I'm curious if you have an explanation as to what basis Pletcher might have had for thinking this horse sulks from the whip?

He's only run twice. He comes within 0.13 seconds of breaking a track record at 150 year-old Saratoga in his debut. He overcomes a mind-boggling pace to win the Champagne in career start #2.

What are the chances that Havana was ever whipped in one of his morning workouts?

If he hadn't sulked after being repeatedly whipped at Barrett's -- do you think he might have ran his furlong in 9 seconds flat?

I don't mind so much that he wasn't whipped, and I'm not sure it had any impact on the outcome ... it's just the frustration of seeing jockeys and trainers trying to impose their will and being cute when they don't need to.

Dont you think his regular rider would have already known and likely been the person who made the suggestion in the first place?

You say it wouldn't hurt but where do you draw the line in what "the public" should be told before the race?

This is a little different for two reasons. One, it could help educate the public on whip use. Two, it avoids the possible negative repercussions of people betting on horses and thinking the rider didn't give his best. Tell them beforehand, and that isn't an issue.

There are a lot bigger problems in racing than this, I admit that. I just see zero downside to it and some upside, that is all.

Riding without a whip is an equipment change. Instructions are not absolutely followed. I'd love to hear your take on the situation when a jockey who was instructed not to use the whip actually does.

Perhaps they had an incident in the morning? Horses that spook or are nervous are more likely to react negatively to the whip. Just look at what happened to the Chad Brown horse in Canada. Dont forget that horses with 2 starts are still very green

Right but what mechanism is there to report this? Trainers considering instructing their jockeys to go light on the whip call the stewards before the race? And like I said what if they dont listen, or simply react like they have done thousands of time before and instinctively hit the horse anyway? Then anyone who might have bet against the horse because of the no whip instructions would be going crazy.

Why carry a whip if there is no plan on using it?

Go light on the whip and not using it or two different things. If a jockey is told not to use the whip but does anyway, I guess you fine him, just like when they blow the finish line or do something else they shouldn't do.

And again, you report it just like you do no whip. Lets not pretend this has to be some complicated process. It wasn't a spur of the moment, paddock decision not to whip the horse.

If a rider is riding without the whip you are told. Unless you are in possession of a crystal ball you wont be able to tell if the rider is going to use the one he has in his hand. Sure in this case Gary Stevens is going to go to extreme lengths to follow the instructions of the biggest trainer in the game but trust me it is dicey with the rest of them and the rest of us.

Riders are used to carrying them and if the horse lugs out bad believe me the instructions go out the window

As easy as Pletcher works him, you think this horse was being whipped in morning workouts?

It's hard to imagine a horse that fast getting whipped in his typical 4 furlong in 49 and change workouts he'd always go in, but who knows, I didn't see them, I guess.

It isnt against the rules to not follow a trainers instructions. Every day at tracks all over the country jockeys dont follow instructions and win. Should they be fined? What if the trainer tells the jockey to go to the front? What if the jockey no comprehende English? What if the trainer changes his mind? What of the horse is lugging in or out badly? You say it doesnt have to be a complicated process but again how exactly is this recorded and where and to whom?

Pletcher doesn't do anything for no reason. I'm sure that at some point the horse has been hit with the whip and had an adverse reaction to it. A workout or race isnt necessarily the only time a horse would get hit with the whip. Especially if they are a bad actor or are aggressive towards other horses in the morning.

If the trainer doesn't want a horse whipped, he reports such to the stewards like anything else. It is then relayed with all the other information we get.

Strategy and using equipment are two very different things in my opinion. If it is reported a horse won't be whipped, and is, then the jockey can answer for that be it in English or some other language.

We can always find reasons not to do things that inform the bettor. It is easier on everyone. I've said my piece.

He did cleverly add blinkers on Palace Malice in the Kentucky Derby, because the rider said he lost focus in deep stretch of the Blue Grass.

He did cleverly ride Chantal Sutherland on his rabbit Bishop Court Hill in the Jockey Club Gold Cup ... and proceeded to see her go out and duel stablemate Flower Alley head-to-head on a brutal pace, melting it down for Borrego to win like Damascus. Flower Alley way up the track.

It is hard to question him though. I'm sure we would have had another Woodbine incident if Stevens hit him once. Glad that tragedy was averted.

Come on, how can he be questioned after yet another stellar performance on the biggest stage?

Stick can be used to tap on shoulder to prompt lead changes if weight shift doesn't work. Also as prompt being waved in front of eyes to urge horse on..

It isnt nearly as cut and dry as you make it. Strategy and equipment are two different things and instructing a rider to not use the whip is strategy. Asking them not to carry a whip is equipment.

It is hard to believe that I have to defend Todd Pletcher as a competent trainer and I'm pretty sure he isnt infallible but I'd bet that there was a pretty valid reason why he didnt want Stevens to whip the horse. And we dont even know if that is what he said. Perhaps he said to Stevens that the horse doesnt like the whip as in the charts in his first race it says the horse was just shown the whip. Without knowing the circumstances or even what was said you seemed to have jumped to a conclusion.

