Most Impressive in Defeat?

[jms62]

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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

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

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

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by jms62

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

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..

[TheSpyder]

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

Originally Posted by jms62

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

[Cannon Shell]

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

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,

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Use of the whip is strategy.

This is where we disagree. No point going on, I've said all I really have to say on the matter. I'm going to side with helping bettors 100% of the time over making things easier on horsemen every time, because I'm a bettor. Every time I counter something you say, you change the issue. Doesn't speak English. Give me a break.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is where we disagree. No point going on, I've said all I really have to say on the matter. I'm going to side with helping bettors 100% of the time over making things easier on horsemen every time, because I'm a bettor. Every time I counter something you say, you change the issue. Doesn't speak English. Give me a break.

You are casting stones from an ivory tower. I'm simply being realistic. It isn't any hardship on horsemen, they just wont feel the need to tell the stewards because there is nothing to lose or gain from it. It isn't a matter of taking sides like you always want to make it. It is just a lack of practicality and essentially making a trainers instruction a rule.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is where we disagree. No point going on, I've said all I really have to say on the matter. I'm going to side with helping bettors 100% of the time over making things easier on horsemen every time, because I'm a bettor. Every time I counter something you say, you change the issue. Doesn't speak English. Give me a break.

There is some gray area on if knowing this is a help to bettors or not.

Your point is well taken, but as a bettor, this information isn't something I care about. Now if you're talking about knowing something like accurate first time gelding information or knowing if a horse had a significant surgery I'm in full agreement.

Here's a hypothetical scenario. Pletcher discloses Havana won't be whipped. You decide not to play him because of this and during the stretch Stevens decides that maybe the horse will respond favorably to the whip and decides to whip Havana and Havana actually comes back and wins.

Then we'd be back to square one.