New whip use rules - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



New whip use rules - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: New whip use rules  (Read 366904 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2021-Jun-28, 06:35 PM Reply #1700 »

I endorse the general warning but still trust some media players on 2KSKY

The list of 'trusteds' is short but it includes Ron Dufficy and Dean Lester and some others, including the Clark of course.

There is clearly a you-will-be-Thumpered regime in place nationally, allowing 'only nice' media commentary on racing industry issues. 

Racing Australia members are party to this de-facto gag. As in HongKong, denying a free-press is offensive.

Even so, I am reluctant to accept that all media players on 2KY are so beholden to the 'unholy alliance' that they do not speak frankly about appropriate policy on whip/persuader use when it is so clearly in the interests of the industry to reach a unanimous social agreement.

On the face of it, everyone is agreed on the use of a 'persuader' as an appropriate channel of communication between riders and horses .............. a point of disagreement is whether the design of the 'persuader' currently in use is 'painful' as distinct from being both 'very noisy' and 'very visible'.

.........this is not rocket science, so to speak, ........... it can hardly be beyond the wit of the racing industry to reach an openly publicised agreement with the animal-rights-lobby on an acceptable design of a persuader ........... a design at a point clearly on the no-pain-spectrum but to the right of 'no noise and not visible'.







Online Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2021-Sep-19, 04:25 PM Reply #1701 »


No integrity in penalties for 'excessive' use of a whip

When the 'prize' for first is $50,000+ a fine of $1,000, paid by the connections, not the offending jockey, is an incitement to disregard the rules on whip use.

The only possible penalties likely to have any proper impact are, first, suspension of the jockey and, second, disqualification of the horse from the race.

In short, first, no connections will cover 'the losses' of a leading jockey suspended and losing winning rides .......... second, connections likely to be 'disqualified' and denied any prizemoney at all woud be careful to instruct the jockey to respect the rules, and inclined to sue if he did not and they lost.

That is where integrity lies.

It is not, however, where commonsense lies.

The 'number-based' rules have no objective meaning in terms of advantage gained and need to be revoked. Put differently, would you prefer to be hit 'too many times' by a hard whip-rider or a soft whip-rider?

.......... 'numbers' of strikes have no meaning without knowing the force of strikes.

Conversely can a jockey be penalized for not using the whip to the maximum permitted?

Leaving the 'whip rule' to just drift, as is, in some vague ether is hardly tenable.

The stewards need to pull-the-stick on this one ------ upholding a protest and relegating a horse would see an uproar demanding clarity........... a disqualification of a runner would see a revolution.

................ is broke ........... needs fixing.

Offline nemisis

  • Group 2
  • User 2461
  • Posts: 2300
« 2021-Sep-19, 05:05 PM Reply #1702 »
That was a really poor show from James McDonald.

Of course the race caller tells the tale 'The heavily backed Akihiro"

21 full blooded blows and not even giving the horse a chance to respond......just a flogging!
Where else could you treat a horse this way.....only on a race course!
Akihiro looked to be feeling it .....moving away from it crossing the line.....had to carry a kg over as well.

This very consistent theme about RNSW......won't punish it's "stars" properly.

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2021-Oct-19, 06:37 PM Reply #1703 »




The industry that can't -- RNSW policy on whip-use continues to flounder

Could the stewards please outline their intentions on penalties for 'overuse' [and 'underuse'] of the whip?

As it stands -------- no more than '5 before the 100' seems to mean 'up to 8 before the 100 is considered OK'.

Nine, before the 100, is apparently not OK .........a jockey got a significant suspension while the connections that employed him were invited to 'cover' a $20,000 fine.

.............. how will jockeys respond to the tougher line?

One likely perverse outcome will see jockeys hitting their horses harder --- making every one really count up to 'the 5 or 8 limit'

      ............ all this using a 'whip' said (correctly?) to be designed not to cause pain.

