MUNCE: If they ban the whip, I'm telling you our horses will suffer

Just because he doesn't agree with your view doesn't make him a zealot, that's a ridiculous statement. I like a punt, have been an owner and haven't got an ideological opposition to racing but disagree with Chris Munce's comments that the show was set up as a pre-conceived outcome. They presented both sides from the veterinarian view and all they could do was test the whip on the host, short of resurrecting Mr Ed to interview him. Jury is out, but like CSG harming the water table, there's too much tax at stake to change anything quickly.

Geezus Christo, you sound like you are ready to be fitted for a pair of wings. But be warned flying to close to the sun may see you eventually fall back to earth. So the myth goes. You realise many animals end up re-purposed and unfortunately many horses end-up at the 'death-house' but i think you will find that ponies and other types of horses far out-number thoroughbreds. You know ... the ponies brought for kids who outgrow them and then can't be given away because of the cost to maintain them. By and large thoroughbreds do make it to another life - mares are used for breeding, not just fdor breeding thoroughbreds and male racehorses are usually the animal of preference for equestrian sports. They are sort-after leisure animals by serious riders ... because of their intelligence, looks, previous training and handling etc. --- mind you, they do have to be taught to 'stop' because they quite like a seriously quick gallop with their mates. so your global 'slaughterhouse' statement doesn't cut it. you do realise that culled animals also end up in the D-house? you realise that 'laying-chickens' seldom live past the age of two before they are replaced by younger, more productive layers and yes the rejects too end-up in a d-house. Won't even worry about discussing farm animals bred for consumption. I'll ask you a question ... what if all thoroughbreds were bred for consumption ... and there were these bunch of 'holier-than-thou' people that invented a sport (horse-racing) that used most of these specially bred animals for this sport and highly regulated non-life-threatening whipping of horses was allowed, probably would happen less than 40 times during a two/four year period and the horses seemed to forget it pretty quick as they didn't seem afraid of their handlers and or the people doing the hitting... the payoff from this horseracing sport was more than half of them get to go on living ... what would your stance be then? I suppose this is our basic difference of understanding. i value 'life' and most-times 'life' comes at a cost. Would you deny horses / chickens / kangaroos / cows / sheep and lambs / fish etc a 'life' because of predetermined fate - they don't know it, the same as most of us don't know of our ending until it happens ... i always like eric idle's (monty python) satirical songs and possibly my fav. is the galaxy song from the 'Meaning of Life'. I'm sure this will brighten your day The Galaxy Song ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

"There’s no question that professional horsemen and women only want the best for their horses. I’ve talked before about how our horses want for nothing." What happens when horses stop winning? Do they still "want for nothing", or are they sent to the slaughterhouse?

Just as the rest of us are sick of throwbacks trying to justify systemic animal cruelty.

Nick you call horse racing barbaric and you are entitled to your opinion but would you protest that fishing is barbaric? Would all the people who protest horse racing take up the mantle for fishing too? Think about what happens to the animal in the process of casting a line and landing a fish. Depends on the animal I guess. How anyone can call any activity involving animals a sport when only one team is playing and knows the rules is beyond me (horse racing included)

What i've said about 'clarrie' was true ... would you have done gone and brought an old horse for a few hundred dollars back in the seventies (and all the subsequent costs he would have incurred after that). The original owners of the horse didn't do it? Racing people could tell many similar stories to the Connors story.

Nick ... replace 'do-gooders' with 'holier-than-thou'. I'm pleased for you that have your moral compass well-set. i'm pleased that you feel the necessity to impose your view of the world on us. Ideologues are dangerous zealots who have no real empathy with anyone other than themselves and those that support the same viewpoint.

Civilized history? ... like now ... the one that thinks it is ok for half the world to starve ... the one that perpetuates violence in third party countries ... the one that decides the haves and the have-nots ... the one that thinks its fine to turn half the population into paid serfs ... the one that feels its necessary to invade every facet of your life ... the one that authorizes state-sanctioned execution ... the one that thinks it ok to turn war into a video game ... the one that decides profit has precedence over life ... the one that will deny medicine to those that can't afford it ... more and more and more ... Social rules exist but a civilized society ... hardly. but you go on worrying about the great injustice of horse-racing ... and after that you may want to turn your attention to the Dog-pounds and RSPCA who slaughter 1000's of animals every week abandoned by 'well-meaning' people who have little concept of animal welfare other than watching Disney films ...

Same epithets were hurled at those who once called for racial or sexual equality. Do gooders..... Take the time to look at that expression. People who seek to do good. You need working on fella, you've a moral chasm that needs addressing

Civilized history. The one that will see this 'sport' as the barbaric practice it clearly is

The art of both horse and jockey is to not use the whip its in extreme measure that it is used , the art is hands and heels to the post that in essence is thoroughbred racing . Those who laid Vancouver which I was one were in trouble at the 800 Tommy gave him a clam ride early and was all over turning for home if Blake stayed inside on English could've been interesting . ________________ Wolly Very strange comment an almost bizarre point . Good read Chris ....

