It doesn't need an analogy. The bottom line is as the rules stand the jockey has breached the rules. It doesn't matter if the horse wins in a head-bobber or by 3 lengths the horse should be disqualified. The jockey should get a meaningful ban and fine. The trainer should consider not using him again for fear of losing owners. The owner should be after him with a pitchfork.
Sure debate what the whip rules should be, but whatever they are how many times do you think we'd see excessive use of the whip? It's a no-brainer and there's no rational argument against it.
I very much agree. The analogy was to try and find other sports where the rules are equally as clear-cut as you're advocating, which I would be all for.
It isn't criminal law we're debating so I'm not sure punishment fitting the 'crime' is an issue.
I accept that there will be very wealthy owners whose wealth and ego will dictate that they will fight any disqualification all the way to the highest level simply because they can afford to.
But we should really just remember that people like that are just basterts...
Illegitimi non carborundum
The authorities have changed the rules to try to be as fair as possible to jockeys in terms of days lost through bans and fines etc.
But if the truth be known; many jockeys would gladly forfeit their winning prize money for a winner at Cheltenham. In many instances such a ride can win the jockey more future rides and result in even better financial benefit long term.
The only way to stop the whip is to make the punishment relevant to the crime, no bans, no fines...simply equate a distance to each crack given over the permitted limit, and deduct that from the horses final placing. All ambiguity would be removed, stewards wouldn't be criticised, the jockey would have to answer only to the owners.
Last edited by Maxbet; 20th March 2018 at 11:42 AM.
I think that would lead to more argument and disagreement. People will argue that different horses react differently to the whip. For some they won't go any faster, they'll just keep going rather than slowing down. Then how do you quantify that? It might only amount to a fraction of a length per stroke and in the case of Native River, three cracks of the whip wouldn't have amounted to half a length so the jockey has arguably been cruel to the horse without really being punished.
I'm not convinced agreement could be reached on that one, to be honest, which is why I'd prefer something much more cut and dried.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Your reading people's arguments into something that wouldn't be possible. Your totally missing the point....the point is prevention. Forget what people or what different horses do under sufferance....they are allowed 5 inside the furlong marker, I think 10 during the race....whatever it is; set it and punish by deduction for each crack given over the permitted level....
Think about it; you've counted, your in a driving finish, you THINK a couple more cracks MIGHT get you up...but you KNOW it will cost you half a length or so if you hit again....What would you do ??
People can't argue that they might or might not get a shock if they touch an electric fence!
Apologies if that's an an analogy.
Last edited by Maxbet; 20th March 2018 at 12:32 PM.
The way I see it, it's likely to work in my favour more often than against.
Illegitimi non carborundum
I know you like to back big prices -how would you feel if you lost a 40/1 winner.
Surely its as likely that the 40/1 shot finishes second under a 'legal' ride and is awarded the race.
So the jockey should receive some financial reward although they are the only one who broke the rules and the trainer and the owners lose the race and do not receive any financial reward? How is that fair, and an argument for disqualification? The jockey is the only one who has the whip in his hand during at a race; no one can shout at them from the rail to tell them they have used up their allowance and to stop hitting the animal. It's not like a football manager shouting from the technical area at his central defender.
Upping penalties on jockeys won't make a difference. If a race is important enough, owners will still expect their jockey to do what's needed to win as long as they get to keep the race. If the gains are big enough owners will be happy to look after a suspended jockey and quietly compensate them for their time off.
Say if the JC retained ~3% of the jockey's winning cut in a general pool. If a jockey and horse are disqualified for over use of the whip this pool is used to compensate the owner (not the trainer et al). Unused monies are refunded at end of season.
I think the peer pressure aspect of this would be far more influential than a 4 day ban. Imagine going back into the weigh room and explaining to Ruby why you cost him money!
"And still they gazed and still the wonder grew. That one small head could carry all he knew.
And that small head knew that Impaire Et Passe would win the Champion Hurdle."