How'd you do?

That's what she said.........

I don't train any horses.

It was a joke. I don't make any secret that I'm no fan of Todd Pletcher. Is that not allowed on the internet?

If you watch a replay of the Champagne, the horse ducks in and is swishing his tail all around when he was whipped. The final 200 yards or so when he is hand ridden, he was not swishing his tail.

I wonder if this is why Pletcher didn't want him hit. I don't think he would have held on anyway.

For the record, I'm not questioning his instruction one bit, and certainly not saying he would have won. I just think it is something the bettors should know ahead of time, just like the rider did...nothing more.

I think any reasonable handicapper could envision a scenario where Havana was going to get a wide trip and be tiring down the lane. Knowing a whip wasn't going to be used could have made a difference.

Did they also have advanced information that an 81 Beyer would be good enough for a victory?

What in the world happened to Sweet Reason?

What CJ doesn't seem to understand is there is zero incentive for the trainer to divulge this information to the stewards. Why would they? There is no rule stating that horses have to be hit. If the rider doesn't follow instructions they will lose mounts in that trainer barn which is far bigger penalty than some $500 fine they might face.

Seems like those who aren't actually around the track sometimes seem to forget that there are actual people involved and rarely are they looking to throw the people they do business with under the bus.

The very likely scenario where an announced non hitter is actually hit will cause far more consternation among bettors than a horse who loses that isn't getting whipped would. There is very little to gain from trying to make this a rule.

I think way more is being made out of this than should be. I understand the general point of wanting to know as much as possible, but I can see a scenario where a rider doesn't listen to the trainer and whips anyway. Or where a jockey knows not to whip because the horse doesn't like it, but still carries the whip in order to flash it to the horse to keep it together late.

For example, Mucho Macho Man was never hit with the whip in the Classic either, because Kathy Ritvo told Gary Stevens he doesn't like it and Stevens observed this watching his prior races. Stevens flashed the whip to Mucho Macho Man through the lane, but never hit him.

You don't have to be a fan of his to believe he had a pretty good reason to tell the jockey not to hit a horse in a 2 million dollar race. I'm sure it wasn't on a whim. Of course that doesn't mean that the horse would have responded well to the whip but we will never know. That's the thing, half of this stuff is guesswork and 20/20 hindsight.

My intent was never to question the actual instruction not to use the whip. That was totally not the point. I just said that is information that should be public.

Without knowing anything else about the horse that would seem to be the logical reason.

The is very little incentive for trainers to divulge anything. That is why rules are made, so they have to do so. This has nothing to do with throwing anybody under the bus. It is about providing information, known beforehand, to bettors. Just like shoes info, blinker info, etc. The whip is equipment, not strategy.

I don't know, but I sure don't like how she was lugging in during the stretch. Not necessarily a good sign.

Otherwise, I would say she doesn't want to go beyond a mile.

Would that dissuade you from betting a horse if you knew they were not going to be whipped?

I know we are told when a rider doesn't carry a whip and it's never even crossed my mind to change my opinion on the horse because of this.

Yeah, she didn't look good. I was just piggybacking on the 81 Beyer comment. I seemed almost impossible she couldn't run at least that, and like you I wasn't particularly sold on her.

I guess it depends on the situation. In a huge, competitive field, it very well might. Usually when horses aren't carrying a whip it isn't the first time so there is a history there. I was pretty tough to imagine a scenario where Havana wouldn't have to be ridden hard down the lane from the 13 post or whatever it was, and that generally comes with the expectation of some whipping.

I just don't think that the value outweighs the potential pratfalls. As I said there is no easy way to do this despite your assertion that it would be easy. It won't because it isnt cut and dry like an equipment change. What if the trainer forget to tell the jockey in the paddock? Or he isn't there and the assistant forgets? Or the rider who doesn't speak English as a first language gets confused? These things happen all the time and no one realizes it. The Stewards will be loathe to start policing rider instruction's and that is really what it is.

OK, I'll weigh in on this whip thing....I couldn't care less and I don't know how we can decide which trainer instructions are relevant and which are not.

I would think about this for a little while before arguing with it.

Like I said, we can always find reasons not to do things. I do see your side of things, even when I debate it. Trainers and jockeys "might forget" or "don't speak English" doesn't cut it for me. Pretty sure I could learn to say "Don't use the whip" in Spanish if I needed to do so in about a minute. Other's mileage may vary. I guess the military did that to me, tough to change after all those years.

Use of the whip is strategy. Like I said why contact the stewards when you can just tell the jockey to go easy with the whip with no consequences? Blinkers, shoes, etc are cut and dry and you can easily determine if they are on or off. Are we going to start planting bugs in the paddock to ensure that trainers aren't ignoring the no whip disclosure? Just far too much trouble for very little value for a situation that occurs relatively infrequently,