You bring Clarry Conners up like he is a shining beacon of taking care of horses. This is the same guy who has been done a couple of times for doping right? As recently as late last year?

Maybe Smith can be persuaded to change his views by some method.. perhaps the use of some sort of leather strip?

Firstly, she was so superior to her opposition that she treated racing as a track gallop. Horses are educated to the whip on the track and once they understand the purpose it is seldom used again in training. Most track work is revolves around fitness and Pavlov's Dog style training. I think you might find BC was 'touched up' a few times when the race got tough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSOqlEs6qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0FHV4wP4 ... notice Nolan's and Moody's affection for the horse in some after-race shots. Even though she has just raised both rider and trainer to the pinnacle of their profession ... where is their attention ... not on themselves ... no ... on the mare.

How did Black Caviar manage to win many a race without the use of a whip if there is no other way I ask.

Great reply kv. There's a lot in there to mull over. I actually found your reply much more impressive than Munce's article. You should consider writing your own article!

fair enough pete ... concerning your points ... Answer 1) many things cause pain. my point was if you were to define causing hurt to another creature as the criteria for not doing something, then surely this intent should spread through many spheres ... for instance, uncaring employers who decide employees should continue to work regardless of any physical/mental pain their job might entail. Even some science disciplines deciding that creatures (mice/rats) are expendable for benefit of mankind? Horses are trained for the flick/slap of a whip to trigger acceleration and to keep going hard. In short ... racehorses respond to flick/slap because that is what they know, their training ... it is a communication between jockey and horse. you might be surprised by the bond between whip-flaying jockeys and their fav horses - have a look at this photo of Roy Higgins and an exhausted Lightfingers after '65 Melb Cup ... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UnxvFGJsygg/UQSJOCW_KVI/AAAAAAAAFfU/p51ZY2sF8hs/s640/LightFingersRoyHiggins.jpg ... She was ridden very strongly to the line ... Do you see fear? No ... just a champion ... who lives on 50 years after her legendary triumph. Harry White the rider of 4 Melb Cup winners including a double on Think Big ... Harry retired this champ (with others) to his property to live out his days. it is hard to explain but there is a bond, a bond of care in the racing industry. Much more than how 'civilans' treat domestic animals. Clarrie Conners, trainer of numerous champions and G1's heard that his first good horse was to sold at a 'knackers' auction.(Hot Ace now v.aged - clarrie thought he has been pensioned off to a paddock). He made a hurried trip to buy the animal then gave him a paddock to see out his days. Yep, these racing people are a hard-nosed, ruthless bunch. We know the 'whip' hurts but there is no other way. 'Pavlov's Dog' style training does not work in a frenzied herd environment of a horse race. Also, there would be the inevitable integrity questions if a horse was not 'ridden-out' to the satisfaction of the stewards. Answer 2) Horses have better than 270+ degrees vision - they do see behind them quite well. Also, as they are in a race they see what is happening to other horse around them. You speak of logic - if creating fear/terror is terrifying it makes you wonder ... why in a race they don't go charging all over the place when the whips are 'out-and-cracking' ? People assume animals have the same understanding of pain as we 'socially' trained homo-sapiens do. You don't need a 'whip' to threaten a horse ... you can do it with body-language aggression. If you are cruel to an intelligent animal. it will remember - survival instincts rule us all. Anyway Pete, i'm sure my reply won't suit you ... you probably feel the same way i do when i walk past a caged bird or hear neighbour's dog incessantly barking because this poor social animal has been isolated in a backyard/house because their owner is too lazy to walk and or socialise them. Sorry for the length of reply but this is a v.serious question.

KV, I don't really have any interest in this issue or really that much interest in racing but I am fascinated by the way that trainers and jockeys talk about their horses. It is obviously a tough sport in many ways. I'm not going to feign understanding or try to muscle in on what is an issue I have little knowledge of, but I do have a couple of questions. 1. You might be right in that it is a dumb question, but why is it a dumb question? Isn't it relevant to know whether the horse feels pain or not? 2. How can the horse know that the pain it feels from the whip is dealt by the whip when it cannot see the whip being used, after all, is the whip not behind the animal's head (a fair way behind) and therefore out of the vision of the horse? So wouldn't your example of the horse panicking when it sees the whip be a false premise or false logic? I do agree with the logic that the animal might start to panic every time it nears a race track or mounting yard though, that does seem to make sense, in the same way that a once abandoned dog panics every time its new owner goes to the shops etc.

Thanks Chris, don't be amazed mate, the do gooder brigade simply marches on from one issue to the next, as it it's their right to impose their morals on everyone else. I'm an "Australian" reader but I am heartily sick of Patrick Smith regurgitating the same anti-whip argument on a weekly basis.

what history is that?