One thing for sure we cannot count on ........... is for racing-rulers to put a proper policy in place




Offline Shogun Lodge

  • Group 1
  • User 352
  • Posts: 5442
« 2021-Oct-20, 08:04 AM Reply #1704 »
It's all over soon.
Test case in Tas.
All horse whipping to be found illegal under animal cruelty legislation.

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2021-Oct-20, 12:13 PM Reply #1705 »

............. the importance of unimportance

Australian racing history has long been strongly influenced by government policy in Tasmania doing things first -- a 'no whip' decision may be just the needed catalyst for a national initiative.

Offline napes

  • VIP Club
  • Group3
  • User 29
  • Posts: 945
« 2021-Oct-20, 01:03 PM Reply #1706 »
Won't be long horse riding will be illegal in Tasmania.


Online Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2021-Oct-21, 07:55 AM Reply #1707 »

Remedial education : helping jockeys to count to five

It is now blindingly clear that the racing stewards are neither serious or thoughtful about enforcing the whip rules.

National and state racing administrators need to refresh their understanding of 'leadership'.

It is well beyond time for 'connections' to be invited to help jockeys observe the whip-rules.

Suspending the horse as well as the jockey would take the smiles off the dials of connections trousering the proceeds of serious rule breaches -- before using part of the proceeds to 'pay' any fine.

Suspending the horse from running, at and for a time at the the stewards discretion, is an easier policy step than relegation on the spot -- which sadly seems to be considered a step too far.

Connections with high hopes would be careful to use jockeys that can count .. and be wary of the dunces.

As well, for jockeys prone to confusing 678 with 5, there could be a licence-points system ---- with a suspension for those exceeding a points-limit.







Offline Shogun Lodge

  • Group 1
  • User 352
  • Posts: 5442
« 2021-Oct-21, 08:56 AM Reply #1708 »
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-12/peta-files-lawsuit-against-australian-jockey-racing-body/100531138
Evidence will be interesting.
Wanna bet?
Shogun has predicted this for years.
Hands n heels indoor racing.
What we need.
Gina Rhinehart should build it with loose change.

Offline nemisis

  • Group 2
  • User 2461
  • Posts: 2300
« 2021-Oct-21, 09:20 AM Reply #1709 »
The evidence will indeed be interesting.
It will be impossible to defend it!

Animal cruelty is a criminal offence.
You can't beat an animal in public with a whip (padded or not) ......but racing has been granted this.....have done since it's existence.

Oh boy, would not want to be Racing if Scott Robertson SC (ICAC lawyer) is asking the questions.....can PETA afford him?
What an impressive legal voice he is!....just a brilliant tactician.
He would make fodder out of anyone from the horse racing industry.... who will be the unfortunate one that gets wheeled out to defend it?

Anyone on here want to nominate someone from racing they think is capable of articulating the  racing industry's case well?
« Last Edit: 2021-Oct-21, 09:33 AM by nemisis »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18432
« 2021-Oct-21, 03:33 PM Reply #1710 »
The evidence will indeed be interesting.
It will be impossible to defend it!

Animal cruelty is a criminal offence.
You can't beat an animal in public with a whip (padded or not) ......but racing has been granted this.....have done since it's existence.

Oh boy, would not want to be Racing if Scott Robertson SC (ICAC lawyer) is asking the questions.....can PETA afford him?
What an impressive legal voice he is!....just a brilliant tactician.
He would make fodder out of anyone from the horse racing industry.... who will be the unfortunate one that gets wheeled out to defend it?

Anyone on here want to nominate someone from racing they think is capable of articulating the  racing industry's case well?
Bret Walker QC  :king:

Offline nemisis

  • Group 2
  • User 2461
  • Posts: 2300
« 2021-Oct-21, 05:15 PM Reply #1711 »
That's the legal voice well covered Arsenal.

Now we have to find the racing voice that under oath is going to say "whips don't hurt" and here is the evidence....

If I can make a little suggestion don't use the NSW man who a few years ago said....."everywhere I go, young people are telling me racing will have no relevance in 10 years if whipping is continued"

And a few months ago said Whips don't hurt...people just need educating"

It should be him.....but possibly a better choice elsewhere....err....maybe?


