fault is the jockey who got a fine and a ban.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 June 2014)

bonny said:



			Now you are the one writing rubbish, the top jockeys could all have won yesterday, you can't compare yourself with them ! Yes, I think the whip rules are right now, of course the horse and owner should keep the race, the only one at fault is the jockey who got a fine and a ban.
		
Click to expand...

So,  let me understand you now...... What you're saying is that if the jockey,  owner and trainer,  are all prepared for a 7 day riding ban (for the jockey) and a modest fine,  and because the jockey,  whilst almost certainly under precise instruction,  broke the rules,  whilst others didn't,  then that's a small price to pay for the accolade of winning the Gold Cup?  It would seem from your argument that to cheat in sport,  and still win is acceptable and that the rules of racing are of no matter.  Honestly?  Are you a supporter of Maktoum,  by any chance?

My point about my riding any of those horses being the same was that failure would have been the outcome,  which ever horse I'd ridden!

Alec.


----------



## bonny (20 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			So,  let me understand you now...... What you're saying is that if the jockey,  owner and trainer,  are all prepared for a 7 day riding ban (for the jockey) and a modest fine,  and because the jockey,  whilst almost certainly under precise instruction,  broke the rules,  whilst others didn't,  then that's a small price to pay for the accolade of winning the Gold Cup?  It would seem from your argument that to cheat in sport,  and still win is acceptable and that the rules of racing are of no matter.  Honestly?  Are you a supporter of Maktoum,  by any chance?

My point about my riding any of those horses being the same was that failure would have been the outcome,  which ever horse I'd ridden!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Firstly I don't consider it cheating and secondly, of course it's worth it for the jockey, owner and trainer, that's why it happens. What happens with steroid misuse is totally different and can't be compared. Leading Light has gone down as the Ascot Gold Cup winner, no one will remember how many times he was hit in order to win it !


----------



## Alec Swan (20 June 2014)

bonny,  I'm still struggling with your argument.  Tell me that I've got this wrong,  but it seems that your case would be that to cheat in racing by the misuse of drugs isn't acceptable,  but to use a whip,  and to an extent which is beyond not only the rules,  but the usage of another jockey,  is quite acceptable.  Have I misread your argument?

Whilst you're at it,  could you explain to me how there are one set of rules which are acceptable,  to you,  and one set which aren't?

Alec.


----------



## bonny (20 June 2014)

I think you are missing the point that all of the jockeys in an important race will do what they can to win, only the jockey on the horse will know if it's still responding to the whip, some won't go for being hit at all and some will keep finding more. The whip is part of racing, it's allowed and the rules concerning it's use are constantly being looked at. The use of certain drugs is strictly forbidden and quite rightly anyone caught using steroids etc will face harsh penalties. I don't see why you insist on comparing the two scenarios.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 June 2014)

bonny said:



			Firstly I don't consider it cheating and secondly, of course it's worth it for the jockey, owner and trainer, that's why it happens. ....... !
		
Click to expand...

Now,  having read further,  it seems that breaking the rules of racing shouldn't be considered as cheating...... am I right in this?

I very much doubt that you and I will find common ground,  on this one!!

Alec.


----------



## bonny (20 June 2014)

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


----------



## Alec Swan (20 June 2014)

bonny said:



			I think you are missing the point that all of the jockeys in an important race will do what they can to win, only the jockey on the horse will know if it's still responding to the whip, some won't go for being hit at all and some will keep finding more. The whip is part of racing, it's allowed and the rules concerning it's use are constantly being looked at. The use of certain drugs is strictly forbidden and quite rightly anyone caught using steroids etc will face harsh penalties. I don't see why you insist on comparing the two scenarios.
		
Click to expand...

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

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

Night night.

Alec.


----------



## bonny (20 June 2014)

Actually the jockey on the third got a ban too and if the jockey on the 2nd had thought it would have made the difference he would have done the same so your argument doesn't stand up anyway. The winning jockey wasn't giving himself an advantage, his horse just responded differently. Horses are not all the same !


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (21 June 2014)

The Rules are constantly tweaked and vary in different countries, it will always be unsatisfactory from one point of view. UK rules are pretty reasonable, that is all we can hope for..............


----------



## Dunlin (21 June 2014)

Not trying to cause an argument here but just wandered what peoples views were when you compare this to Jock Paget being disqualified and stripped from his Burghley title? Despite being 2 very different things the end result is that the rules were broken and what had been done (doping or whipping too much) could have changed the result. I am not comparing whipping too much to doping the horse but in the discussion on here it's evident that people think that whipping the horse too much could have meant the result was different, the same can be said for Jock Paget, no-one knows if the horse would've won had it not been doped. So anyway, 1 got to keep the win, the other didn't. If Jock Paget had got to keep the win and was just disqualified, do you think it would have caused uproar?


----------



## ester (21 June 2014)

bonny said:



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


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

Essentially there is space for an engineer to manage a stick with a motion sensor which means you can't move it again after x many hits


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (21 June 2014)

Your right - whipping and doping are completely different things. One only affects the rule breaker, the other could be potentially lethal to life. No brainer for disqualification for doping and not for whipping!


