The Whip Debate Rears its Head Again.

[Desert Orchid]

From today's RP.

I wasn't aware there had been an issue with the race the other day but the owner of Tranchee is saying exactly what I have been arguing since that day at York many years ago when the front three should have been disqualified. (Was the Juddmonte won by One So Wonderful?)

Anyway copied from today's Racing Post:

The “toothless” penalties for overuse of the whip are set to be legally challenged by leading owner Kulbir Sohi, who believes disqualification is the only means to rigorously ensure all jockeys ride within the rules.

Sohi said on Monday that he had appealed the result of the £75,000 Coral Sprint Trophy at York in which his horse Tranchee, the 9-2 favourite trained by David Loughnane, finished second to Gulliver, ridden by Martin Harley.

Harley, who received £3,268 in prize-money for the victory, was fined £1,350 and suspended for nine days after using his whip 12 times on Gulliver inside the final two furlongs, five strikes above the maximum of seven permitted in a Flat race.

However, Sohi is adamant that the penalties are an insufficient deterrent against misuse of the whip and stronger measures are needed to protect the “integrity of the sport".

“To overuse the whip to my eye is performance enhancing,” he said. “If the horse had been given performance enhancing drugs then this wouldn’t even be a conversation, but having a performance enhancing use of the whip – and the horse is clearly responding to the whip – then it should be the same argument.

“There’s no deterrent there for riders and if [Harley] felt he was on the best horse in the race why would he need to use the whip more than the rules allow? We won the race within the rules and he has gained an advantage to win the race, so it’s had a material impact. They’re toothless at the moment the rules – they’re a joke.

“As long as everyone had played by the rules I’d accept the defeat all day long, but we all have to play by the same rules.”

A legal team representing Sohi has been instructed to look into the validity of the rules and penalties around overuse of the whip, with the owner, who has had 24 individual runners in his colours this year, calling for disqualification when the rules are breached.

“You have to disqualify these horses and place them last,” he said. “I have emailed the BHA letting them know that I’m going to appeal the result and I have also spoken to my legal guys about this – and challenging both is equally as important.

"If I can prevent this from happening again to someone else as it means [the BHA] introduce disqualification, even if it’s one strike over the limit, then that’s the way it has to be.”

He added: “If this isn’t stopped how many other races are going to go this way? I think we’re talking about the integrity of the sport here. Do I say to my jockeys now, ‘ignore the rules, do what you have to do to win the race and I don’t want to hear excuses’? Why have rules if there is no deterrent if they’re broken? It’s the injustice of it all.”

A planned consultation into the whip this year was postponed by the BHA in the spring due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, with the review instead moved to the start of 2021.

On Monday, the regulator stated it was keen for input from racing’s participants over the forthcoming review, which had been recommended by the Horse Welfare Board.

A spokesman said: “The BHA has committed to undertake a consultation regarding the use of the whip in British racing, as per the recommendations of the Horse Welfare Board’s strategic plan for the welfare of horses bred for racing.

“That project was placed temporarily on hold while the sport has diverted its time and resources to the management of the coronavirus pandemic, and the BHA Board has agreed that the consultation should be instead carried out in 2021.

“We would very much welcome the views of Mr Sohi as part of that consultation and encourage him to submit a response. In the meantime we would be happy to speak to Mr Sohi to discuss his concerns.”

Martin Harley declined to comment when contacted by the Racing Post on Monday.

[barjon]

It surely is no contest. The only possible excuse the BHA can offer is that whipping does not enhance performance and their rule is solely for the welfare of the horse. Or they could try the somewhat fanciful argument that whipping up to 7 does enhance performance but 8,9,10,11,12 did not.

Clearly, whipping (however unpalatable) does enhance performance so like any other performance enhancing breech of the rules it should result in disqualification. We’d be better off without it.

[Maxbet]

The irony here is, the horse didn't need to be hit at all in the final furlong... He was 2L up entering and he wasn't stopping, each smack spurred him yes, that was apparent...Trainer was probably screaming for him to do just eough, and felt the fine was Harley's own fault!

[Desert Orchid]

The irony here is, the horse didn't need to be hit at all in the final furlong... He was 2L up entering and he wasn't stopping, each smack spurred him yes, that was apparent...Trainer was probably screaming for him to do just eough, and felt the fine was Harley's own fault!

I don't think it was the difference between Tranchee winning and not winning. I was on Tranchee at 12/1 ante-post but the trip looked on the short side for it. It didn't have the mid-race pace at the trip and was really motoring in the final furlong. I was really annoyed with myself for not at least saving on Gulliver as I had it top-rated but to be totally honest it was the booking of Harley that put me off. I have him down as the type trainers use when they want them to find trouble in running. I got that one seriously wrong!

[viking]

I think an argument against harsher penalties before has been that it’s difficult to keep count when a race is on in earnest. The jocks will soon learn to count when there’s the likelihood they’ll get disqualified IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk