Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 72

Thread: Misuse of the whip at Cheltenham

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    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.
    Horses going the longer but incorrect route around a dolled off fence are disqualified automatically.

  2. #42
    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 HawkWing View Post
    Horses going the longer but incorrect route around a dolled off fence are disqualified automatically.
    Yes. Athletes are disqualified too but sometimes in the heat of competition they aren't aware that they've strayed.

    I think we're agreeing in principle.

    It's trying to find the correct analogy in other sports.
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  3. #43
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Shire
    Posts
    4,748
    Thanks
    262
    Thanked 930 Times in 580 Posts
    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.

  4. #44
    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 Maruco View Post
    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


  5. #45
    Senior Member Maxbet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,053
    Thanks
    392
    Thanked 355 Times in 269 Posts
    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.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    Yes. Athletes are disqualified too but sometimes in the heat of competition they aren't aware that they've strayed.

    I think we're agreeing in principle.

    It's trying to find the correct analogy in other sports.
    No, we are definitely agreeing.

  7. #47
    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 Maxbet View Post
    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.
    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


  8. #48
    Senior Member Maxbet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,053
    Thanks
    392
    Thanked 355 Times in 269 Posts
    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.

  9. #49
    Senior Member simmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    South Lanarkshire
    Posts
    5,523
    Thanks
    306
    Thanked 397 Times in 357 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxbet View Post
    Think aboutit; 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 ??
    If it was 5 lengths per crack I might see the logic here but otherwise you'd be far better off taking the race off them.

  10. #50
    Senior Member tiggers1972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Cheltenham
    Posts
    3,687
    Thanks
    346
    Thanked 379 Times in 314 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Maruco View Post
    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.
    Spot on Paul.

    PS good to see you briefly last week.

  11. #51
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Shire
    Posts
    4,748
    Thanks
    262
    Thanked 930 Times in 580 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tiggers1972 View Post
    Spot on Paul.

    PS good to see you briefly last week.
    Yes you too Darren.

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    8,252
    Thanks
    264
    Thanked 317 Times in 251 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    Absolutely. I've been arguing so since the York race.

    That makes you the only punter I know who would be happy to suffer a financial loss for the greater good-I'm full of admiration.

  13. #53
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    23,659
    Thanks
    2,930
    Thanked 3,482 Times in 2,742 Posts
    The way I see it, it's likely to work in my favour more often than against.
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    8,252
    Thanks
    264
    Thanked 317 Times in 251 Posts
    I know you like to back big prices -how would you feel if you lost a 40/1 winner.

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Surely its as likely that the 40/1 shot finishes second under a 'legal' ride and is awarded the race.

  16. #56
    Senior Member G-G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Not got much to lose.
    Posts
    3,187
    Thanks
    726
    Thanked 471 Times in 295 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    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.
    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.

  17. #57
    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
    I know you like to back big prices -how would you feel if you lost a 40/1 winner.
    The same as if it didn't win.
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  18. #58
    Senior Member Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    9,397
    Thanks
    882
    Thanked 912 Times in 550 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by G-G View Post
    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.

  19. #59
    Senior Member an capall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dalkey
    Posts
    5,496
    Thanks
    422
    Thanked 840 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    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."

  20. #60
    Senior Member G-G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Not got much to lose.
    Posts
    3,187
    Thanks
    726
    Thanked 471 Times in 295 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    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.
    The prior post was that the horse should lose the race through disqualification, so no one would receive any money. Why would an owner pay a jockey is those circumstances? They have gained nothing.

Posting Permissions

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