Racehorse TALK

First what you have to understand is Human Nature, the RSPCA needs a high profile advefrsary so it will make the news, it is not about animal cruelty, it is about raisng the profile of the RSPCA so it can raise more money, that is their side, on the racing side, the whips importance is Highly over rated anyway!! most good jockeys will soon master it, they use the whip mainly to pacify (uneducated)punters who think if they are't bashing the daylightse out of their mounts they must be either incompetant or not trying, so don't get yourself in a not over it, take a laxette and let it pass!!

The thing that the RSPCA should be looking into is the use of spurs, they are not only cruel but a blight on racing and the powers that be should be held accountable as they must know about them and try to hide their use from the public, I have seen jockeys behind the barriers "Raking" their mounts before they go into the barriers, absolutely disgusting behaviour from senior high profile Jockeys

does anyone think that leaders have a advantage since the whip rules have been implemented?food for thought for me

Zip whip furore
Rod NicholsonFrom: HS Sunday, 14 March 2010

 THE owners of Sirmione are theatening legal action if stewards refuse to consider stripping  Zipping of the Australian Cup.


Zipping's jockey Nick Hall disregarded the whip rules to get the eight-year-old gelding home by a nose in the Group 1 event at Flemington on Saturday.

Les Smith said the owners were furious that stewards did not alert them to the potential for a protest.

Smith said stewards, aware of Hall's indiscretion, "should have tapped us on the shoulder and informed us that we would have favourable grounds for a protest immediately after the race, or done their job and protested themselves".

"It wasn't until this morning (yesterday) that we learned that Hall had been fined $1000 and said in his defence that had he not whipped Zipping 10 times before the 100m that he wouldn't have won the race," Smith said.
"When owners and our trainer Bart Cummings are caught up in the moment, it is up to the stewards to inform us that a protest should be considered.

"If we didn't protest, why didn't they? They knew Hall had broken the rules and, if a protest were lodged, it had every chance of being upheld.

"Yet they said nothing, did nothing, and let the placings stand before they then hauled Hall over the coals for his whip wrongdoing."

Smith pointed the finger at chief steward Terry Bailey.

"Bailey told the media that the owners/trainer would have had every right to protest," Smith said. "Why didn't he tap us on the shoulder and suggest it, or do it himself?

"As far as we are concerned, it is no different to a positive swab, information that comes to light after correct weight has been declared.

"We will speak with Bart and consider our position. I am not one for litigation. I know that Lloyd Williams has put multi-millions of dollars into racing, but so have I.

"What is more important is that a jockey has broken the rules, has admitted it, and has been fined a pittance. If this is not sorted out, the whip rules will become a joke."

Bailey said yesterday there was unrestricted use of the whip in the final 100m and he would have thought that Luke Nolen (Sirmione) had his chance to win. We penalised Nick Hall for use of the whip prior to the final 100m, but Sirmione had his chance in that last 100m," Bailey said.

I don't reckon  young Nick would have admitted overuse of the whip had a protest been lodged.
Had he made  his post race comment in a protest hearing he would/may have lost the race and Lloyd would have blown up bigtime.

Bailey is reported to havge said he wasn'yt aware of the breach before weight was declared and only discovered it after watching a replay of the race.He also said he won't be holding up declaring weight to weatch replays for any misuse of the whip rules.
Understand Sirmione's owners disappointment but too late now.

Tend to agree with those comments....there's an interview on Sport 927 with Bailey but I can't get it to play.

TERRY BAILEY NEEDS COUNSELLING

If the connections of Sirmione were to press their claim to be declared the winner of the Australian Cup, the Victorian Chief Steward may be ordered to take counselling about his dismissive attitude to the importance of the new whip rules colouring both his decision on Saturday and his comments on 927 this morning.

Anyone else discharging a quasi-judicial role in that casual manner may well be asked to stand down.

For starters, he declared 'correct weight' without making any effort, apparently, to be aware of facts that may have sustained a protest against the winner, Zipping, in a very tight finish.

The outcome in Sydney may well be very different -- as has been well documented, the inclination to take a hard line on the whip rules is much stronger in Sydney.

