Great Article by Moss

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Kasept

He's still off base about the whip. Asking stewards to enforce excessive use rules is all that you need do. Use the English model of no more than three successive strikes, etc., and sit guys when they flail away. This piece will not negate his comments from the other day which will be used against him and the game down the road.

Respectfully disagree. I'd be interested in more info about the Jerry Bailey opinion Moss referenced.

"The sentiment that jockeys need whips to control their mounts may be overrated -- Jerry Bailey thinks so -- and nothing contradicts the claim that racehorses love their work more than the sight of them being beaten through the stretch."

I also think the 2nd half of that quote is right on the mark. We talk about the horses loving to run and how competitive they are. Yet what we see is whack-whack-whack with the whip...to remind the horse how much it loves to run?

The first thing my wife, a moderate fan as a result of long association with me, asked when it was announced on TV that Eight Belles was down was, "do you think he whipped her too much?".

Those of us who are long time fans and bettors are so accustomed to the whip that its use has no impact. You need to step back and think what it looks like to a young person first approaching the game to understand what Moss is getting at.

Overall, an excellent piece by Moss.

--Dunbar

[_ed_]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I also think the 2nd half of that quote is right on the mark. We talk about the horses loving to run and how competitive they are. Yet what we see is whack-whack-whack with the whip...to remind the horse how much it loves to run?

Exactly. Well said.

I agree with the people who don't bet. Get rid of whips now!!

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I agree with the people who don't bet. Get rid of whips now!!

Yet another wrong knee-jerk reaction.

--Dunbar

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Yet another wrong knee-jerk reaction.

--Dunbar

And your wife's question after Eight Belles went down wasn't a knee-jerk reaction?

Spare us your agenda.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

And your wife's question after Eight Belles went down wasn't a knee-jerk reaction?

Spare us your agenda.

My agenda? I don't think I've spent 5 minutes thinking about the necessity of whips before the discussion on these pages. Like most longtime fans and bettors, I'm pretty immune to the sight of horses being whipped. It's part of racing. What I have now is a newly formed opinion, not an agenda. [note to pro-whippers: emphasize and belittle "5 minutes thinking" part out of context]

Yes, my wife's reaction was knee-jerk. That's the point. Almost any non-numbed spectator of horseracing will wonder why horses that "love" to race are being whipped repeatedly. Not many will conclude that horses are masochists that "love" to be whipped. Instead they will question how sporting the sport of kings is.

As DrugS pointed out, jockeys don't carry whips in the 2-furlong races for 2-yr-olds at SA. Funny that with those inexperienced horses the jock doesn't need a whip to control the horse's path. [note to pro-whippers: be sure to quote and insert bit about needing whip to switch leads in longer races here]

Some think the risk of losing a photo because of no whip is a good argument for whips. I suspect horses would try even harder if the jockeys could carry buzzers. Maybe we should lower the bar instead of raise it and allow buzzers. It might have gotten Alydar past Affirmed which would have made a lot of bettors happy.

It would be a level playing field with no whips. I think I could adjust my capping to evaluating horses in a world where jockey's had no whips. It would be a piece of cake compared to evaluating the synthetics.

--Dunbar

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I suspect horses would try even harder if the jockeys could carry buzzers. Maybe we should lower the bar instead of raise it and allow buzzers. It might have gotten Alydar past Affirmed which would have made a lot of bettors happy.

dunbar this made me laugh. answer to peta? we're removing the whips, but from now on all riders will carry buzzers.

Originally Posted by Dunbar

My agenda? I don't think I've spent 5 minutes thinking about the necessity of whips before the discussion on these pages. Like most longtime fans and bettors, I'm pretty immune to the sight of horses being whipped. It's part of racing. What I have now is a newly formed opinion, not an agenda. [note to pro-whippers: emphasize and belittle "5 minutes thinking" part out of context]

Hurrrrr

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Yes, my wife's reaction was knee-jerk. That's the point. Almost any non-numbed spectator of horseracing will wonder why horses that "love" to race are being whipped repeatedly. Not many will conclude that horses are masochists that "love" to be whipped. Instead they will question how sporting the sport of kings is.

No offense to your wife and the other "fans" who tune in for the Derby but they can go **** themselves. Their thoughts, for the most part, are borderline retarded concerning horse racing.

It's absolutely ridiculous that the powers that be are considering speaking with PETA and other imbeciles over the sport.

Originally Posted by Dunbar

As DrugS pointed out, jockeys don't carry whips in the 2-furlong races for 2-yr-olds at SA. Funny that with those inexperienced horses the jock doesn't need a whip to control the horse's path. [note to pro-whippers: be sure to quote and insert bit about needing whip to switch leads in longer races here]

Yes and those races are unbettable and an utter disaster from start to finish. Bad example.

Here's a note for you. I'll reply however the hell I want to. Keep your smug know-it-all caption to yourself next time. It doesn't make you look smart nor clever.

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Some think the risk of losing a photo because of no whip is a good argument for whips. I suspect horses would try even harder if the jockeys could carry buzzers. Maybe we should lower the bar instead of raise it and allow buzzers. It might have gotten Alydar past Affirmed which would have made a lot of bettors happy.

Who is this "we" you speak of? You aren't a part of any committee or lollipop guild who makes decisions.

I agree with the buzzers though. I think they should be used on humans who fail at comedy.

Originally Posted by Dunbar

It would be a level playing field with no whips. I think I could adjust my capping to evaluating horses in a world where jockey's had no whips. It would be a piece of cake compared to evaluating the synthetics.

--Dunbar

So it isn't a level playing field now because whips are used? And then magically it will be a level playing field without them? Ok...hurrrrrrr.

--Pillow Pants

[Just in case I forget my name on here]

[The Indomitable DrugS]

They don't carry whips in the two furlong baby races at SA ... in fact, I don't even think you're allowed to equip your horse with blinkers in those races.

I think the riders obviously need to carry whips - if they want to regulate excessive whipping, fine ... but it would simply be a change made to improve image.

[King Glorious]

Requiring a sire or dam to wait until they were five or six wouldn't make sense to me. If a horse is fragile and is going to be passing fragile genes, it will happen as a 5yo just as it would if he was breeding at four. Also, while there are plenty of horses that are retired sound that could have continued racing, there are still those that suffer actual injuries that preclude them from racing. It's unfair to the owners of those horses to make them wait if they have a 2yo or 3yo that can't race and earn any money in any other way. And this doesn't even get into the area of insurance.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Requiring a sire or dam to wait until they were five or six wouldn't make sense to me. If a horse is fragile and is going to be passing fragile genes, it will happen as a 5yo just as it would if he was breeding at four. Also, while there are plenty of horses that are retired sound that could have continued racing, there are still those that suffer actual injuries that preclude them from racing. It's unfair to the owners of those horses to make them wait if they have a 2yo or 3yo that can't race and earn any money in any other way. And this doesn't even get into the area of insurance.

By requiring the horses to race until five it would provide less incentive to breed any horse that won't likely last until five which will alleviate all the other problems you mentioned. No longer would getting fast 2yos and retiring them early in their 3yo season with an injury be as profitable and demand would fall for the sort of stallions that produce those runners, the exact sort that are weakening the breed.

[geeker2]

Pardon my skepticism - just another blah blah blah article that must make Randy feel like he has really accomplished something that makes a difference. One of a hundred articles that span many many years that basically says the same thing - the sky is falling unless..unless... unless...

Unless this Industry can find a leadership voice who's call to action finds non-partisan support from trainers, breeders, owners and patrons alike we will just keep getting more articles that makes us re-realize the sky is falling but so what?