# Racing;  Sir Mark Prescott.



## Alec Swan (3 January 2015)

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

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

Alec.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (3 January 2015)

Santa's-a-scam said:



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

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

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Maesfen (3 January 2015)

I personally think a ban should take immediate effect from the day it is given or from the next racing day that jockey is qualified/booked to ride in and be doubled anyway; a two day ban is a joke.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (3 January 2015)

Maesfen said:



			I personally think a ban should take immediate effect from the day it is given or from the next racing day that jockey is qualified/booked to ride in and be doubled anyway; a two day ban is a joke.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure, but it may be there is a totting up system so that jocks who are getting short bans end up in Portman Square and sent for re-training


----------



## MyBoyChe (3 January 2015)

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


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (3 January 2015)

Maesfen said:



			I personally think a ban should take immediate effect from the day it is given or from the next racing day that jockey is qualified/booked to ride in and be doubled anyway; a two day ban is a joke.
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Alec Swan (3 January 2015)

EKW said:



			.. . Starting the ban that day or the next is no good for trainers and owners as the jockeys are booked to ride 24/48 hours in advance depending under which code you are racing. .. .
		
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

The current regulations are unworkable.

Alec.


----------



## KautoStar1 (3 January 2015)

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

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

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


----------



## Echo Bravo (3 January 2015)

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


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (3 January 2015)

I agree the current rulings are a farce. I would say 1 smack over is a 4-5 day ban, any more than 1 and you look at being demoted or disqualified depending on just how many times you over used the whip and the distance you won by. The trainer will always play the card of - I told the jockey to do the best job possible on the horse, it's not my fault if he is thick and can't count!  You will never get a trainer saying they were willing to break the rules - because they can get away with it! 

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


----------



## splashgirl45 (3 January 2015)

Echo Bravo said:



			Over use of the whip to win the race, horse disquailfied. These jockeys are pro's so should be able to ride hands and heels and if need to use the whip be able to use it when it is needed, have watched some races recently and a lot of horses that are either tiring or absolutely not up to the job being whipped when it's not going to do any good, these are the jockeys that should get a warning and watched.
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Alec Swan (3 January 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec.


----------



## Colouredwelsh (4 January 2015)

Crikey, how many racehorses have you ridden to the line EB using 'hands & heels' either on the track or working at home??? 

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

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

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


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (4 January 2015)

Colouredwelsh said:



			Crikey, how many racehorses have you ridden to the line EB using 'hands & heels' either on the track or working at home??? 

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

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

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

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


----------



## amage (4 January 2015)

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


----------



## KautoStar1 (5 January 2015)

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


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (5 January 2015)

I don t agree, things are better than they were  twenty or even ten years ago, the jockeys ARE more self disciplined, the horses are in a better place.
I dont imagine the BHS asked any Amimal Rights people or RSPCA executives to sit in with them when they made whip rules.


----------



## Alec Swan (5 January 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			The BHA's biggest mistake was letting Animal Aid & the RSPCA form part of the decision making process. 

&#8230;&#8230;...
		
Click to expand...

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

Alec.


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (5 January 2015)

Santa's-a-scam said:



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

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## KautoStar1 (5 January 2015)

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


----------



## Alec Swan (5 January 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..
The issue is that there is a rule and it gets broken and races are won and kept.  
&#8230;&#8230;...
		
Click to expand...

We've rather digressed,  but yes,  that is exactly the point to Prescott's argument,  and I agree with him.

Alec.


----------



## KautoStar1 (5 January 2015)

Yes so do I. But I think GC raised some interesting points.
It's a silly rule that makes no sense.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (5 January 2015)

Santa's-a-scam said:



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

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Rouletterose (5 January 2015)

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

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

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

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


----------



## KautoStar1 (5 January 2015)

Well in that case lets take away spurs and whips in x country, dressage & showjumping.  And for those who hack too. 

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


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (5 January 2015)

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


----------



## Rouletterose (5 January 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			Well in that case lets take away spurs and whips in x country, dressage & showjumping.  And for those who hack too. 