One has to go back to September last year to capture some of the emotions colouring this interstate war: the Chief steward in Sydney was publicly humiliated when the Chairman of the, miscalled,  Australian Racing Board sponsored a watered down interpretation of the new whip rules then slated for review in February.

Nothing, nothing at all,  has since been heard of Bob the Boss -- nominally the Chairman of the unARB -- but the Sydney stewards have continued to penalize offenders, including suspensions,  as if the rules were cast in granite.

With the Sydney carnival looming, one cannot rule out some explosive decisions on the consequences of misuse of the whip -- especially as those engaging riders would be well aware of the record of repeat offenders.

Those wanting to win in Melbourne may be well advised to engage a jockey prepared to cop a small fine in the pursuit of a big percentage -- but some racing in Sydney with the same attitude may be destined to lose on protest -- and, unlike in Melbourne, the Sydney stewards may well put one in on their own account if their were a close finish and they suspected that the whip rules were broken.

One only ever despairs at the incompetence of the managementof the integrity of racing in Australia -- but, pray tell, what was the outcome of the review of the new whip rules supposed to be finalized in February?

This is now mid March and these ides should not bode well for someone.

[As an aside, it is surely the case that no one watching a race could be expected to count the use of the whip on every contender -- only those subsequently viewing the tape, in slow motion, would have any reason to single out particular riders for closer scrutiny.

One issue of concern is that more effort is being put into 'counting house' policing of a very dubious whip-use rule while many other issues of genuine relevance to the management of the quality of the racing producrt are simply ignored. This is a very questionable display of contrived priorities in an industry simply out of touch with the concerns of its paying customers.]

 

Review of new whip rules was presented to the ARB today and they accepted the recommendation to leave
the current rules unchanged

Sirmione's owner - It's time to get the whip rule right
As the part-owner of Sirmione who was publicly caught in the middle of last week’s controversial aftermath to the Australian Cup, I feel the need to put a few points on record ahead of the Australian Racing Board’s review of the current whip rules, writes Les Smith.

First and foremost, good luck to Lloyd Williams and the connections of their great old warrior Zipping, who thoroughly deserves to have a Group 1 on his CV.

Unfortunately for us, it was against our own warrior Sirmione, and unfortunately for everyone involved in racing, the subsequent media coverage highlighted that the whip rules introduced last year by the ARB failed in the heat of a big race, and so ahead of Thursday’s review, I wanted to state that I firmly believe that the Australian Cup proved beyond all doubt that the rules as they stand are at best inadequate, and at worst unfair and unworkable.

This is based on two key points from the race:

1. The chief steward was reported in the media as saying that the owners could have lodged an objection (under rule 137A (9) and he also commented that a review of the race, could only be done after the announcing of correct weight, due to time constraints.

If this isn’t totally impractical and unworkable I don’t know what is!

What this in effect means is that the window for connections of a runner up to query the use of the whip on the winner, (before correct weight is declared) is only open prior to even the officials (stewards) charged with passing judgement on whether or not a jockey has transgressed the rules.

We as owners cheer on our horse from the grandstand, walk down to (often) commiserate with each other, listen to the jockey’s post-mortem, and within seconds correct weight has been declared.

Seriously! At what stage in that process is it possible or creditable to ask a question regarding the overuse or otherwise of the whip by the jockey on the winning horses?

2. Nick Hall, the jockey of the winning horse who was fined for breaching rule 137A, 5 (a) ii was quoted by Tim Habel in the Herald Sun, "I've won by a centimetre, and I probably wouldn't have won without it. I'm not a ferocious whip rider, I don't believe in it."

On Monday morning, he stated on radio 927, words to the effect that he had lost count in the heat of the moment in his vigour to get the horse to the line, and on Sky Channel’s “Racing Retro” he stated that he breached the rules to “stoke” the horse up, to enable his horse to contest the finish and he further stated that racing was “competitive” at this level.

Had these statements been made in a hearing of an objection, they would have been seen as material to the outcome, in that the jockey contravened the rules to provide him with a competitive advantage, and that IN HIS OWN WORDS, “I probably wouldn't have won without it.”

