Too fckin bad if they dont like it. It is part of the game and if they were using those new whips then they dont even need whipping rules. They are like nerf whips.

I am sure that Calvin was counting the amount of times he hit her in the stretch, it is not like he has his mind on holding off the closers or reacted in the heat of the moment. :rolleyes:

Whips that don't whip are worthless.

Chantal Sutherland would disagree, she would tell you they are worth $4,208.

I also disagree with the original post. Once, way back in the glory days of the Aksarben, my brother and I counted Tim Doocy whipping a horse 43 times during the course of a race. Yes it was excessive. But considering the horse was passed in the stretch and rallied to win made us appreciate his effort on a cheap claimer.

I am sure there was more "barn" money than we knew on the horse which accounted for his excessive effort in a meaningless race. The winnings on our $20 win tickets seemed extra sweet that day. I don't know Tim Doocy, but if any of you do, tell him thanks from 2 racing fans in Nebraska.

Oh, and I think the horse "bounced" in his next start. :D

I am sure Mike has the old one just in case she gets tired and needs to finish up?

altho borel may think she won't run faster, i would imagine the stewards might question him had he hand-ridden her thru the stretch-especially if she lost, rather then won, by a head.

If Macho Again didn't hesitate to look at Bullsbay for a split second Rachel loses. However, she bore down and won. Great for her. That is called HEART. I was glad to be there.

Macho Again is a PLODDER. If he wins, its bad for the game.

I don't doubt that that's possible, Danzig. But there's a lot of room between hand-riding and whipping 19 times.

I honestly don't understand why the pro-whip majority feels SO strongly about it. They seem to think racing wouldn't be fair or bettable without whips. Wouldn't it still be a level playing field if no jock had a whip?

I agree that some (probably most) horses need a whip to run their fastest. I'm sure some of those horses could run faster still with a strong buzzer or other "aids".

If all horses were hand-ridden, there would still be horses that were faster than others, and they would still be handicappable. Phrases like "she showed determination" would have more meaning, too.

--Dunbar

i counted 21, some of those could have been wiffs.

it's not that bad. i didn't even think about it until i saw this board.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrTMpHvew0U

Anyone who thinks whips are unnecessary simply doesnt understand racehorses. Not saying that as a knock but the whip is a vital part of the game simply because of the nature of horses. Not to mention the fact that without them many races will look shady because of that same nature of racehorses. Not only is the whip used for encourgement, it helps get the attention of a scared horse back on the rider, can be used a cue to switch leads and to keep a horse from drifting out or in. You really need to get ahold of one of the new whips to understand how light they are. People who are turned off of the sport because of whipping arent going to be around long anyway not to mention are usually rarely the type that bets anyway. If you watched that race and the whipping was what jumped out at you, you probably are watching the wrong sport.

That is what I try to explain to people when I mentioned in my earlier post that I've been questioned on whips and whipping. We carry whips or "bats" every time we jump regardless if the horse is forward or not for the same reasons you stated above. I wasn't trying to be "anti-whip" in my post either because I understand why they are used, but to bring out another perspective - but like you said, those people won't be around long anyway.

.....yeah, what did that cost the owners, 40 grand?

He seemed to ride her okay, but everyone else at Saratoga terribly. Its funny, if this was any other jockey he'd be the brunt of many jokes, but he gets to ride superstars like her. I think hes a very below average jockey or at least he played one at Saratoga. He rode his horse (Marias Charm) in the very next race as if he cared very little or at all.

While necessary, abusive whipping is unnecessary. A shot across the bow to stop bearing in or help make the point to get on to another lead is on thing, We all have seen exhausted horses being passed and jocks takin dead aim because of frustration. Basically these aren't the sharpest people and watching them take out their BS on a horse is deplorable. You hate to put a number on it but 10 cracks should be plenty during the course of a race! Clearly whips are important and should be in the game it just needs to be policed. Like everything else in this stupid game there is so much that needs to be changed!

Exactly. Say he'd hit her 4 or 5 times and she loses by a head or a neck. Would folks be crying foul? Would they be saying he didn't persevere with a 1-4 favorite and question why? Sure they would. Did he need to hit her that much? Probably not, but he got carried away.

We get so focused on whether we should get rid of Lasix, but you'd weed out another kind weakness in the breed if you got rid of whips. I can see how sometimes it improves safety if a horse is bonkers and they need to be kept in line, but I figure good horses don't need whips to do their best.

You couldnt even kill a fly with those new pillow poppers .........hell the most it does is make alot of noise and that is what the public wanted. You will see what looks like a jock beating the crap out of one to get there , when in actuallity it doesnt sting them at all.

Creating arbitrary numbers in an attempt to "do something" ususally backfires in the end. If they are using the new whips, abusive whipping is basically impossible regardless of how many times they hit the horse. Clearly this should be a non-issue and any attempt to be politically correct simply justifies the notion that whipping is somehow evil or wrong.