Racehorse TALK

Good stuff Janice thanks for continuing the debate.
EZ that is my point..that fore and back ain't much difference so WHY do the current rules allow one (back) to be used WITHOUt restriction? and severely restrict, in a confusing way for all concerned,the other method ie forehand. A mess.
To say Joe Public doesn't care based on protest numbers is naive thinking at its worst.
Many many people in my world aren't into racing at all. When i ask why.........   get 2 responses.
either:'    .it's a bit cruel isn't it and what happens to the old ones?'
and /or 'it's all bloody rigged anyway isn't it?'
How we ever fix that I don't know.
But current rules and administration ain't helpin....
 

OK have a great idea  if I do say so myself. 
Get rid of the padded whip & replace it with a cardboard roll. Yes a cardboard roll! 

The kind that you get in the centre of gift wrapping.  About a 3 foot cardboard hollow tube.

The advantage of this is that even the animal rights do gooders will recognise you can't do any damage with it. The plus side is it still makes some noise & is still a visual to spur the horse on................but wait there's more.................. the major advantage!!........... if you whack the horse too hard the bloody thing bends at 90 degree angle & becomes useless from that point on. 

All jockeys would have their cardboard rolls inspected by stewards after each race & the ones that bend or crease theirs get hit with a fine. (enough to buy another 100 rolls)

Another advantage is that they would no longer be called 'whips' which has a negative connotation. They are simply called 'tubes' which has a much more pleasant ring.

Anyone see any drawbacks to these 'tubes'  & advise how I'd go about getting a patent for this idea?  & what would I do with all the gift wrapping? 

What about when it rains and the Cardboard gets wet??  

Good One Zoro...................great way to start  the day with a laugh        


Take a jellybean from the jar...... on yer way out

It doesn't rain in QLD, 'Sunny one day, perfect the next'. 
Southerners would need a plastic waterproof cover on wet days. I can supply these at a discount price.    

I disciplined my kids with the wooden spoon and they all turned out to be stirrers.

That's the go I reckon for the horses...wooden spoon.

If the padded whips hurt so much, why not have a couple of tacks inserted into the whip and allow a maximum of two whacks from the 100m?

Oh dear...we are on the comedy channel.
Serious comment..anyone?

Back to the future -- a dash of commonsense

The recent posting to UK racing of an RVL man to sort it out, has struck down the number-based whip rules.

One might ask if some similar commonsense might soon reflect in the Australian rules -- otherwise the pressure is building for a rules-based relegation of horse 'winning' a big race.

Two extracts from the news:

BITTAR MAKES CHANGE IN
WHIP RULES
Paul Bittar, the head of the British
Horseracing Authority, has made
his first major decision since his
appointment. The controversial whip
rules, which stated a number of
permitted strokes, were first introduced
in Britain in September and have
since changed four times. Bittar has
now put an end to a fixed number of
permitted strokes allowing Stewards to
review the manner in which the whip is
used. Revisions were also made to the
penalty structure that was introduced
with the whip run back in September.

....

New BHA  chief executive Paul Bittar had indicated that he wanted the rules amended before the Festival.

"Over four months have passed since the introduction of the first set of rules following the Whip Review," said Bittar, after the changes were approved at a board meeting on Tuesday.

"Despite a number of changes to both the rule and the accompanying penalty structure, it is clear that while many objectives of the review are being met, and in particular those pertaining to horse welfare, a rule that polices the use of the whip based solely on a fixed number of strikes is fundamentally flawed.

"While well intentioned, and in accordance with initial requests from the jockeys for clarity and consistency via a fixed number, in practice the new rules have repeatedly thrown up examples of no consideration being given to the manner in which the whip is used as well as riders being awarded disproportionate penalties for the offence committed."

Yep he has really sorted this out....NOT!
How is a move to a less transparent discretionary approach gonna solve anything?
Bloody ridiculous.

The WHOLE issue is driven by perception is it not?
So whether you agree or diagree with whether a whip hurts or makes ahorse go slightly faster, the whole issue is a red herring.
Of course you need a numerical limit.
It's so people can clearly see if a horse is flogged up the straight.
Imagine, just imagine, what would have happened with a discretionary opinion based decision in last years Melb Cup had Red C been inches quicker and the winner over the line.
Don't we get it?
Perception equals the future health of industry.
More padding...give me a break.
Clear rules, no back hand vs forehand difference in rules, and we are nearly there.....oh yeah, video review done before correct weight on first 4 or so.
Not too hard is it?

SL, while I do not agree with the whole whip issue, I think you are right in so far as if they persist with this rule/rules they are going to have to police it properly as you say, or face a stuff up of monumental proportions down the track.