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

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


----------



## Rouletterose (5 January 2015)

EKW said:



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

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


----------



## Alec Swan (6 January 2015)

Rouletterose said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. , to put what I meant bluntly, no whacking the horses backside. &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

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


From EKW;  &#8230;&#8230;.. 'They are also allowed to show the horse the whip in a driving finish but hell mend them if they make contact with the horse with the whip. Jockeys ride too short to use their legs for guidance and to keep them straight' &#8230;&#8230;..  I can see the sense in that.  If the safety aspect of whip usage means that it's used to straighten the animal's path,  and the safety aspect is such that the whip is used in front of the saddle only,  then when applied behind the saddle,  it can only be to encourage more effort from the animal.

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

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

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

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

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

Alec.

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


----------



## Clodagh (6 January 2015)

Firstly, I like Graham Cunningham now too, he has either relaxed a bit or I have got used to him. I am even getting used to Rishi, although he is the Mike Tucker of the team in that he seems to get it all wrong!

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


----------



## KautoStar1 (10 January 2015)

Well now we know the rules are a farce with the latest BHA decision to review Aiden Colemans welsh national ride. Just 2 weeks after the event in which he rode, in the opinion of almost everyone, a super race.


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (10 January 2015)

The BHA are proving to be a law unto themselves! Very unprofessional! A few hours later you could almost get away with but 2 weeks? Eh naw! It was a great ride - even if I was cheering Pete home who I thought had it won at the last but drifted to come 3rd.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 January 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			Well now we know the rules are a farce with the latest BHA decision to review Aiden Colemans welsh national ride. Just 2 weeks after the event in which he rode, in the opinion of almost everyone, a super race.
		
Click to expand...

The Stewards on the day,  passed up the opportunity to enquire of Coleman about his riding.  As you say,  a fortnight later,  the powers that be decide that there may be a case to answer.  The BHA should be speaking to the Stewards,  NOT riding over them and showing scant respect for those who's position it was to judge the event,  at the time.



EKW said:



			The BHA are proving to be a law unto themselves! Very unprofessional! A few hours later you could almost get away with but 2 weeks? Eh naw! It was a great ride - even if I was cheering Pete home who I thought had it won at the last but drifted to come 3rd.
		
Click to expand...

The BHA should be considering whether they are fit for purpose,  or not.  Having decided to ignore the decision of the Stewards on the day,  and to save face,  I would strongly suspect that they will be forced to take a stand and against the rider,  if only to save face.

Doubtful though it is that anyone from that august body will read this thread,  should they,  I'd suggest that they get there heads around the term 'Joined up thinking'.

Alec.


----------



## KautoStar1 (11 January 2015)

There is a good piece in the Irish Examiner from Ruby Walsh (& on racing post website) where he basically says that if our whip rule was so good how come no other racing authority has taken it up.  He also says Aiden's ride in the WN was very good. He used his stick appropriately, in rhythm with the horse & each time he used it the horse responded.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 January 2015)

K_S1,  

why is it that the authorities,  most of whom won't of sat on a horse since their Pony Club days,  fail to listen to those who ride for a living?  They remind me of the pundits on the ML who used to argue with Francome!  Yeah,  like they'd know wouldn't they? 

Alec.


----------



## KautoStar1 (11 January 2015)

It beats me Alec it really does. It was raised yesterday again on the ML & someone said, can't recall who, that the BHA had done some in depth research on the use of the whip including reviewing horse psychology  but had actually failed to speak to any of the top riders.  
Well I can review my horses psychology - Archie would you like to go hunting or would you like to go in the manage & practice some half pass. ??   I don't need to write a 1000 page essay on it. I mean honestly what's all that about. Or did the interview Mad Moose ???

I didn't know this until recently but apparently Jim McGrath was indeed an apprentice jockey. Who knew !!!


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (11 January 2015)

The have shot themselves in the foot .. whatever the outcome of this "review",
It makes you wonder .............
Heads should fall.


----------



## Mariposa (11 January 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			Well now we know the rules are a farce with the latest BHA decision to review Aiden Colemans welsh national ride. Just 2 weeks after the event in which he rode, in the opinion of almost everyone, a super race.
		
Click to expand...

I thought it was one of the best rides I've seen in NH for a long time - I can't see how the BHA can decide to review when the stewards at the course already decided to let it go.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 January 2015)

Mariposa said:



			I thought it was one of the best rides I've seen in NH for a long time - I can't see how the BHA can decide to review when the stewards at the course already decided to let it go.
		