----------



## pip6 (21 June 2014)

I actually think that whipping could have been life threatening, did you see the state of that horse in the enclosure? He was totally out of it.

Sports have rules, I cannot understand how you can break the rules (especially by professionals who know them inside out, I understand how they got it wrong when it was new, but they've worked with it long enough now) and still win. If you break the rules you care trying to achieve an ilegal advantage over your rivals, that is you cheat. You cheat, you should not win.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (21 June 2014)

pip6 said:



			I actually think that whipping could have been life threatening, did you see the state of that horse in the enclosure? He was totally out of it.

Sports have rules, I cannot understand how you can break the rules (especially by professionals who know them inside out, I understand how they got it wrong when it was new, but they've worked with it long enough now) and still win. If you break the rules you care trying to achieve an ilegal advantage over your rivals, that is you cheat. You cheat, you should not win.
		
Click to expand...

I did not see the horse in the paddock, but he has not died.
There are rules .. a drugged horse will not keep the race, but by  that time many people will have had bets settled. So one could say they have been cheated.


----------



## bonny (21 June 2014)

He blew hard for a while, hardly life threatening and not surprising considering he ran 2 and a half miles on a hot day ! You can hardly blame misuse of the whip for that !


----------



## Alec Swan (21 June 2014)

MrsD123 said:



			I did not see the horse in the paddock, but he has not died.
There are rules .. a drugged horse will not keep the race, but by  that time many people will have had bets settled. So one could say they have been cheated.
		
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Alec.


----------



## bonny (21 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



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

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

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

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

His ban will be in July which means he will miss the next intended run of Australia, so hardly of no consequence to him. A ban cannot be immediate as a jockey could appeal and he needs to fulfill booked rides over the coming week.


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (21 June 2014)

Bans start 14 days after they are received BUT jockeys can appeal for a change of day when they have a ride in a Group 1 race. A bit of a piss take really! If your banned your banned - no exceptions. If Australia runs in a Group 1 then Joseph will be on him.


----------



## MyBoyChe (21 June 2014)

Havent read all the replies but if EKW is correct (and I have no doubt she knows what shes talking about) it would seem to further reinforce the view that in a case like this, big yard, retained jockey and powerful owners then the only losers where there is an infringement of the whip rule are the connections of the horse whose jockey stuck to the rules.


----------



## Mariposa (21 June 2014)

pip6 said:



			I actually think that whipping could have been life threatening, did you see the state of that horse in the enclosure? He was totally out of it.
		
Click to expand...

I agree - he was absolutely heaving.

Personally I'm not a massive fan of Joseph O'Brien, but each to their own. I thought Estimate ran absolutely wonderfully, what a brave mare.


----------



## pip6 (22 June 2014)

MrsD123 said:



			I did not see the horse in the paddock, but he has not died.
There are rules .. a drugged horse will not keep the race, but by  that time many people will have had bets settled. So one could say they have been cheated.
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## bonny (22 June 2014)

pip6 said:



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

He is a top racehorse, running in a high class staying race which had three horses in a line at the end. Of course he was blowing, they all would have been, hardly the end of the world for a racehorse. A blowing horse does not mean he is "utterly exhausted" and I'm sure he will be seen out racing again before too long.


----------



## fburton (23 June 2014)

pip6 said:



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

As has been said many times, you can't force a horse to run. If he didn't enjoy running as fast as he did, he wouldn't have done it, presumably. Of course, this is a naive view because a horse _can_ be pushed (or "forced", or "encouraged", depending on your slant) into a state of distress / discomfort quite easily. We are responsible for this, not the horse. But where do you draw the line?


----------



## pip6 (23 June 2014)

He was absolutely out of it, not just tired. I love racing, I expect horses to be pushed in races. However I don't condone one being pushed to exhaustion for entertainment.


----------



## bonny (23 June 2014)

pip6 said:



			He was absolutely out of it, not just tired. I love racing, I expect horses to be pushed in races. However I don't condone one being pushed to exhaustion for entertainment.
		
Click to expand...

To me he looked like a horse blowing hard after a long race on a hot day, what makes you think differently ? In what way do you think he was exhausted ? There was certainly not the concern you see for some horses who have got too hot and are needing cooled down quickly, his connections didn't do anything with him out of the ordinary, he walked around normally, no one threw water on him or called a vet.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (23 June 2014)

On hot day they are normally washed off straight away as a matter of course.


----------



## fburton (24 June 2014)

Is it even possible to push a horse _too_ hard, and if so what would that look like?


----------



## sparhawk (24 June 2014)

One possible penalty that could be imposed on the jockey would be if his share of the prize money was removed and donated to a racing welfare charity when the jockey has a whip ban.

I also agree with other posters that the horse was exhausted after the race.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (24 June 2014)

sparhawk said:



			One possible penalty that could be imposed on the jockey would be if his share of the prize money was removed and donated to a racing welfare charity when the jockey has a whip ban.

I also agree with other posters that the horse was exhausted after the race.
		
Click to expand...

That might be possible, it must have been considered, but again the owners would compensate jock in the case of the horse winning something which puts its value in to the zillions, and this would include some Ascot races., there is also prestige eg winning the GN, [which also has huge prize money]


----------