And now we have clear evidence that the new whip rules are a bloody farce.
RSPCA now have clear scientific evidence we DO NOT have horse welfare sorted regarding this issue.
We DO NOT have adequate review and enforcement of rules WE have signed up to.
Cmon apologists refute the findings noted in this article.
Been sayin this here for some time...this issue ain't gonna go away, and it ain't sorted.
See the following cut and paste:


RSPCA demands review of whip use in horse racing

by: Patrick Smith
From:The Australian
March 21, 201212:00AM

Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print














SCIENTISTS and welfare experts following a damning scientific study published yesterday are again questioning the provocative use of the whip in Australian horse racing.

The research paper produced by the University of Sydney has forced the RSPCA to again call for a review of the rules, which it claims are failing to protect horses from abuse.

RSPCA chief executive Heather Neil has demanded the Australian Racing Board close the gap between the stringent rules protecting British racehorses and the all but reckless free-for-all allowed under Australian authorities.

Neil's letter refers to a University of Sydney peer-reviewed paper published in the Public Library of Science that seriously questions the effectiveness of the padded whip and the ability of race stewards to accurately supervise their own rules, and points to a blatant breach of the international agreement on horse welfare. The research is based on footage of 15 races at two Gosford meetings last year.B
British rules allow a horse to be struck only seven times in a flat race and eight in a jumps event, while in Australia there are some limitations to the whip's use 100m from the finishing post but from that point the rider can wield the whip at his discretion.

Neil wrote: "The study found that 83 per cent of whip impacts caused a visual indentation on the horse, indicating that the whip is striking the horse with considerable force."

She said the study clearly indicated that such strikes were applied with enough force to deform the horse's skin in most cases.

The researchers, led by Paul McGreevy from the University of Sydney's faculty of veterinary science, found that the whip struck the horse in the abdomen more than 75 per cent of the time. Both Neil and McGreevy's team found this to be in direct contravention of an international agreement of which Australia is a signatory.
"A whip strike in this area is likely to be even more painful to the horse than a strike on the hindquarters because there is little muscle to absorb the impact of the whip. The flank also extends to the stifle joint and is extremely sensitive and vulnerable to injury. For this reason, strikes to the flank are prohibited under the International Agreement on Breeding, Racing and Wagering.

"Australia is one of the 45 signatories to this agreement that have agreed to this specific prohibition," Neil wrote.

The research also demonstrated that the padded whip was not necessarily less painful. "This study found that in 64 per cent of impacts, the unpadded section of the whip made contact with the horse, negating any argument that the padding is protecting horses from abuse. Given that the whip is used in order to try to change the behaviour of the horse, it may be that jockeys have altered the way in which they use this whip to overcome the possibility it has less impact," Neil said.

The study, using high-resolution slow-motion digital photography, also found at least 28 examples of apparent breaches of whip rules. Only one was observed by stewards on the day.

Both Neil and the researchers said racing required improved technology -- high-speed, higher-resolution footage. Otherwise stewards could not adequately judge whether the rules were being adhered to, Neil said.

"In summary, this new study finds a number of serious problems with the current whip rules and their enforcement which are placing horses at serious risk of abuse," she said.

"The RSPCA's view remains that the necessity or justification for the use of whips in racing is unproven, and that the best solution to avoid the pain and distress caused to horses by whips would be to remove them from the racetrack altogether, or at the very least, to limit their use to specific safety-related circumstances.

"Following the BHA reforms to the UK whip rules, this new information makes it even clearer that the current Australian whip rules are neither effective nor enforceable and are in urgent need of review."


See?






.



.










.


 Nicole Jeffery


'Magnussen is in the frame for as many as four medals at the London Games'


 .

Mike Atherton


'The nightmarish circumstances he found himself in put an entirely different complexion on his situation'


 .

Patrick Smith







. .

Prev

3 of 3

Next
 .









.





.









.







.



ALL THE LATEST


Our experts on the lead up to The Games.
.


.



THE AUSTRALIAN IPAD APP


Now available with The Australian Digital Pass.
.. .










.

If racing doesn't do something to sort this they have rocks in their head.

An example is my wife. Loves horses and is slowly getting an appreciation of horse racing (only been ten years).

Her exact words were "I think it's mean but I like the fact that they have reduced it down to a certain number". Next words were "...but I think they should be banned completely".

She says it wouldn't stop her going to the races but she says that they should cut it down further "maybe three only". But in the next breath "I know Katie ins't going because her sister say they whip them too much".

This is the dilemma.

And this was written verbatim as I asked the questions. And my wife is someone who watches me watch racing every weekend and knows I love it almost as much as her