Jockeys take a stand on the new whip rules
Roar Rookie
By AddyP, 13 Sep 2009 AddyP is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Horse Racing, jockeys, whip rules
Congratulations to all Australian jockeys for launching a nation-wide strike, mid-way through Thursday’s race meetings, in protest of the new whip rules.
The horse racing industry has been steeped in controversy since the introduction of the rules on 1st August by the Australian Racing Board (ARB) in response to lobbying by animal welfare groups.
The amended rules state that only padded whips may be carried in races, as these softer whips do not inflict pain on the horse. Also, the whip must not be used more than five times before the 200 metre mark, and after that point, it’s not to be used in consecutive strides. Suspensions and forfeiture of prize money are the punishment for jockeys who break the rules.
So where do these new rules leave jockeys, trainers, owners and punters? And why are the jockeys striking?
Sydney trainer and former jockey, Kevin Moses, is of the opinion that if the new padded whips don’t hurt horses, then why do we need to limit the number of times a horse can be hit with these whips?
In the heat of a race, a jockey needs to focus on his safety, any riding instructions and race strategies from the trainer, while at the same time controlling a 500kg animal. Are we asking too much of these jockeys to then expect them to count how many times they’ve hit their mount with the whip, while trying to win a race?
Punters have also raised an additional question since the introduction of the rules. Will there be a risk that some jockeys will ignore the new rules in a tight finish and therefore gain an unfair advantage?
An example of this was in the last race at Randwick on 22nd August, when the winning jockey, Daniel Ganderton was suspended for six meetings and forfeited his prize money percentage of $3700, after he was found to have breached the whip rules on two occasions over the final 200 metres of the race on his mount Deer Valley. The jockey on the runner-up, Melito, abided by the new rules and was consequently beaten by a short half-head. Following the race, Ganderton admitted that Deer Valley was unlikely to have won the race, if he’d not whipped the horse as many times as he did.
All the punters who backed Melito in that race consequently lost their money because they were beaten by a horse and jockey that broke the rules of racing to win the race. Not a great advertisement for the racing industry.
For owners and trainers, racing horses all comes down to winning races. They want to win prize money and they want the value of their horses to increase for breeding purposes, which is achieved by winning races. So if that means the jockey has to break the rules to guarantee a win during a big race, then the value of the win will compensate the punishment for breaking the rules.
During a meeting on Thursday between the Australian Jockeys Association and the ARB, the jockeys requested that the rules be changed concerning the number of times they can whip a horse over the final 200 metres of a race. However, members of the ARB decided unanimously that the rules will not be reviewed until February 2010, which was the original review date when the rules were introduced. As a result, jockeys called a nation-wide strike.
With the damage caused by Equine Influenza finally in the past, can the racing industry survive another crisis so soon? As the multi-million dollar spring carnival fast approaches, we will wait with baited breath to see what happens next.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Victoria Azarenka vs Maria Sharapova: Australian Open women’s final live scores, blog (89)
- The sporting fallacy of the Olympic ‘Games’ (46)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (46)
- Djokovic vs Nadal was great, but do we need six-hour finals? (36)
- Sonny Bill looking sharp for his first real test (29)
- Sonny Bill wins title in first round (25)
- Nadal vs Djokovic: The match for the ages (20)
- Real boxing still exists: here’s where to find it
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (10)
- New champ Williams looking to next fight (5)
- Aust and GB aim to convert 4ths to bronze
- Young pitcher signs big deal with Red Sox (7)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (13)
- Real boxing still exists: here’s where to find it (0)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (10)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (13)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (20)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (46)
- Lachlan Murdoch squashing FTA sport for Fox’s benefit (4)
- Explore:
- Horse Racing, jockeys, whip rules
MyGeneration said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
I’m of the opinion that the authorities should have reviewed the effects of the new padded whips before adding the rather arbitrary whipping rules. But, one question. Do jockeys need whips at all? And, if so, why? From a safety point of view, I don’t think whips are used for steering.
