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.

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

............. 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.

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.

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?

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?

Hands and heels!
Love it.
True trainers, horsemen will win!

With a big red flashing light and a beep beep beep beep.
We can boo the jockey on the way gack in, huh?
Brilliant!

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.]