Great Article by Moss

[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