Click to expand...

Another point,  should the BHA decide to take the race way from AC,  then presumably it will be taken from the horse as well.  Right?  What is to happen to those who bet on the day,  and either backed the winner at the time,  or the horse placed second?  How can the BHA reverse decisions which affected the outcome of a great deal of money changing hands,  on the day,  and then a fortnight later bring the decisions taken at the time,  by the stewards,  in to question?  

If they leave the placings as they are (there'll be uproar if they don't),  but find Coleman guilty of what is effectively cheating,  then if the jockey is found wanting,  then so the horse would hardly be entitled to keep the race.  If the race is taken from the winner,  and the accolade goes to the horse which in reality came in second,  then those who have been paid for second place,  or gambled on a win,  are going to be demanding payment.  None of that can happen,  because the Bookies won't be able to call back the previous payments made.

Currently,  I'm wondering what on earth the BHA are playing at.  Perhaps there's more to this debacle than meets the eye.  If there is,  I'd like to hear of it.  

It's laughable!  Am I missing something here?  

Alec.


----------



## KautoStar1 (11 January 2015)

Alec that just about sums it up.  In reality AC will get a ban & fine, if they decide to proceed with the enquiry.   Which is a travesty for such a good ride.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (11 January 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			Alec that just about sums it up.  In reality AC will get a ban & fine, if they decide to proceed with the enquiry.   Which is a travesty for such a good ride.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, well that would suggest it has been pre-judged, which is contrary to natural justice, but then if I was a steward at the meeting, I would be "considering my position", surely they are being called incompetent, yet they have been trained by the BHA, and appointed by them.
Worse outcome would be that all voluntary stewards would stop co operating with the BHA.
I could see from the TV replay that he used the whip, but I could not be sure whether it was excessive or even if it contrvenend the rules, though presumably the BHA have better evidence.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 January 2015)

I suppose that this brings the opening post,  full circle.  If Prescott's demands are now being addressed as I believe that they should be,  then perhaps this will be a test case.  As you say Bonkers,  they will have prejudged the case,  by bringing it to the fore,  but retrospectively,  and as you also say,  undermining the decision of the Stewards will end in chaos.  A fortnight after the event is just lunacy!

It'll be interesting to read of the outcome.

Alec.


----------



## KautoStar1 (11 January 2015)

I don't think it will make any difference. They will continue to ban and fine jockeys at that's it. Which doesn't address the problem of the rule not actually being workable.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 January 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			There is a good piece in the Irish Examiner from Ruby Walsh (& on racing post website) where he basically says that if our whip rule was so good how come no other racing authority has taken it up.  He also says Aiden's ride in the WN was very good. He used his stick appropriately, in rhythm with the horse & each time he used it the horse responded.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for heading me towards the RP,  and to wit;

Writing in his column in the Irish Examiner, Walsh added: "The BHA thought they would be world leaders when it came to the regulation of the whip. But, and this is very important, not one leading racing nation has followed their lead."

Correct,  but then not one other leading racing nation finds that they have their governing body dictated to by welfare societies,  who haven't the faintest idea of right and wrong,  from any equine perspective.

How difficult would it be for the BHA to tell their 'advisors' to **** off?

Alec.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (11 January 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Thank you for heading me towards the RP,  and to wit;

Writing in his column in the Irish Examiner, Walsh added: "The BHA thought they would be world leaders when it came to the regulation of the whip. But, and this is very important, not one leading racing nation has followed their lead."

Correct,  but then not one other leading racing nation finds that they have their governing body dictated to by welfare societies,  who haven't the faintest idea of right and wrong,  from any equine perspective.

How difficult would it be for the BHA to tell their 'advisors' to **** off?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I think you have to remember that Ruby, as a professional jockey is not impartial, but having said that , he is level headed and is a Senior Jockey, which is a status well earned. He has given his opinion on the case in point, and also pointed out that other authorities have not followed suit, well who can blame them, but is it true that welfare in UK racing has higher standards than the rest of the world .. I think it is!
This current whip rule has proved flawed, but so did all the others!
From an "equine perspective" who does know right from wrong. Every stakeholder has a different perspective. That is the key problem.
I am glad that things have improved dramatically over last ten years in UK racing, we seem to forget that!