Damian Winn said | September 13th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
That is the biggest problem here. People that have never ridden a horse and have no idea about racehorses are forming opinions on the whip rule. To say I don’t think whips are used for steering is simply ignorant. It might be OK if you are on a good horse that hits the line strongly, but if you are on a green horse that is in traffic and it ducks out a quick slap down the shoulder to straighten it and make it think of going forward instead of traffic around it keeps everyone in a tight racing situation safe. We have all seen the carnage created by horses that duck out and horses getting knocked down, this is a far more serious situation than worrying about something incidental like the whip. If I grabbed you and belted the living daylights out of you with one of the padded whips you wouldn’t bat an eyelid. They don’t hurt but they create a safe racing and educational environment for horses, which is something the RSPCA fails to comprehend. The racing industry looks after these horses with such great compassion that I cannot believe that this is being looked at. I for one will never support the RSPCA and I would suggest if you see an RSPCA tin don’t bother dropping your change in it, place it in the guide dogs box or the Cancer Council box.
MyGeneration said | September 13th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Damian, that’s why I asked the question. Thanks for the informative reply, but please dial down the arrogance a bit next time. I actually watched Danny Nikolic on Racing Retro this morning (after posting) and he covered some of the same points you have, but that is the first time I’ve heard it in this debate. Now, if people in the racing industry would provide a bit more information and a little less “how can you question us?” attitude, we might not be in this situation. As an owner and punter myself (and you’re right, I’ve never been a jockey), I agree with your point that horses are generally well looked after. But if there wasn’t a problem in the first place, why bring in the new whips? Racing has a perception problem, and to fix that problem it needs to educate people, not call them ignoramuses. The majority of us have not been jockeys, or if we’ve ridden horses recreationally we certainly didn’t use whips, so the industry needs to explain why the whips are necessary.
Ross said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
Damian, the biggest problem here is the arrogance of people like you and the racing industry in general, thinking they know it all. I learnt to ride when I was 6 months old and have lived with gallopers all my life. We used to get the badly behaved horses off the racetracks – and we found the answer to their bad behaviour was a bit of kindness. The padded whips DO hurt – why not give it a try on yourself. And the word ‘encouragement’ as used by the jockeys is way past its use by date. Tell me, where else do you encourage someone by beating hell out of them? Horses are very sensitive, kind animals – and it’s the horses, not owners or punters that feed a jockey’s family. I think all educated people know this. The other expression ‘do-gooders’ destroying the racing industry is ignorance beyond belief. Thank God there are some people out there who put the horse first, as the prime product in the racing industry. Which other industry willfully attacks its prime product? To say that jockeys need to have a free hand with their whips in the last 100 metres because it’s a safety issue is an absolute joke. It’s the horses who need protection from relentless whipping in the last 100 metres when they’re exhausted. How come the ‘winging poms’ were able to adapt to a new whip and new whip rules in 2007 without a wimper?? How come an Indian apprentice can ride and win a race without a whip?? Come on, Aussie jockeys – stop the drama, stop acting like spoilt kids and get on with it. We all have to live by rules.
Nug said | September 13th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
This is just another example of the do-gooders destroying the racing industry. I ask you do-gooders this – Have any of you ever been a jockey and didn’t give your all to win a race. Or for that matter, when you attempt to do something, are you only half hearted about it? I don’t think so. So why force these ridiculous rules on the jockeys? If you must use padded whips, let them be used whenever the jockey wants to. Don’t make them count the times they are used because they will not be able to concentrate on giving their best and believe me, that will destroy the racing industry.
bever fever said | September 13th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Jockeys need whips, these animals weigh around 500 kilos and from time to time can be stubborn, run off lines(lay in/out), lazy etc etc etc.
I backed a horse that was whipped around 6 or 7 times in the last 100 metres on friday and finished 3rd, if he wasn’t whipped as much he would (IMO) not have finished 3rd.
Very dumb rule and quite simply makes me hesitant about betting on particular horses/jockeys.
