Borel should be fined or suspended

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I kind of understand what Buckpasser is saying here and while most of you are looking at this from a horseplaying perspective and you want your jockey giving his all - several people have asked me how I can be a "horse person" and watch them hit the horses so frequently - granted their whips are not like the whips we ride with.

There are people (and not PETA freaks) who think it looks cruel and I think what Buckpasser may have been getting at is that for a filly who could possibly be in the national spotlight and get people interested in watching or attending the races - Calvin going to the whip that many times may not be perceived positively.

I pretty much agree with Sightseek here. You have Calvin saying after the race (as quoted in DRF), "Hitting her is not going to make her run faster. I think when a horse is going to come up to her, that's when you'll see her run. She does what she has to do." Really? Then why did you hit her 19 times in the stretch?

Did Rachel show the "determination of a champion" yesterday? Did she not want to get beat, or was she just running like hell because Calvin was on autowhip?

There's a disconnect with how much we admire these horses and the amount of punishment we are willing to to see inflicted upon them.

--Dunbar

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I pretty much agree with Sightseek here. You have Calvin saying after the race (as quoted in DRF), "Hitting her is not going to make her run faster. I think when a horse is going to come up to her, that's when you'll see her run. She does what she has to do." Really? Then why did you hit her 19 times in the stretch?

Because he was in a desperate position....and when in a desperate position you do everything you can do even if it won't much help at all.

If you think going to the whip makes her come home faster ... go watch her Oaks win.

You guys are acting like you've never seen a horse put into an all out drive for an eigth of a mile before.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I pretty much agree with Sightseek here. You have Calvin saying after the race (as quoted in DRF), "Hitting her is not going to make her run faster. I think when a horse is going to come up to her, that's when you'll see her run. She does what she has to do." Really? Then why did you hit her 19 times in the stretch?

Did Rachel show the "determination of a champion" yesterday? Did she not want to get beat, or was she just running like hell because Calvin was on autowhip?

There's a disconnect with how much we admire these horses and the amount of punishment we are willing to to see inflicted upon them.

--Dunbar

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.

[Stall Mucker]

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.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Stall Mucker

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.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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

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.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

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!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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!

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.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.