----------



## KautoStar1 (12 January 2015)

I agree, Ruby&#8217;s views might be biased but it&#8217;s the jockeys who are at the centre of all of this and no-one seems to have properly represented them.   I doubt very much any jockey would publically criticise the ride of another jockey in such a way, so I wouldn&#8217;t expect him to say it was a poor ride, which in the case of Aiden Coleman it certainly wasn&#8217;t.  But the points he makes about the use of the whip in rhythm & the horse responding are relevant. 

Welfare standards are very high and hugely improved, but I can&#8217;t hand on heart say that the improvement is due to the current whip rule.    The whip its self is much better than it was 10 years ago, probably even improved in the last 2 or 3.  And jockeys use of it through training and if necessary correctional training has improved too, no doubt.  Riding standards are higher but training for aspiring jockeys is much greater than 10 years ago.
Don&#8217;t also forget that medical science has opened up all manner of new diagnostics and treatments for equine wellbeing, as well as training methods, feeding etc etc.
Courses now have drainage, frost covers, fences can be moved.  All sorts of things have been done to improve every aspect of horse welfare.  That&#8217;s progress.  However, the current whip rule isn&#8217;t progress.  Its an ill thought out rule designed to put to rest &#8216;bad publicity&#8217; whipped up (sorry &#61514 by the RSPCA & Animal Aid and to show the general public  that racing cares.   But there other better ways to educate the general public, if that really is the issue.  Personally I suspect the average man on the street doesn&#8217;t give a toss.
We can come back round to the question of should the whip be used at all but in which case I believe we would have to look not just at racing, but showjumping, eventing, dressage and in fact any manner of horse sport and pleasure riding.
It&#8217;s a bit of a black hole really.
But in essence the BHA have made a big mistake in pandering to the RSPCA etc and making a big public show of it.  Because now they have a rule that isn&#8217;t practical and when they do uphold the rule, they don&#8217;t actually uphold it in full, so it&#8217;s a mess.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (12 January 2015)

We don t know why the BHA decided to hold this enquiry, are you suggesting the RSPCA complained?

It' s not that man in the street gives a toss, more that he assumes that in the UK that horses are reasonably well treated, and the racing is not third world. The man in the street does not bet on horses and does not go racing. My brother is an intelligent person, but has absolutely no idea that I have been involved in one of the biggest industries in the UK for most of my life, he seems to think I have been tacking up ponies in a riding school.


----------



## KautoStar1 (12 January 2015)

No I don't think the RSPCA have complained.  The BHA said it was because they didn't have time on the day but I suspect it was because the media high lighted his ride as being excellent even though he had used his stick 10 times from the bend - about 4 furlongs out.  And the BHA thought ***** we missed that.

I agree the man in the street doesn't care & I suspect the man who puts his daily £10 on doesn't care either as long as he wins. The general public are outraged for about 5 mins when it's bought to their attention on grand national day & then they go back to more important things like who will will X factor !!! 

My brother is an avid racing fan and really likes horses without actually knowing anything about them or how they work so he doesn't feel qualified to comment on whether the whip is appropriate or not but he agrees that it's a stupid rule which doesn't work & isn't fair to anyone.


----------



## Clodagh (13 January 2015)

I think his ride was bought up again after it was discussed on the Morning Line, he did overuse the whip - according to the rules - and it was highlighted in such a way perhaps the BHA decided they had better do something. I thought it was a good ride, the horse didn't finish exhausted and on his knees, which I hate to see.
I was a bit sceptical about thw rules when they came in but if you watvh Irish racing now it looks very hard on the horses compared to ours, they just seem to keep going whack, whack, whack.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (13 January 2015)

Clodagh said:



			. I thought it was a good ride, the horse didn't finish exhausted and on his knees, which I hate to see.
I was a bit sceptical about thw rules when they came in but if you watvh Irish racing now it looks very hard on the horses compared to ours, they just seem to keep going whack, whack, whack.
		
Click to expand...

This is what I am afraid of, we have managed to reduce overuse of the whip in the UK, other countries have not, they don t want to get involved in this controversy, but I prefer a lot of hot air to a lot of hard pressed horses.


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (13 January 2015)

And to make it even more confusing - Coleman has been nominated for Ride Of The Month!