MyGeneration said | September 13th 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
bever, I’m a keen punter and I keep my own stats, as well as watching plenty of race replays. I can honestly say I’ve noticed no strange statistical anomalies or race patterns since the new rules (still early days, I admit), so it hasn’t affected my confidence in betting one iota. Just an opinion. BTW, I agree that it is a dumb rule, but mainly because it is an unfair expectation on jockeys.
BT said | September 13th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Surely with the introduction of the padded whip, the animals rights activists should be appeased.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and jockeys will be allowed to use the whip as much as they want in the last 100 metres for horses in contention.
What a lot of people don’t realise is, it’s the sound of the whip which gets a horse moving and not necessarily the physical touch of the whip.
Damo said | September 13th 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
My Dad backed Melito in that race and was obviously not pleased (with good reason). If a strike is the only way to bring about reform to these misguided rules, then I back this move.
I whole heartedly support treating animals with respect, but as the article says, if the new padded whips don’t hurt horses, then why do we need to limit the number of times a horse can be hit with these whips?
bever fever said | September 13th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
I have had shares in various horses from time to time, on one particular occasion i was out at Belmont (WA) had a few (and another couple) beers went down to the enclosure to hear what the trainer was going to say to jockey (tactics etc ) and wanted to say “do anything to get a win”.
After really seeing the ridiculous size of the jockey to horse ratio i wanted to say “dont let that little guy get on that monster”. My point is that if a jockey has to whip his horse a lot to get it to react then so be it.
sheek said | September 13th 2009 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
This is one of the most bizarre situations I have come across recently, & just goes to show, when moronic people get a stupid idea in their head, even more moronic pigheadedness won’t bow to practical common sense.
Go the jockeys… go the trainers… go the owners… go the breeders – stick it up the imbecillic ARB!
I’ve been reading two books recently – Pacific Fury by Peter Thompson & Kokoda by Peter Fitzsimons. The stupidity of the generals & admirals on the allied side was almost criminal, & cost countless, unnecessary lives. Their ghosts live on at the ARB.
Let me give you two examples.
1. As the Japanese army rapidly made their way southwards down Malaya, it was suggested to General Percival that the northern shores of Singapore island be defensively prepared. The good general refused, not wishing the civilian population to be ‘alarmed’.
By the time the Japanese army was across the narrow straight from Singapore waiting to invade, it was too late to adequately prepare these defences. How incredibly dumb was that?
2. As the Japanese army landed in northern Luzon & rapidly made its way south to Manila in the Philippines, it was suggested to the great (in his own mind) General MacArthur that food & ammo supply dumps be established on the Bataan peninsula. The good general refused, believing such an action to be ‘defeatist’.
The reason the Bataan defenders surrendered sooner than otherwise, was because of their dire need for food & ammo. By now safely imbedded in Australia, MacArthur was suitably enraged at a surrender he had partly facilitated through his arrogant stupidity.
As the ancient Greeks used to say – “life is sometimes like a theatre, where the worst people occupy the best seats”. Like the Australian Racing Board members!
onside said | September 13th 2009 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
There are thousands and thousands of racehorces, all pivotal to a multi billion dollar gambling industry .
Very few are successful at any level. The current fuss is about the use of the whip.Poor horses ,oh
dear.There are thousands and thousands of racehorses slaughtered at the knackery every year, all
pivotal to the the multi billion dollar pet food industry. Loosing favourite today, Fido’s dinner tomorrow.
sheek said | September 13th 2009 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
Ah Onside….. such clarity!
LeftArmSpinner said | September 13th 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
think about it. the crops/whips are padded, presumably to protect the horse. Thats good. If it does what it is supposed to do, not hurt the horse, why have it at all. hands and heals is good enough.
Horse control, no one in their right mind is going to use a padded crop/whip on a horse out of control, if the whip has the effect of spurring the horse on. the clever rider will use the brindle and then exit if he cannot regain control.
There are too many people here not being fully honest with themselves.