Most Impressive in Defeat?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Since when are trainers instructions made public? Perhaps since Stevens has never been on the horse and was a last minute sub Pletcher told him something that was already known by his regular rider?

Is anyone who likes the horse on pp's not betting him because the trainer told the jockey the horse doesnt like the whip?

Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything. I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

And yes, it is a handicapping factor. If whip use didn't matter, nobody would use them. You know that. So not using one is a disadvantage in a game where races are decided by scant margins.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything.

Who exactly is going to divulge it to whom?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Who exactly is going to divulge it to whom?

Things are divulged to bettors every day. How do we find out when a rider won't carry a whip? Call me crazy, but that same system might actually work here too!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Things are divulged to bettors every day. How do we find out when a rider won't carry a whip? Call me crazy, but that same system might actually work here too!

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything. I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

And yes, it is a handicapping factor. If whip use didn't matter, nobody would use them. You know that. So not using one is a disadvantage in a game where races are decided by scant margins.

and couldn't a jock get questioned if it was felt he didn't prevail to the wire?

the sooner everyone involved in this sport comes to grips with bettors being a huge factor, the better.
we are told about lasix, blinkers, shoes, jock changes, weight difference, etc. whether a whip is used should be public info as well.

i guess going forward it's something bettors need to take note of in baby races, whether they go to the stick or if it's just carried along for ballast.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and couldn't a jock get questioned if it was felt he didn't prevail to the wire?

the sooner everyone involved in this sport comes to grips with bettors being a huge factor, the better.
we are told about lasix, blinkers, shoes, jock changes, weight difference, etc. whether a whip is used should be public info as well.

i guess going forward it's something bettors need to take note of in baby races, whether they go to the stick or if it's just carried along for ballast.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

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?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

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.

[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

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

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?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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?

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.