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (13 January 2015)

EKW said:



			And to make it even more confusing - Coleman has been nominated for Ride Of The Month!     

Click to expand...

  
Do you think the stewards enquiry will be televised


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (13 January 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



 
Do you think the stewards enquiry will be televised 

Click to expand...

You could not make it up!


----------



## Alec Swan (13 January 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			You could not make it up!
		
Click to expand...

FFS!! This charade really is becoming a farce,  isn't it?! 

Alec.


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (13 January 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



 
Do you think the stewards enquiry will be televised 

Click to expand...

Oooooohhhh! Now THAT would be worth watching! To see how they justify themselves with now where to hide!


----------



## MyBoyChe (14 January 2015)

If they're not careful, they'll turn it into the same sort of farce as F1 is IMO.  I know the two things are not directly comparable but there has been so much meddling with the rules in F1 it is no longer the sport it was and I know Im not the only one who finds it pretty boring nowadays.  I know safety is paramount, thats another issue, but overly complicating it and having so many different rules and regs does not make for good viewing.  Im not sure who the powers that be are trying to pacify?


----------



## Alec Swan (16 January 2015)

MyBoyChe said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. there has been so much meddling with the rules in F1 it is no longer the sport it was and I know Im not the only one who finds it pretty boring nowadays.  &#8230;&#8230;..?
		
Click to expand...

Once any attempt is made at sterilising a sport,  so the edge of risk is removed and the sport is no longer 'sport'.  Without 'risk',  then a sport becomes clinical and boring.  I can't remember that I watched one Grand Prix last year.  Even the Touring Cars have succumbed to a sensible approach.  As you say,  Boring!

One day,  jump horses,  and their jockeys will be wearing 'air-bags'. 

Alec.


----------



## KautoStar1 (16 January 2015)

Actually I think the use of air jackets for jockeys isn't a bad thing to look at. 
But I agree, you sterilise everything down to zero.
Isn't it today that AC sees the BHA for his review.  Will be interesting to see what comes out of that, but whatever the conclusion the whole thing has been a farce. 
I am certainly not saying there shouldn't be rules but they rules need to take in to account the practicality of actually riding in a race & once those rules are defined then they need to be upheld properly.    
I'm still waiting to hear a jockey say he lost a race that he could have won if he'd been able to use his whip using his own discretion.


----------



## Optimissteeq (16 January 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			Actually I think the use of air jackets for jockeys isn't a bad thing to look at. 
But I agree, you sterilise everything down to zero.
Isn't it today that AC sees the BHA for his review.  Will be interesting to see what comes out of that, but whatever the conclusion the whole thing has been a farce. 
I am certainly not saying there shouldn't be rules but they rules need to take in to account the practicality of actually riding in a race & once those rules are defined then they need to be upheld properly.    
I'm still waiting to hear a jockey say he lost a race that he could have won if he'd been able to use his whip using his own discretion.
		
Click to expand...

Actually that did happen to me! well the jockey that was riding my horse at the time said he 'ran out of smacks, one, more and he would have won'. Horse lost by a short head.
Granted this wasn't a high profile race (very low profile) so no-one other than connections were interested ( and the punters that had backed him). I remember being a little disgruntled on the day - the difference in prize money from 1st to 2nd is quite a drop, and I'd backed him to win...but after hearing Alec's arguments about jockeys abiding by the rules then I've changed my view about it


----------



## MyBoyChe (17 January 2015)

Interesting comments made on the Morning Line this morning, particularly Ruby who when asked if he found it difficult to adjust to the rules of the country he was riding in said "I dont change the way I ride, I ride the way I think I need to" or words to that effect.  Suggesting I thought, that he considers he treats each horse as an individual and does what he needs to, to achieve the best result possible for him, the owner, the trainer, the punters and the horse.  He made no secret of the fact he thinks the English rule is a nonsense.  I must admit I do find it hard to believe that a jockey can count the number of strikes he gives whilst riding a finish, trying to stay straight and hold the horse together!  The debate rumbles on....  And Alec, the only F1 I watched last season was Monaco, the Saturday practise coverage because I think the scenery is stunning


----------



## KautoStar1 (17 January 2015)

I like Ruby. He says it the way it is but as what he says comes from his vast experience you tend to sit up and take notice.


----------

