T.Murphy ban - (if you're fed up of whip talk, don't look!)

[Posts: 10793Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

India is a dichotomy - extremes of wealth and poverty. Poverty of the abject, hopeless kind. Widespread, grinding poverty.

It depends how you look on things, such labels (as 'third world') are often meaningless. But, by whatever measure, India has much growing to do.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/India/Rising-power-India-ranks-134-in-human-development-index/Article1-764014.aspx

[Posts: 3982Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 11:39Location: Sacramento,CA.]

Perhaps the Grand national is a more important race than the Scottish one. Hence the different count of the whip use and allowance for overuse.Same rules,different stewards, different race, different decision.? Discreet interpretation perhaps.

[Posts: 2032Joined: 06 Jun 2011, 14:34Location: Bury St Edmunds]

I know India has much to do but in a country of such overwhelming diversity, it has grown up at an amazing rate in the last 150 years. That growth was to some extent enforced at a rate wholly foreign to natural progression but they have coped much better than might have been expected. It took this country many centuries to develop to its current position yet we expect other countries to adopt our "civilization" overnight and without reference to their own complex history.
I was perhaps rather offended that the OP should dismiss the rules of racing in another country based purely on their economic development as per western expectations.

[Posts: 433Joined: 02 May 2011, 22:29]

With the Grand National fatalities pushing the public further away from horse racing I think it would be a small and prudent sacrifice on racing's part to ban use of the whip entirely. The industry can continue to push its head into the sand, but it would be better to take stock of the realities which are that animal awareness is growing in popularity. They were strong/popular enough to get fox-hunting banned on far more tenuous "animal cruelty" grounds than horse racing (in my opinion). Sometimes you have to give a little ground in order to entrench a winning and sustainable position.

This is just my opinion and is given with the caveat that I do not in any way believe that racing is cruel. What I do believe is that more people are now perceiving racing as cruel, and therein lies the problem.

[Posts: 5238Joined: 31 Aug 2007, 23:42Location: derby]

After the sadness of the Grand National last week, all I saw yesterday was a superb round of jumping by an incredibly brave and talented horse ridden by a jockey who had battled all sorts of demons and won. I wasn't counting any whip strokes. Besides, who cares anyway. Turning to The Observer today the only mention racing got was that Frankel has a brother who isn't as good as him. Oh, I'm wrong; the Scottish was mentioned in a couple of paragraphs at the end. Blink and you'd've missed it.

[Posts: 1576Joined: 29 Jan 2005, 18:58]

Yes but suggesting that India is a third world country in comparison to the UK is also rather blinkered.

India, China and Brazil are the tiger economies of the future.
However I can assure you that if you visit India at the moment you will see poverty like you've never seen before. It isn't all Bollywood glamour and the IPL.
On the other hand Britain remains an important, if fading, world player heavily dependent on a discredited financial sector

[Posts: 2032Joined: 06 Jun 2011, 14:34Location: Bury St Edmunds]

It seems to me that Mr Fish had a very apt name judging by the legal arguments that he used initially and then tried to change tack when his arguments were showed to be too weak. Had he argued for a proportional reciprocation of the ban then I think he may have had some success, but in asking for dismissal and failing to provide grounds for dismissal, Mr Hughes has to accept that his legal representation has let him down rather than the system.
Whether or not Mr Hughes has been a victim of a "why should we lift a finger to help him" attitude or not, expressing his opinions in the media in such a way is hardly going to make the stewards look upon him with any sympathy the next time he is up before them.

[Posts: 1576Joined: 29 Jan 2005, 18:58]

Perhaps the Grand national is a more important race than the Scottish one. Hence the different count of the whip use and allowance for overuse.Same rules,different stewards, different race, different decision.? Discreet interpretation perhaps.

That's the trouble though isn't it? The rules should be applied consistently, whether the race is the Grand National or a selling chase at Bangor. That way, everyone knows where they stand.

IMO Jacob broke the whip rules during this year's Grand National. That said I could understand why the Aintree stewards and the PR & Marketing types who now seem to run racing in the absence of any other coherent leadership outside of narrow self interest didn't want to open another can of worms and perpetuate the whip topic.

In 2011 we had equine deaths and whip offences by the winning rider.In 2012 we had much the same (including the Gold Cup winner dead).The racing and non-racing press, RSPCA etc were looking on- best close ranks and forget it.