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18432
« 2021-Oct-22, 02:15 PM Reply #1712 »
That's the legal voice well covered Arsenal.

Now we have to find the racing voice that under oath is going to say "whips don't hurt" and here is the evidence....

If I can make a little suggestion don't use the NSW man who a few years ago said....."everywhere I go, young people are telling me racing will have no relevance in 10 years if whipping is continued"

And a few months ago said Whips don't hurt...people just need educating"

It should be him.....but possibly a better choice elsewhere....err....maybe?

It's a bad look no doubt to see jockeys flogging their horse I wouldn't want to be hit with the so called padded whip and time is running out on this issue.

The other persuader spurs I think are worse I can still remember Comforter a horse being exercised on the footpath with scars all over his hide from spurs ...I admit that was years ago and I have never seen anything like it when I was a regular parade watcher at the races in Briz

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Shogun Lodge

  • Group 1
  • User 352
  • Posts: 5442
« 2021-Oct-22, 03:07 PM Reply #1713 »
Hands and heels!
Love it.
True trainers, horsemen will win!

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2021-Dec-23, 06:09 PM Reply #1714 »


It is time to put an electronic counter in racing crops

With no posts about whip use since October, one wonders if jockeys have learned to count or stewards have stopped counting.

Imagine being given the 'counter' role in the stewards room ............ a harsh an unusual punishment in itself.

The pressure to file a counting-report before 'weight' is declared ............. the possibility of getting the count wrong across ten or more horses competing for positions in the first 100 ............ no thanks and no thanks.

................. if the use of crops, and counting hits, is to continue, it is about time for the crop to include a 'counter'.



Offline Shogun Lodge

  • Group 1
  • User 352
  • Posts: 5442
« 2021-Dec-24, 05:54 AM Reply #1715 »
With a big red flashing light and a beep beep beep beep.
We can boo the jockey on the way gack in, huh?
Brilliant!

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-Apr-10, 08:55 AM Reply #1716 »


.......... THE ONLY WHIP-USE PENALTY THAT WILL WORK IS 'RELEGATION' OR 'DISQUALIFICATION'

Under NSW whip rules, a jockey is allowed to breach the five strikes prior to the final 100m rule provided they donít hit the horse more than 18 times in total during the race.

N. Rawiller pleaded guilty to a charge under AR132(7)(a)(ii) for using his whip on 8 occasions prior to the 100mwith a total of 20 strikes, which is more than the total number of strikes permitted under the rule.
N. Rawillerís licence to ride in races was suspended for a period to commence onSunday 17 April 2022 and to expire on Sunday 1 May 2022, on which day he may ride.N. Rawiller was also fined $40,000. In assessing penalty Stewards took into account the gravity of the offence, N. Rawillerís record under this rule and it being a feature race where his mount went on to win the event.


............ in Veandercross-times, the ride would have been applauded by all including the stewards.






Online Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-Apr-10, 05:33 PM Reply #1717 »


Not fine by me -- the bleeding obvious is simply ignored

The stewards are simply not being candid with the public.

If the use of the whip, as distinct from appearances, is 'cruel', the whip should be redesigned or prohibited.

At the end of a race, a rider under real pressure cannot be expected to 'know' 18 or 20 and nor does the horse or the watching public -- the penalty is excessive:  nominally, for each of two over-strikes, a $20,000 fine and a week sidelined.

Who do the stewards and the punting public expect will fund fines on winning jockeys?

The $40,000 'fine' will almost certainly be funded by connections -- and one would expect the connections to make a substantial contribution to cover the opportunity costs of missed rides.

[As an aside, Nash Rawiller made clear to the stewards why the races should not have been run at Randwick yesterday.]


Online Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-Apr-15, 08:50 PM Reply #1718 »


Rawiller reminded

..................... the 'connections' got a $10,000 reduction in the 'fine' on them ................. presumably it will also be passed on to Nash to compensate for 'lost earnings' during his suspension.

The stewards/RNSW need to be reminded that the whip-rules are unenforceable.



BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap