These euro ban rules have GOT to go

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

Just ban whips period.
Then no one has an advantage.

I agree. It would be a level playing field and go a long way to satisfying some of the animal activists/lovers that try to give the sport a black eye.

Besides, even though I have no stats on it, it seems to me the probability of a horse breaking down could be higher when the horse is being asked for more than it is willing to do on its own.

I don't like this rule. I wouldn't want to have to concentrate on how many times I whipped the horse and when.

[Robert Fischer]

if you need to "steer" the horse a few times with the whip, fine....

if you feel wacking the horse a couple more times helps him "persevere", ok...


why the hell does a jockey need to whip a horse 6+ times in the last furlong ?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

if you need to "steer" the horse a few times with the whip, fine....

That's probably the only real reason the is necessary and even that could probably be a few taps on the shoulder (though I'd have to ask a jockey)

[Bruddah]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Obviously if the limit is five hits, they're not going to penalize someone for failure to persevere if they hit the horse four times instead. At least you got in your witty line though.

At least my "witty line" makes sense. If the jock stops persevering, with the whip, and the horse fails to stride out to the wire, the jock can say "I couldn't remember how many times I had struck him". Opens up a can of worms for failure to persevere, with no penalties. In fact failure to persevere disappears from the rule books.

At least you got your narrow minded line in though.

[ByeByeBuck]

Wouldn't the logical thing to do would have been to design and use a more humane whip of some sort if they were so concerned about that? Perhaps something that would get the horses attention and make the horse perform correctly by running as fast as possible, without inflicting scars or marks on the animal.

But I guess horse racing commissions don't always do what's logical.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBuck

Wouldn't the logical thing to do would have been to design and use a more humane whip of some sort if they were so concerned about that? Perhaps something that would get the horses attention and make the horse perform correctly by running as fast as possible, without inflicting scars or marks on the animal.

But I guess horse racing commissions don't always do what's logical.

They already have designed a humane whip and mandated its use. This does not, however, do anything to satisfy those for whom the problem is the visual image of the jockey using the whip.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

He knew the rules going in. I am not going to cry for him. I think it is a good rule. If you can't get the horse to with 5 whacks, he not going to run with 6 either.

The problem is that it's 7 overall, and 5 in the final furlong. I think that the second part is needlessly complicating it for the jockeys.

[Tom]

The rule is stupid.
End of story.

Maybe one jock could hire another one to add a few wacks for him.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by gm10

The problem is that it's 7 overall, and 5 in the final furlong. I think that the second part is needlessly complicating it for the jockeys.

This was my thought, as well, earlier in the the thread. Foolish ruling due to the counting of pops.

[Bruddah]

Originally Posted by Tom

The rule is stupid.
End of story.

Maybe one jock could hire another one to add a few wacks for him.

The idiots will probably pass the "carry over" rule. If the jock only used 4 whacks in his last ride, then 3 whacks are carried over for his next ride.

The answer is to do away with the whip completely. Then the animal won't be hit by anything and there won't be a need for a perseverance rule for the judges interpretation. However, when the animals stop running (on their own) in the stretch, all questions will be answered about the need for the whip. (JMHO)

What a bunch of Nimrods!

[toussaud]

things are about to get interesting.

in lieu of what has been going on with the seemingly obsessive suspensions and fines, the jockeys were going to strike today, but decided to talk with the officials and air out their frustrations, were basically told to screw off, we ain't changing nothing.


interesting to see what hte response by the jockeys will be.

[BetCrazyGirl]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...to-be-reviewed

[skate]

Originally Posted by Some_One

Wow, look how insane this rule is:

"The jockey struck Cirrus Des Aigles six times, one less than the total of seven permitted - but he administered all six strikes inside the final furlong, for which there is a five-strike limit."
(From RP)

i like the rule.

no need for a whip. cept for an un-inform fan.

put the ban on Lasix, while at it.

[Marlin]

Originally Posted by Tom

Just ban whips period.
Then no one has an advantage.

Just ban the forward pass. Then no one has an advantage. The only good thing about this rule is that it's in Europe.
Don't get me wrong, there is no place for hammering a beaten horse. However, I for one loved watching Pincay outfinish other jocks in the stretch while using his whip, most times vigourously. I enjoy watching Ramon Dominguez get more out of a horse than the horse wants to give. Great stuff IMO. If no one has an advantage, what seperates jockeys? The agents? No thanks.

[salty]

[YT="PETA protests at whipping of horses - Melbourne, 1 August 2009"]nvZPOxk9Klw[/YT]