In contrast to Aintree, Ayr 2012 was a proper horse race. Plenty couldn't go the pace and pulled up but there were no fallers.Still plenty of excitement.

[Posts: 1861Joined: 25 Jul 2011, 05:04]

I think it justifies a ban as there are clear rules regarding whip usage and they haven't been applied.

What are the grounds for discretion in this case would be my counter question?

Well first off you counted 11 strikes whereas I counted 8 strikes and 3 taps on the backside.

The first thing a steward should try to determine should I count those minor tap or is that just part and parcel of a good jockey keeping up the momentum. That is where they must use their discretionary powers and get it right....they very much failed to do so here.

They should also take into consideration was the horse struck when all chance was gone or was the jockey in a position where he could still win the race. Never mind how many, were they justified? is the important question. 1 is 1 too many on a beaten horse.

There is a huge difference between one and the other.

What you are saying is Stewards should go by whip strokes end of story and that's exactly what racing doesn't need and no one but a few blinkered people want or we go straight back to the abacus.

IMO Any steward worth his salt would have looked at that and hung a "Jockey had no choice but to go for it" badge on it. Stewards could easily have put it down as borderline which it was, took the importance of the race into consideration and let it go.

No matter what anyone says if you are riding in a big race you are more likely to cross the line than you are in an ordinary maiden somewhere.... Like any sportsman going for gold whether it be Boxing, Hockey football when it's the big one their adrenalin flows like crazy and they try harder than ever.

The day we take that away from our sportsmen by not making slight allowances for it, which in this case made the difference of banning or not banning, will be a sad day for sport.

It would still seem some stewards still brandish the hanging judge mentality which is sad.

I just wonder how many people would have complained had nothing had been mentioned and no inquiry would have took place.

Watching the race again I doubt if anyone would look at it and say that was abusive.

At the end of the day no one wants to see horses abused, they never here and I would be totally on your side if there was..Good ride totally undeserved ban.

[Posts: 4716Joined: 25 May 2005, 15:57Location: Co. Meath, Ireland]

I think the BHA rules clearly state

"If 2 horses die in the biggest race of the year, don't compound the race's problems by banning the winning rider for mis-use of the whip, even if he is doing an impersonation of a dominatrix in a bad mood."

or words to that effect

[Posts: 2267Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 16:22]

Exactly and I think they also say "but be careful about doing the same thing next year as if all the horses get home safely we will then give you a hefty ban to appease the bunny huggers"

If a jockey is involved in a driving finish next year he will need to have his head properly screwed on and be able to quickly calculate how many extra hits he can give the horse according to the number of screens put up after fences.

[Posts: 10793Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

Hurdy-

The whip rules are in place to protect the horse. Therefore it doesn't matter whether the horse wins, finishes second or finishes out with the washing, the 'allowable' strokes should be the same. You can't say it's OK for a horse finishing a short head winner to be hit 11 times but that a third place horse being hit 11 times is unacceptable. Can you? The finishing position is totally irrelevant as far as the horse and his welfare is concerned.

Also - how anyone can distinguish a 'tap' from a 'hit' from TV coverage (or even 'live' from a racecourse stand) is beyond me. Give the horse, not the jockey, the benefit of the (considerable in almost all cases) doubt by counting contact as a 'hit', otherwise you're pretty much asking the stewards to guess, which is unfair on stewards, jockeys and, above all, horses.

[Posts: 1638Joined: 15 Nov 2010, 22:01]

Also - how anyone can distinguish a 'tap' from a 'hit' from TV coverage (or even 'live' from a racecourse stand) is beyond me.

David,do you ever ask yourself 'Why do I constantly harp on about the bloody whip rules'? Had Timmy ridden by Your version of the rules he would have finished 2nd as would Daryl Jacob on 'Neptune' and you would find that acceptable! Why? because the rules are in place to protect the horse would be your answer as it is time and time again and yet both horses actually won because they outstayed the rest of the field,in effect there Stamina and resolve is higher than the competition and their respective jockeys encouraged every ounce out of them to show it, and they did.'Neptune' proved the best horse on the day won and 'Merigo' proved the best 'handicapped' horse on the day won.Both horses returned home sound and live to fight another day,Lucky for them,others didn't and it wasn't the Whip that killed them! Get over it,you're becoming obsessed!