Now Terry Bailey was later reported to say that the rule is there to stop blatant overuse of the whip, but I simply ask “how do you define blatant overuse of the whip?” Is there a number or is it simply up to the gut feel of the steward in charge on the day?

So while on face value overuse of whip and a positive swab to prohibited substance are poles apart in terms of seriousness, there is a similarity in that both situations only come to light after correct weight has been declared.

All this suggests that while we won’t be pursuing action through the legal system, surely someone will if the situation remains that evidence of a clear transgression of the whip rules only comes to light after correct weight has been declared, because the question will be asked that if this had this come to light earlier, would the result have been overturned?

Or do owners now simply have an obligation to themselves and the punters that backed their horse to lodge a protest after every tight finish, to allow time to carry out a review of the race to ensure this particular rule is not contravened?

Good luck seeing how long the TAB and other betting agencies allow that to occur with the hold-ups to punters being able to reinvest their money!

At the time of the whip rules coming into play most clear thinking participants highlighted their concern about the probability of some jockeys purposely or unwittingly breaching the rules when trying to win a major race.

However the proponents conversely stated that the rule would be vigorously enforced to eliminate this happening and allowing an unfair advantage to the one who broke the rules.

In this first true test of these rules in a major race this clearly did not happen.

For the record, I have no gripe with Nick Hall who did his best for his connections and achieved the desired result.

My gripe is with those who have constructed this rule to appease those with a so-called concern about the “image” of the sport, leaving an impossible dilemma for those charged with properly administering rules that clearly most in the racing industry now see as impossible to strictly enforce in the heat of battle.

It’s tough enough as an owner seeing your horse go down in a photo finish of a big race without going through such a “what if” situation as we have over the past week.

World,

I agree with you-- all your comments---and congrats---in being involved in a good horse---trained by a great trainer.

Don't think he owns the horse Chuggers 

Very good letter imo understand his feelings completely
 Protesting would be a problem even if they were aware of the breach and had time to lodge an objection or view the film and hold up correct weight.
Under the rules as I understand them it's not sufficient to prove a breach of the rules, what is needed is to show that but for that (interference) the result would have been different.It's relatively easy to see a horse checked losing a length or so and beaten by less than that but it still comes down to "in the opinion of stewards"

MajiC,

Thats all right---you know me ---pissed again.     
You know I'm only good for day time to make sense   

Racing: Six months later, Australians are flogging a dead horse with whip rules

By Mike Dillon 

Six months of operation has done little to make you believe the new Australian whip rules are anything but crazy.

If you need an example, since September when the new rules were applied, there have been 60 suspensions for breaches of the whip restriction rules in New South Wales. Victoria has not had one.

No one believes Melbourne jockeys have got their heads around the rule and Sydney jockeys haven't.

It's simply interpretation and application.

To be fair, Victorian racing has suspended a couple of jockeys, both of whom have won their case on appeal.

In each of those cases the judge was extremely critical that racing had mandatory rules with no opportunity of discretion by racing stewards.

The Australian rules are simply unworkable.

And the reason is money.

Take the A$1 million Australian Cup two and a half weeks ago.

Winner Zipping was struck by Nicholas Hall 10 times with the whip outside the final 100m at Flemington, twice the allowable limit under the new rule.
CCID: 28569

The result was a A$1000 fine - that's not much of a dent for the owner to come up with from the A$605,000 winner's cheque.

The rider of the Bart Cummings-trained runner up Sirmione - beaten a nose - Luke Nolen stuck to the rules and left the course thinking he's the biggest bunny in horse racing.

Where's Nolen's incentive?

Sirmione's backers would have felt the same way.

Do you think for one second a rider is going to stick to the allotted number of whip strikes at the 150m if their horse is being beaten a nose in Saturday's A$3.5 million Golden Slipper?

Gee, let me think.

Imagine a jockey coming back in and saying: "I probably could have got you that couple of million dollars, but I was worried about the A$1000 fine."

You're kidding.

The Australians went from open slather with the whip, when we had restrictions, to padded whips, which instantly fixed the problem on their own. Then, ridiculously, imposed restrictions on top of it.

Restrictions that will never work.

Animal activists, more than half the problem, can hang their heads in shame.

In New Zealand, if a jockey uses the whip for six consecutive strides outside the final 200m they must not use it for six strides before resuming.

Inside the final 200m, provided a horse is in contention and not dropping away, there is no restriction provided the whip is used in a manner stewards do not deem to be excessive.

There is now no discretion in Australia.

"We have the best whip rules in the world," says New Zealand's chief stipendiary steward Cameron George, recently back after 14 months as steward for Victorian harness racing.

"It satisfies animal welfare and allows a rider to perform competitively to provide the best result for punters."

George said Victorian harness a few years ago introduced a rule that required drivers to use the whip no more than 10 times in the home straight.

"More recently, every state in Australia required drivers to keep holding the rein in the hand they were using to apply the whip.

"Because the drivers in Victoria were already used to whip restrictions, they adjusted much quicker than drivers in the other states, who had a lot of problems."

Sky Racing 2, which launched in Australia yesterday, is strictly for the addict.

It is taking races from everywhere - for example every race run in New

Zealand will now be broadcast - while the standard Sky Channel will restrict itself to the mainstream meetings.

Almost identical to the system New Zealand recently introduced, except Sky 2 is literally wall-to-wall races.

From 9.05am on Saturday, when Sky 2 takes the first race from New Zealand, through to midnight, 297 races will be shown.

You wouldn't want to be having a bad day on the punt.

$2000 fine.

Fancy the stewards trying to bring this issue to a head on such a day, in the middle of the carnival period.

Any industrial action will be on their heads.

NSW STEWARDS: SIMPLY AN INSULT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC INTELLIGENCE

Who do you think will be paying the $2000 fine imposed on the rider of Faint Perfume?

One clue to the answer was a remark attributed to Bart Cummings that 'the jockeys were unhappy: reportedly,

Legendary trainer Bart Cummings said Murrihy was too focused on making his name in the media."He's very unpopular. This steward makes the rules to make himself more powerful, stewards and umpires should be seen and not heard."

Unfortunately it is no longer possible for licensed persons to speak frankly about 'who pays' but an extra $2000 is well within the range of an extra sling for riding a Group One winner.


In the press this morning it is also reported that:

RACING NSW chief steward Ray Murrihy yesterday defended the new whip rules after jockey Michael Rodd criticised his $2000 fine from Saturday's Rosehill meeting.

''It was with much regret that a situation arose in Melbourne where legal action was threatened following Nick Hall's ride on Zipping in the Australian Cup,'' Murrihy said. ''Rodd had six previous whip-use charges on his record but we took everything into account when declaring the fine.''

He said that Rodd had earned $12,500 as his winning percentage for winning the Vinery Stakes on the Bart Cummings-trained filly and believes that the fine was appropriate.

Apparently blind to the obvious intelligent inference, the Chief Steward compares the %2000 fine to the winning riders normal 5% commission -- blandly oblivious that the winning connections just trousered some $250,000 before deductions of trainers and riders commissions and slings.  Bland passing off such an odious comparison is insulting to the racing and wider community -- there is no faint perfume about this one, it stinks.

In short, everyone else knows the likely reality but the authoritarian powers of the stewards prevents everyone telling the truth -- where is the integrity in that?

The die for a confrontation in NSW over the new whip rules was cast six months ago.

Posting from the Boston Public library last September I noted that  Bob the Boss, of the unAustralian Racing Board pointedly told the NSW chief steward to butt out of the policy debate on the new whip rules -- and the rest is history: the rules left in place have been enforced predictably in NSW.

Bob the Boss, whose term is finite, will probably need to step down before a new 'leader' takes his turn at the head of a very non-national body and makes amends with the NSW stewards.

Ahead of that there are some fireworks to come -- it would be interesting to see a market, on Betfair, about the now very likely event of a NSW carnival race result being overturned because the whip rule was breached.

There is only one final outcome to this saga before the rule is changed -- and it now looms large.