Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 72

Thread: Misuse of the whip at Cheltenham

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    992
    Thanks
    647
    Thanked 235 Times in 179 Posts
    If we are all happy that our sport becomes niche, only enjoyed by those who actually know what's going on and has no appeal to a wider "couple of times a year" market, then let's keep the whip. If on the other hand, we can take into account an outsider's perspective, and a few that will help to sustain racing in years to come - and may even start attending meetings - we should listen to them. My view is that the whip is a vile and unedifying spectacle - ban its use, other than for corrective purposes. And, yes, disqualify jockeys for breaking the rules and "cheating".

  2. #22
    Senior Member tiggers1972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Cheltenham
    Posts
    3,687
    Thanks
    346
    Thanked 379 Times in 314 Posts
    It certainly doesn't look seeing horses getting pummelled at the end of the race on desperate ground, exactly the image you don't want for the sport.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    I think some jockeys at Cheltenham were aware of the punishment but made the calculated risk of going for it anyway, and take the hit (ironically). That Rathvinden couldnt be led into the winners enclosure out of exhaustion whereas Ms Parfois could, and maybe coincidentally benefitted from receiving more judicious and legal handling didnt seem right.

    I guess its like a defender handling the ball on the line with 2 mins left in the game (suarez at world cup springs to mind), knowing that the red card is still better than letting in the goal.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    9,397
    Thanks
    882
    Thanked 912 Times in 550 Posts
    Having more severe penalties for jockeys would be unfair because it doesn't take into account where the real power lies.

    Trainers and owners will continue to expect riders to do all they can to win, even if it means a few weeks off rather than a few days. If the stakes are high enough the rider can always be compensated financially. The only logical thing to do is disqualify the horse. Like others, I believe it wouldn't be long before everyone got used to it and offences would cease.

    Archie makes a good point about the inflexibility of having the same rules regardless of the type of race.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    2,940
    Thanks
    403
    Thanked 240 Times in 175 Posts
    To me there is simply no argument. If the rule is broken the horse loses the race regardless of the feelings or views of owners, trainers, or punters. It simply is not right, in any sport , that breaking the rules allows you to win.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,410
    Thanks
    600
    Thanked 581 Times in 486 Posts
    As previously indicated I’m in complete agreement that whip abuse should lead to disqualification and that it would only take one or two occurrences before jockeys got used to the idea I do wonder about the practicalities of policing this.

    We might be faced with potentially lengthy delays while stewards deliberate with inevitable appeals.

    Such delays would likely be unacceptable to punters and bookmakers


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 68 Times in 41 Posts
    As far as amateurs are concerned the bans should cover the days only when amateur races of a certain value were on . I doubt Patrick Mullins would have belted Rathvinden as he did had the bans included Aintree and Punchestown.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 68 Times in 41 Posts
    In fact I should like bans incurred at premier meetings to run from the start of the next e.g a Royal Ascot ban of 5 days would rule you out of the Eclipse and July Meeting
    Last edited by Ardross; 19th March 2018 at 3:32 PM.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    23,659
    Thanks
    2,930
    Thanked 3,482 Times in 2,742 Posts
    Disqualify the horse and you won't need to ban the jockey. As Maruco suggests, connections will put paid to future prospects as jockeys or fathers.
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 68 Times in 41 Posts
    DO - I don't disagree if the misuse of the whip could have affected the result but what if say the horse was clear and the jockey kept hitting it but it would undoubtedly have won anyway - why should the jockey then escape punishment. I think both disqualification and sanction for the jockey are required.

  11. #31
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    23,659
    Thanks
    2,930
    Thanked 3,482 Times in 2,742 Posts
    What if Lance Armstrong would have won one or two of his TDF titles even if he'd been clean?
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 68 Times in 41 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    What if Lance Armstrong would have won one or two of his TDF titles even if he'd been clean?
    Not something about which a judgment could possibly be made .The same cannot be said for a horse given two or three too many smacks when ten lengths clear 50 yds out.

    Logically, would that not lead to a return equally to the 1980s rules for interference where breaking the rules led to disqualification regardless of the consequences of the rule breach such as the absurd disqualification of Vacarme in the Richmond Stakes.

  13. #33
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    23,659
    Thanks
    2,930
    Thanked 3,482 Times in 2,742 Posts
    In that case what about an athlete who was miles clear but crossed lanes?
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 68 Times in 41 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    In that case what about an athlete who was miles clear but crossed lanes?
    But isn't that like a horse missing a fence or taking the wrong course ?

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    8,253
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 317 Times in 251 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    This is an argument that recurs regularly after a controversial race.

    The controversy can be removed long term by having a simple rule: break the rule and you lose the race.

    In the short term there will be debate about it but once people accept that there will be a disqualification the over/mis-use will stop.

    If it means disqualifying the first two or three in a race so be it. We see it in olympic sports. It can happen.

    ....and as a punter you would be happy with that?.

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardross View Post
    Not something about which a judgment could possibly be made .The same cannot be said for a horse given two or three too many smacks when ten lengths clear 50 yds out.

    Logically, would that not lead to a return equally to the 1980s rules for interference where breaking the rules led to disqualification regardless of the consequences of the rule breach such as the absurd disqualification of Vacarme in the Richmond Stakes.
    Why would a jockey want to hit a horse 2 or 3 times when 10 lengths clear 50 yards from the line? You havent addressed DO's question at all. The disqualifications of the 80s has nothing to do with the discussion either.

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 68 Times in 41 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by HawkWing View Post
    Why would a jockey want to hit a horse 2 or 3 times when 10 lengths clear 50 yards from the line? You havent addressed DO's question at all. The disqualifications of the 80s has nothing to do with the discussion either.
    It has everything to do with it and I did address his question.

    1 Not completing the course or taking the wrong course is not completing the race - rather than breaching a rule in course of completing a race . It is entirely different.

    2 Dickie Johnson hit Native River several times in the last 50 yrs when Might Bite was beaten. That does strike me as different to Patrick Mullins and McPartland whacking their horses in a close finish . The question is the consequence of the breach . That is why the 1980s examples are relevant .

    3 Now horses are demoted for breach of careless riding interference rules if it would have affected the result - if not they are not changed . In the 1980s and Vacarme is the most obvious example - minor interference by a facile winner could lead to the horse being thrown out - the punishment did not fit the crime .In my opinion, the rules have gone too far the other way now - horses keep races where the stewards think they probably would still have won. I think that is the wrong test - if the interfered horse might have won they ought to get the race .

    4 The same could apply to misuse of the whip - if the misuse might have affected the result the horse should be demoted. If not then a suspension should be imposed. If it is in a valuable race or at a premier meeting the suspension should have equivalent consequences . So if Patrick Mullins gets 10 days at the Cheltenham Festival they apply to Aintree and Punchestown.
    Last edited by Ardross; 19th March 2018 at 10:57 PM.

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardross View Post
    It has everything to do with it and I did address his question.

    1 Not completing the course or taking the wrong course is not completing the race - rather than breaching a rule in course of completing a race . It is entirely different.

    2 Dickie Johnson hit Native River several times in the last 50 yrs when Might Bite was beaten. That does strike me as different to Patrick Mullins and McPartland whacking their horses in a close finish . The question is the consequence of the breach . That is why the 1980s examples are relevant . Now horses are demoted for breach of careless riding interference rules if it would have affected the result - if not they are not changed . In the 1980s and Vacarme is the most obvious example - minor interference by a facile winner could lead to the horse being thrown out - the punishment did not fit the crime .In my opinion, the rules have gone too far the other way now - horses keep races where the stewards think they probably would still have won. I think that is the wrong test - if the interfered horse might have won they ought to get the race .
    Richard Johnson didn't know Might Bite was beaten. If anything, despite what many have claimed here and elsewhere, NR wasnt pulling clear of MB. MB was threatening to close up the hill and NR was completely out on his feet (slow bicycle finish with Anibale Fly just behind by the line). NR, ears absolutely flat back unlike many racehorses Ive ever seen, gave a flash of the tail after one smack, as he drifted across MB. Johnson knew the horse was knackered (methaphorically but close) but it was worth the flogging to win. If you trebled the fine and NR never ran again to anything like the form given the experience, he would still do it. I thought it was an ugly finish. As it stands, he would have won in any case, but Johnson wasnt going to leave it to doubt.

    Im not sure Rathvinden would have won unless bullied over the line - and he suffered the consequences after.

  19. #39
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    23,659
    Thanks
    2,930
    Thanked 3,482 Times in 2,742 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LUKE View Post
    ....and as a punter you would be happy with that?.
    Absolutely. I've been arguing so since the York race.
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  20. #40
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    23,659
    Thanks
    2,930
    Thanked 3,482 Times in 2,742 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardross View Post
    But isn't that like a horse missing a fence or taking the wrong course ?
    Not really. You're arguing that the horse should not lose the race because it was clearly the best in the race regardless of the infringement. An athlete who treads on or over the line - say the outer line of the lane - is gaining no advantage yet will be disqualified.

    Speed skaters can lose a race in similar circumstances, I believe.
    Illegitimi non carborundum


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •